# Where is the beauty in music?



## Wilhelm Theophilus

When you hear a beautiful piece of music, is the beauty in the music itself or is it in the listeners brain?

Give a short explanation of why you voted either way.


----------



## Art Rock

Given that different people react differently to the same music, I would think it's obviously in the listeners brain.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> When you hear a beautiful piece of music, is the beauty in the music itself or is it in the listeners brain?


I think the defining phrase is "when _you_ hear." That makes it subjective. In that sense, its beauty depends on the listener's brain.

I do think beauty in a piece of music exists outside of a subjective hearer's perception, reflecting things like its form or innovation in form, its instrumentation or inventiveness in instrumentation (I'm discovering this with Stravinsky), its melodic/thematic content or the manipulation of such. In that sense, a piece can be beautiful even though listeners perceive it as ugly.

Charles Ives said, "Beauty in music is too often confused with something that lets the ear lie back in an easy chair." That is a reductive statement, but I get his point. And I think most members of TalkClassical don't experience that confusion and look deeper than that.


----------



## fluteman

To ask this question in the form of a poll is to demonstrate its answer. We're all empiricists if we're being scrupulously honest with ourselves, and know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Those who want to claim they are rationalists will come nowhere near this poll, or any other. They know that their position can't be based on empirical data, which is all a poll can provide, but instead requires a theory of aesthetics. Which remains elusive after thousands of years. Good luck with that, as there's a reason it's called the essentialism fallacy.


----------



## Kreisler jr

"In the mind" would be a slightly better second option. "In the brain" too obviously incoherent. The brain is a material organ, there are cells and all kinds of structures *in* it but neither music nor beauty. I understand when someone says "The Broca region is in the brain" or "Neuron xyz is in the brain". I don't understand what it should mean that "beauty is in the brain" (except that some avid brain surgeon might find brains beautiful).

I am also not sure if "itself" is supposed to add anything in the first option and if so, what. I'd just say: A piece of music can be beautiful. Or "x is beautiful" can be a true statement, when x refers to some piece of music.


----------



## mossyembankment

Beauty is in the thing being perceived. The ability to perceive the beauty as beauty is in the perceiver. Or at least, that's how I think of it.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

In the perceptions of both the composer and the listener.


----------



## SanAntone

In the listeners's brain. We can find different music beautiful, and often disagree about the same work - so it cannot be within the music itself.


----------



## Chilham

Beauty is in the ear of the beholder.


----------



## Josquin13

It's both. That's the whole point. Something special is communicated and received. Our minds, hearts, & imagination are stimulated, by what we hear. Though we can argue or agree about what exactly it was that's been communicated and about what it meant to us on a personal level.


----------



## eljr

fluteman said:


> To ask this question in the form of a poll is to demonstrate its answer. We're all empiricists if we're being scrupulously honest with ourselves, and know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Those who want to claim they are *rationalists will come nowhere near this poll*, or any other. They know that their position can't be based on empirical data, which is all a poll can provide, but instead requires a theory of aesthetics. Which remains elusive after thousands of years. Good luck with that, as there's a reason it's called the essentialism fallacy.


This submission is not valid, not at all.

Recognizing the aesthetics of art is not subjective, only the interpretation in that recognition is.

A mind of reason would not commit a fallacy let alone an essentialism fallacy. Have you committed one?


----------



## eljr

Kreisler jr said:


> "In the mind" would be a slightly better second option. "In the brain" too obviously incoherent. The brain is a material organ, there are cells and all kinds of structures *in* it but neither music nor beauty.


What is the mind but the pattern and communication mechanism of the brain?


----------



## Woodduck

Depends on the definition of beauty, but a concept of beauty that contents itself with simple subjectivity is a useless dead end. Anyone can call anything "beautiful," but that doesn't help us understand why no one considers a clumsy counterpoint exercise as beautiful as a fugue of Bach.


----------



## fluteman

Josquin13 said:


> It's both. That's the whole point. Something special is communicated and received. Our minds, hearts, & imagination are stimulated, by what we hear. Though we can argue or agree about what exactly it was that's been communicated and about what it meant to us on a personal level.


But what is it that people share or have in common that causes them to agree? Or, what is different about people that causes them to disagree? You act as if the similarities and differences people have in reaction to exactly the same piece of music is some minor point that need not concern us. I think it is the entire point.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> *Those who want to claim they are rationalists will come nowhere near this poll, or any other.* They know that their position can't be based on empirical data, which is all a poll can provide, but instead requires a theory of aesthetics. Which remains elusive after thousands of years. Good luck with that, as there's a reason it's called the essentialism fallacy.


Who are these "rationalists," and how do you know what polls they'll come near?


----------



## Woodduck

...................................................


----------



## arpeggio

So far the results are as I expected.

I voted brain.


----------



## fluteman

eljr said:


> This submission is not valid, not at all.
> 
> Recognizing the aesthetics of art is not subjective, only the interpretation in that recognition is.
> 
> A mind of reason would not commit a fallacy let alone an essentialism fallacy. Have you committed one?


No. This is not about recognizing the aesthetics of music. Beauty in music is an aesthetic phenomenon, no doubt about it, however broadly or narrowly the word beauty is defined. The question is, can a work of music have inherent beauty that any listener who listens long and carefully enough must understand? Or do listeners inevitably have different understandings of what is or isn't beautiful music?

To poll people is to concede the second hypothesis is the accurate one, as that is an a concession that one can't get past the subjective perceptions that are all that can be had from a poll. There is no workable theory of beauty in music to be had from a poll, and I predict nobody in this thread will volunteer one.

What's needed is a principle such as "Beautiful music must have chords based on major, minor, diminished or augmented triads, and not minor seconds or tritones."

I'm reminded of the famous story that some composer of Beethoven's time wrote that parallel fifths must be avoided, and he wrote out an example to refute that statement, and captioned it "You a$$." Yes, the rule against parallel fifths does mean something in the right context. But context means everything, which is why there can be no universal theory of aesthetics.


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> What's needed is a principle *such as *"Beautiful music must have chords based on major, minor, diminished or augmented triads, and not minor seconds or tritones."


That might be fine as a f'rinstance...but it's not true, is it? Some music, full of tritones, is beautiful.

I don't generally do polls, and this won't be an exception, as it doesn't offer the right choices. Beauty is almost all in the mind, not the brain, but it is stimulated by something in the music. Beauty is a reaction, not a rule or set of rules.


----------



## RogerWaters

I've never heard a neuroscientist open up the brain and exclaim they've found some 'beauty'.

Sorry leftists and relativists!

Nah just kidding. It's not 'in' anything, it arises from a combination of subject and object.


----------



## Ethereality

If beauty is in a thing, then we should see male spiders pokin' up female porcupines.


----------



## HerbertNorman

Brain...

People on here have expressed the emotions they feel when they listen to a piece...after which I have listened to it and I find myself quite astonished as my feelings are different...
I think that this underlines the beauty of music... it's a very personal experience!

This is why I will never "criticise" someone's love for a piece of music , he or she is moved by it and this doesn't merit a discussion


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Art Rock said:


> Given that different people react differently to the same music, I would think it's obviously in the listeners brain.


Wouldn't this mean the music is in some way neutral?

The sounds are not beautiful, the sounds just trigger different firings in different brains which cause a reaction.

If this is the case then there is no such thing as a beautiful piece of music.


----------



## Art Rock

Moved to the main forum for more exposure - and because you are looking for discussion rather than just answering the poll.


----------



## Art Rock

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Wouldn't this mean the music is in some way neutral?
> 
> The sounds are not beautiful, the sounds just trigger different firings in different brains which cause a reaction.
> 
> If this is the case then there is no such thing as a beautiful piece of music.


If no-one hears it, is it still beautiful?

There are of course pieces of music that are judged beautiful by a relatively large number of people in the relevant subset, but even in such subsets you will find people who do not hear those pieces as beautiful.


----------



## Symphonic

Surprised at the poll results.

I would have thought it was without doubt, in the music itself.


----------



## Symphonic

Art Rock said:


> If no-one hears it, is it still beautiful?
> 
> There are of course pieces of music that are judged beautiful by a relatively large number of people in the relevant subset, but even in such subsets you will find people who do not hear those pieces as beautiful.


I would suggest there are certain features of music which are still beautiful - regardless if anyone hears it.
For example, a circle of fifths on a score will always (to me) be beautiful. Same with certain types of sequences and so forth.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Symphonic said:


> I would suggest there are certain features of music which are still beautiful - regardless if anyone hears it.
> For example, a circle of fifths on a score will always (to me) be beautiful. Same with certain types of sequences and so forth.


you've undermined your point by saying "to me".


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

fluteman said:


> The question is, can a work of music have inherent beauty that any listener who listens long and carefully enough must understand? Or do listeners inevitably have different understandings of what is or isn't beautiful music?
> 
> To poll people is to concede the second hypothesis is the accurate one, as that is an a concession that one can't get past the subjective perceptions that are all that can be had from a poll.


For a piece of music to be inherently beautiful does it require that everyone who hears that piece of music affirms that it is beautiful? Wouldn't that still be subjective, its still depends on every single listener to confirm or deny its beauty?


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Didn't some composers try to make beautiful music? That is what they were setting out to do. They knew what a beautiful piece of music was and they knew others would recognise that. If beauty is in the brain of the beholder then a composer couldn't hope to write music they would find beautiful, he wouldn't know where to begin.


----------



## Art Rock

What does it mean then that a piece is inherently beautiful?


----------



## Art Rock

My bolding:


Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Didn't some composers try to make beautiful music? That is what they were setting out to do. They knew what a beautiful piece of music was and they knew *others would recognise that*. If beauty is in the brain of the beholder then a composer couldn't hope to write music they would find beautiful, he wouldn't know where to begin.


recognise? How? By hearing and agreeing? Does it have to be everyone or just a lot of people?


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Art Rock said:


> My bolding:
> 
> recognise? How? By hearing and agreeing? Does it have to be everyone or just a lot of people?


I'll try to answer. But you always respond to my questions with a question rather than trying to answer. You didn't answer "Didn't some composers try to make beautiful music?".

yes we recognise the beauty by hearing it. I wouldn't say it isn't dependent upon a number of people.


----------



## mikeh375

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Didn't some composers try to make beautiful music? That is what they were setting out to do. They knew what a beautiful piece of music was and they knew others would recognise that. If beauty is in the brain of the beholder then a composer couldn't hope to write music they would find beautiful, he wouldn't know where to begin.


The act of creating is also a process of subjective appeasement in terms of beauty for a composer if that is their aim. The beauty in this case will be an ideal in the composer's mind that will be a mixture of several aesthetic and technical proclivities. What is written also has to satisfy the mind's intellectual requirement for control and order - also a form of beauty. The composer has no problem writing beautiful music when these objectives are aimed for and achieved. The listeners mileage may and most likely will vary however regarding this.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

mikeh375 said:


> The act of creating is also a process of subjective appeasement in terms of beauty for a composer if that is their aim. What is written also has to satisfy the mind's intellectual requirement for control and order. The composer has no problem writing beautiful music when these objectives are aimed for and achieved. The listeners mileage may and most likely will, vary.


Lets say a composer wants to write a slow movement for a symphony or concerto and they want to write a beautiful piece of music. They cannot even begin if beauty is completely subjective and is not inherently in a piece of music.


----------



## Art Rock

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> I'll try to answer. But you always respond to my questions with a question rather than trying to answer. You didn't answer "Didn't some composers try to make beautiful music?".


Some may, some may not - depending also on what you call beauty. Just like the listener may perceive different things as beautiful, so do the creators.



> yes we recognise the beauty by hearing it. I wouldn't say it isn't dependent upon a number of people.


That's a vote for the brain then? Because some do recognise it, some not, even within a similar group (like classical music lovers).


----------



## Forster

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Lets say a composer wants to write a slow movement for a symphony or concerto and they want to write a beautiful piece of music. They cannot even begin if beauty is completely subjective and is not inherently in a piece of music.


Except they will know what kinds of things press people's beauty buttons. They're not composing in a vacuum.


----------



## mikeh375

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Lets say a composer wants to write a slow movement for a symphony or concerto and they want to write a beautiful piece of music. They cannot even begin if beauty is completely subjective and is not inherently in a piece of music.


That's not how it works Wilhelm and is the Achilles heel in your platonic premise. As Forster says, knowing the buttons to press is one way to look at it. But the truth is that the composer develops their own aesthetics as they learn and mature. It is those personal and sometimes unique guiding principles that a composer relies on when assessing something like beauty, not some external notion. And, most likely the composer's notion of beauty will not be that of others, not even that of other composers.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> they knew others would recognise that.


I recently talked about something similar (albeit on the topic of "harmonic expressiveness") in Differences of opinion regarding a composer's use of harmony. But apparently, many TC members believe, even in composers of identical idiomatic form such as Handel and Bach, subjectivity plays a large part (in determining who is more harmonically expressive).


hammeredklavier said:


> the things I mentioned are clearly there, and they are universally recognizable to everyone (at least to those who recognize what makes 18th century harmony sound good). Aren't they?


I guess for these people, "Bach is a mundane harmonist" isn't too outrageous an opinion.


----------



## Symphonic

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> you've undermined your point by saying "to me".


How so? I do not think I have.

*"Circle of fifths on a score will always (to me) be beautiful" *in response to the question *"If no-one hears it, is it still beautiful?"
*

No point undermined there. I am saying, if one is to see a score - even without hearing the music - I would deem it beautiful.

Though, on that note, I believe beauty is wholly objective. So, a circle of fifths would be beautiful to all who hear it.


----------



## Aries

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> When you hear a beautiful piece of music, is the beauty in the music itself or is it in the listeners brain?


A beautiful piece of music means a piece of music full of beauty, right? So it is in the piece, or?

Considering happens in the brain, but what we consider as beautiful is outside.

But beauty is a concept, it does not really physically exist in or outside of the brain separately to matter. It is just the form of something, but this form is outside of our brain most of the time obviously.


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> That might be fine as a f'rinstance...but it's not true, is it? Some music, full of tritones, is beautiful.


No, it isn't true. Nor is any other such "principle" that one might formulate invariably true. That's my point.


----------



## DaveM

IMO, during the CPT era, the creation of beautiful works was not a random process. Targeting the CPT audience, the creation of beautiful melodies that these people enjoyed seemed to be predictably successful at being interpreted as beautiful by varying cultures as they continue to be today.

Of course, music listening for a given individual is going to be subjective, but there is significance when there develops a consensus among the CPT audience that a given work is beautiful. The composer has tapped into something where many, if not a majority, of listeners are having a similar subjective response.

Can then a work be called inherently beautiful? I don't see why not when it is said to be so among those that are familiar with works of the CPT era and those works that are consistently deemed beautiful. That doesn't mean that the term 'inherently beautiful' has to have meaning for the whole wide world.

Such as:


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Forster said:


> Except they will know what kinds of things press people's beauty buttons. They're not composing in a vacuum.


isn't that my point? lol


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

mikeh375 said:


> That's not how it works Wilhelm and is the Achilles heel in your platonic premise. As Forster says, knowing the buttons to press is one way to look at it. But the truth is that the composer develops their own aesthetics as they learn and mature. It is those personal and sometimes unique guiding principles that a composer relies on when assessing something like beauty, not some external notion. And, most likely the composer's notion of beauty will not be that of others, not even that of other composers.


I don't see how this goes against what I'm saying. Maybe I'm not understanding. I agree with what your saying. Would you agree that "the composer develops their own aesthetics" but it must be within the "realm" of beauty? Maybe that's too vague, but their own aesthetic must follow certain rules in order to be beautiful.


----------



## larold

_Given that different people react differently to the same music, I would think it's obviously in the listeners brain._

I think that true for anything aural like music.

With something physical, like a person or car or building, there is some standard to work from. When it only exists in your brain that no longer applies.


----------



## Simon Moon

It's, to me obvious, it is in the brain of the perceiver.

For example, I am sure there are some people here who do not find Indian music beautiful, but there is a country of 1.3 billion people who do.


----------



## Woodduck

Simon Moon said:


> It's, to me obvious, it is in the brain of the perceiver.
> 
> For example, *I am sure there are some people here who do not find Indian music beautiful, but there is a country of 1.3 billion people who do.*


What do people mean, then, when they say they've learned to hear the beauty in Indian music? Is it simply a matter of getting used to something strange, or do they actually learn to perceive qualities of imagination, form and expression they couldn't hear at first?


----------



## Simon Moon

Art Rock said:


> If no-one hears it, is it still beautiful?


This version of "if a tree falls in a forest..." explains it all. There might be a planet somewhere in the universe, with an organism that makes the most beautiful, harmonious, sounds that any human could hear. But if humans never visit there to hear it, that beauty does not exist for us.

it may even be possible, that other organisms on the same planet, perceive that sound as a horrible sounding defense mechanism.

It requires a human mind to perceive as beautiful, because we are the ones defining beauty.



> There are of course pieces of music that are judged beautiful by a relatively large number of people in the relevant subset, but even in such subsets you will find people who do not hear those pieces as beautiful.


I've mentioned several times on these forums, that while I am not a fan of Common Practice classical music, I can hear what it is in that music that people find beautiful. But to me, it comes off as trite and predictable.


----------



## janxharris

Simon Moon said:


> I've mentioned several times on these forums, that while I am not a fan of Common Practice classical music, I can hear what it is in that music that people find beautiful. But to me, it comes off as trite and predictable.


Any exceptions?


----------



## fluteman

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Maybe that's too vague, but their own aesthetic must follow certain rules in order to be beautiful.


Yes, and a different aesthetic can imply an entirely different set of rules. There is no one universally applicable rule or set of rules to be followed to achieve aesthetic beauty. Given the great variety of what people call music in the world today (or any day), and that one person's beautiful music is another's intolerable noise, it amazes me that this debate persists here at TC, especially as the classical music we prize so highly is rejected as boring or actively disliked by the vast majority of people everywhere.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> the classical music we prize so highly is rejected as boring or actively disliked by the vast majority of people everywhere.


Has someone done a survey to assess the level of boredom and dislike among the vast majority of people everywhere?


----------



## mmsbls

The question, "Where is the beauty in music?" seems not well enough defined to answer properly. 

I would describe the phenomenon as follows. Sensory input from sound waves or visual stimuli from a score enters the brain. Rather complex neural interactions in several parts of the brain result in signals sent to pleasure centers resulting in the sensation of beauty. Clearly the sensation resides in the brain. The stimulus for that sensation emanates from the music (sound waves, visual stimulus from score, possibly stored memory of the music in neural interactions). The experience of beauty requires both the external stimulus and neural processing within the brain. 

If pressed, I would say the sensation of beauty is closer to what we mean by beauty than the stimulus so I would say, in that sense, beauty exists in the brain.


----------



## JTS

fluteman said:


> Yes, and a different aesthetic can imply an entirely different set of rules. There is no one universally applicable rule or set of rules to be followed to achieve aesthetic beauty. Given the great variety of what people call music in the world today (or any day), and that one person's beautiful music is another's intolerable noise, it amazes me that this debate persists here at TC, e*specially as the classical music we prize so highly is rejected as boring or actively disliked by the vast majority of people everywhere*.


May I respectfully point out that it is not a crime not to like CM. My son is a professional musician but his choice of music is very different to mine. So what? He is making music. Most people aren't enamoured by Shakespeare or Leonardo's paintings but it is not an offence.


----------



## JTS

Simon Moon said:


> This version of "if a tree falls in a forest..." explains it all. There might be a planet somewhere in the universe, with an organism that makes the most beautiful, harmonious, sounds that any human could hear. But if humans never visit there to hear it, that beauty does not exist for us.
> 
> it may even be possible, that other organisms on the same planet, perceive that sound as a horrible sounding defense mechanism.
> 
> It requires a human mind to perceive as beautiful, because we are the ones defining beauty.
> 
> I've mentioned several times on these forums, that while I am not a fan of Common Practice classical music, I can hear what it is in that music that people find beautiful. But to me, it comes off as trite and predictable.


I am sure when I sing in the shower, other organisms on the same planet perceive that sound as a horrible sounding defense mechanism. Or at least apply their own defence mechanisms by covering their ears!


----------



## Woodduck

mmsbls said:


> The question, "Where is the beauty in music?" seems not well enough defined to answer properly.


Amen.



> I would describe the phenomenon as follows. Sensory input from sound waves or visual stimuli from a score enters the brain. Rather complex neural interactions in several parts of the brain result in signals sent to pleasure centers resulting in the sensation of beauty. Clearly the sensation resides in the brain. The stimulus for that sensation emanates from the music (sound waves, visual stimulus from score, possibly stored memory of the music in neural interactions). The experience of beauty requires both the external stimulus and neural processing within the brain.


I don't know what the OP meant by "beauty," or whether anything specific was intended. But what you've described is simply pleasure. The experience of pleasure is a broader phenomenon than the perception of beauty, if the latter term is to have any useful meaning. We don't call everything that gives us pleasure beautiful; the word is sometimes used used in that loosest sense, but if that's all we mean by it there isn't much to discuss. The really interesting question remains: what do we mean by the _aesthetic_ quality/sensation/sense of beauty?


----------



## Xisten267

Beauty, when present, lies in both. Music is the code, the human brain is the decoder. A decoder without a code or a code without a decoder are meaningless. Hamlet means nothing if there's no creature capable of understanding English to read it or translate it to another language. Similarly, there's no point in one learning an exotic language if there's no content to be understood in such language.


----------



## progmatist

I listen to music for substance, not beauty. Many of the atonal pieces I listen to are downright ugly by most people's standards.


----------



## Woodduck

progmatist said:


> I listen to music for substance, not beauty. Many of the atonal pieces I listen to are downright ugly by most people's standards.


Thank you for noting the difference. "Art," Maria Callas said, "is more than beauty." I would suggest, though, that some quality and degree of beauty is necessary for the conveyance of meaning, even in art that's "ugly" by certain conventional standards. Beethoven's _Grosse Fuge_ isn't generally called "beautiful," but whatever Beethoven has done in it and whatever we want to call it, there's no denying that it's beautifully accomplished.


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> Thank you for noting the difference. "Art," Maria Callas said, "is more than beauty." I would suggest, though, that some quality and degree of beauty is necessary for the conveyance of meaning, even in art that's "ugly" by certain conventional standards. Beethoven's _Grosse Fuge_ isn't generally called "beautiful," but whatever Beethoven has done in it and whatever we want to call it, there's no denying that it's beautifully accomplished.


The resolution at the end, especially in the orchestral version is IMO, one of the great beautiful moments in all classical music.


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> What do people mean, then, when they say they've learned to hear the beauty in Indian music? Is it simply a matter of getting used to something strange, or do they actually learn to perceive qualities of imagination, form and expression they couldn't hear at first?


Because so much of aesthetic value is cultural, it can take some time and experience to get yourself into the mindset to appreciate aesthetics from cultures one isn't familiar with.

A lot of "getting used to" music one doesn't have affinity for can involve research on why the music sounds the way it does, and what the people who produced and listened to it value- not just immersion


----------



## eljr

progmatist said:


> I listen to music for substance, not beauty. .


I listen for enjoyment.

This may induce or support many different perspectives from the virtuosity of dexterity to the accomplishment of arrangement to emotions it may induce, facilitate or even exasperate.

Music in my life is robust and omnipotent, of endless dimensions.


----------



## JTS

progmatist said:


> I listen to music for substance, not beauty. .


Does it have to be either / or ?

It can be one or the other or sometimes a combination of both. Whatever floats your boat


----------



## Forster

hammeredklavier said:


> I recently talked about something similar (albeit on the topic of "harmonic expressiveness") in Differences of opinion regarding a composer's use of harmony. But apparently, many TC members believe, even in composers of identical idiomatic form such as Handel and Bach, subjectivity plays a large part (in determining who is more harmonically expressive).
> 
> I guess for these people, "Bach is a mundane harmonist" isn't too outrageous an opinion.


No, what we were suggesting is that "expressiveness" is open to interpretation - even if it can be defined as something of value in music. So, what does it mean; what does "expressive" music souns like, and who's to determine whether something is or isn't "expressive"?



fluteman said:


> No, it isn't true. Nor is any other such "principle" that one might formulate invariably true. That's my point.


But what you said was, "What's needed is a principle", apparently with a straight face, followed by what might have been meant as a serious suggestion, or an example. What didn't come across to me was that you think that no such invariable principle exists.



Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> isn't that my point? lol


I didn't think so, no.



mmsbls said:


> The question, "Where is the beauty in music?" seems not well enough defined to answer properly.
> 
> I would describe the phenomenon as follows. Sensory input from sound waves or visual stimuli from a score enters the brain. Rather complex neural interactions in several parts of the brain result in signals sent to pleasure centers resulting in the sensation of beauty. Clearly the sensation resides in the brain. The stimulus for that sensation emanates from the music (sound waves, visual stimulus from score, possibly stored memory of the music in neural interactions). The experience of beauty requires both the external stimulus and neural processing within the brain.
> 
> If pressed, I would say the sensation of beauty is closer to what we mean by beauty than the stimulus so I would say, in that sense, beauty exists in the brain.


So, "beauty" is a reaction. A complex reaction, the result of the meeting of physical stimuli as you describe in the brain (but also in the stomach and elsewhere in the body, perhaps) but also of conceptual stimuli in the mind.


----------



## mmsbls

Woodduck said:


> I don't know what the OP meant by "beauty," or whether anything specific was intended. But what you've described is simply pleasure.


I agree. The issue is rather complicated. I could have said signals are sent to a beauty center, but I've never heard of such a thing. Presumably the brain has modules that collectively produce a sensation of beauty (i.e. I am experiencing sensations that are beautiful). So, yes, it's not really pleasure but something more nuanced, likely involving more brain centers or modules. Overall I think the effect is the same. Our sense of beauty is activated by the stimulus of musical sounds.


----------



## Bourdon

Woodduck said:


> Has someone done a survey to assess the level of boredom and dislike among the vast majority of people everywhere?


 What you are implying is very sad and funny at the same time .


----------



## Forster

mmsbls said:


> I agree. The issue is rather complicated. I could have said signals are sent to a beauty center, but I've never heard of such a thing. Presumably the brain has modules that collectively produce a sensation of beauty (i.e. I am experiencing sensations that are beautiful). So, yes, it's not really pleasure but something more nuanced, likely involving more brain centers or modules. Overall I think the effect is the same. Our sense of beauty is activated by the stimulus of musical sounds.


But your sense of beauty, in your 'beauty centre", is not necessarily the same sense of beauty as is in mine. Which is why we can listen to the same piece which might be generally agreed (by consensus at any rate) to be beautiful, and have different but equally valid reactions.


----------



## mmsbls

Forster said:


> So, "beauty" is a reaction. A complex reaction, the result of the meeting of physical stimuli as you describe in the brain (but also in the stomach and elsewhere in the body, perhaps) but also of conceptual stimuli in the mind.


I guess I would say beauty (or the experience of beauty) is a set of neural interactions in the brain that result from a set of complex processes. Events elsewhere in the body can affect neural processes in the brain. I don't view the mind as separate from the body, but that's really outside the scope of TC.


----------



## mmsbls

Forster said:


> But your sense of beauty, in your 'beauty centre", is not necessarily the same sense of beauty as is in mine. Which is why we can listen to the same piece which might be generally agreed (by consensus at any rate) to be beautiful, and have different but equally valid reactions.


I agree, but I would have started your paragraph with "And" rather than "But".


----------



## Forster

mmsbls said:


> I agree, but I would have started your paragraph with "And" rather than "But".


You're quite right


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> But what you said was, "What's needed is a principle", apparently with a straight face, followed by what might have been meant as a serious suggestion, or an example. What didn't come across to me was that you think that no such invariable principle exists.


Sorry if that wasn't clear. What I meant was, all such attempts to formulate a theory of aesthetics are doomed to fail. If you read my post again, you'll see that I said, What's needed is a principle such as .... But I then add, no such principles are applicable universally. At best, they only apply in certain contexts and only after one accepts certain premises. That's pretty obvious with my example of minor seconds and tritones, or in the story about Beethoven and parallel fifths.

Finally, as I've mentioned in now many other threads, the point I am making in this thread is not original to me. There is a vast literature on this very topic, from ancient times continuing to the present. But my argument on this particular basic point has been accepted almost universally since the 18th century. Occasional attempts to return to an earlier way of thinking which can be described as Cartesian Rationalism have surfaced in various contexts, but I haven't seen it make a significant return to aesthetics. We live in a world of empiricists, like the moderator here, who is a physicist.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Simon Moon said:


> It requires a human mind to perceive as beautiful, because we are the ones defining beauty.


Are we the ones defining beauty? Or do We just label things as beautiful.


----------



## arpeggio

So far I have not seen any empirical evidence on why some people think a tone row is more beautiful that a C major scale.

I know I can not define beauty.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> Beethoven's _Grosse Fuge_


*"an absolutely contemporary piece of music that will be contemporary forever".*


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> Sorry if that wasn't clear. What I meant was, all such attempts to formulate a theory of aesthetics are doomed to fail. If you read my post again, you'll see that I said, What's needed is a principle such as .... But I then add, no such principles are applicable universally. At best, they only apply in certain contexts and only after one accepts certain premises. That's pretty obvious with my example of minor seconds and tritones, or in the story about Beethoven and parallel fifths.
> 
> Finally, as I've mentioned in now many other threads, the point I am making in this thread is not original to me. There is a vast literature on this very topic, from ancient times continuing to the present. But my argument on this particular basic point has been accepted almost universally since the 18th century. Occasional attempts to return to an earlier way of thinking which can be described as Cartesian Rationalism have surfaced in various contexts, but I haven't seen it make a significant return to aesthetics. We live in a world of empiricists, like the moderator here, who is a physicist.


...but as long as there are new people here wanting to ask the same old question (along with the old people who are happy to revisit the same old argument) you are obliged to explain yourself once more! :lol:

Anyway, whilst it might be instructive to read up on the subject, making up your own rules based on personal experience and defending them at all costs is so much more...meaningful.



hammeredklavier said:


> *"an absolutely contemporary piece of music that will be contemporary forever".*
> 
> [Stravinsky's mugshot]


What's the reason for the photo from IS's visa application?


----------



## chu42

Any reaction to music is in the mind of the listener. It just so happens that many humans share similar biological functions and thus will react similarly to certain music, whereas others won't. 

If someone was born deaf and had no concept of sound, they would have no reason to acknowledge beauty in music other than noting the response of non-deaf individuals. What within the music itself would be able to convince a deaf person that it was beautiful?


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> all such attempts to formulate a theory of aesthetics are doomed to fail. If you read my post again, you'll see that I said, What's needed is a principle such as .... But I then add, no such principles are applicable universally. At best, they only apply in certain contexts and only after one accepts certain premises. That's pretty obvious with my example of minor seconds and tritones, or in the story about Beethoven and parallel fifths.
> 
> Finally, as I've mentioned in now many other threads, the point I am making in this thread is not original to me. There is a vast literature on this very topic, from ancient times continuing to the present. But my argument on this particular basic point has been accepted almost universally since the 18th century. Occasional attempts to return to an earlier way of thinking which can be described as Cartesian Rationalism have surfaced in various contexts, but I haven't seen it make a significant return to aesthetics. We live in a world of empiricists, like the moderator here, who is a physicist.


So, having read one of the two articles you recommended, I would quote this short extract:



> the search for essences in aesthetics is a mistake, arising from the failure to appreciate the complex but not mysterious logic of such words and phrases as art ', ' beauty ', ' the aesthetic experience ', and so on. But (2) although the characteristics common to all works of art are the object of a fool's errand, the search for similarities in some-
> times very different works of art can be profitably pursued


("Does traditional aesthetics rest on a mistake?" William E. Kennick, Mind 67 (267):317-334 (1958))

I'm very happy that, although there is no definitive answer to the question, "Is Beauty found in the object or the brain", the exploration of the question is a profitable one.

And I now know that the answer to the question is, "in the work of art" and nowhere else.


----------



## mossyembankment

chu42 said:


> Any reaction to music is in the mind of the listener. It just so happens that many humans share similar biological functions and thus will react similarly to certain music, whereas others won't.
> 
> If someone was born deaf and had no concept of sound, they would have no reason to acknowledge beauty in music other than noting the response of non-deaf individuals. What within the music itself would be able to convince a deaf person that it was beautiful?


I guess then the question is, is beauty a "reaction"? I could see arguments from both sides, but my way of thinking about it would say that it isn't.


----------



## Forster

chu42 said:


> Any reaction to music is in the mind of the listener. It just so happens that many humans share similar biological functions and thus will react similarly to certain music, whereas others won't.
> 
> If someone was born deaf and had no concept of sound, they would have no reason to acknowledge beauty in music other than noting the response of non-deaf individuals. What within the music itself would be able to convince a deaf person that it was beautiful?


But without the music, and what is in it that triggers the reaction, there would be no reaction. The two come together to create the reaction in the mind (mind and brain not being the same thing.)


----------



## Woodduck

To say that there is no beauty in things is an abuse of language - the specific abuse that strips language of useful significance. It's no accident that we call things beautiful, rather than merely calling ourselves pleased. There is an infinity of beauties in things, which humans are well-equipped to perceive. That not all humans respond to every kind of beauty in the same way doesn't negate the existence of particular qualities which normally and typically inspire an aesthetic response. That response is one of appraisal and appreciation, not merely one of pleasure. Pleasure comes and goes. Beauty remains.


----------



## mossyembankment

Woodduck said:


> To say that there is no beauty in things is an abuse of language - the specific abuse that strips language of useful significance. It's no accident that we call things beautiful, rather than merely calling ourselves pleased. There is an infinity of beauties in things, which humans are well-equipped to perceive. That not all humans respond to every kind of beauty in the same way doesn't negate the existence of particular qualities which normally and typically inspire an aesthetic response. That response is one of appraisal and appreciation, not merely one of pleasure. Pleasure comes and goes. Beauty remains.


Precisely how I see it


----------



## JTS

The point is we all know what we mean by beauty. Just some people always want to complicate things.


----------



## Forster

JTS said:


> *The *point is we all know what we mean by beauty. Just some people always want to complicate things.


"*The *point"? I think that might be _your _point, but not everyone else's, nor a universal point held by everyone who has commented here or answered the poll question.

Seeking to discuss what beauty is and how our examples of what we find beautiful differ from each other is not 'complicated': it's interesting. Just some people want to simplify things


----------



## Forster

Woodduck said:


> To say that there is no beauty in things is an abuse of language


Why is it an 'abuse'? I'm not sure anyone is quite saying that anyway, as it sounds (the way you've written it) as if they could be saying there is no such thing as beauty. What some are saying is that beauty (whatever they mean by that concept) does exist, but that it doesn't _reside _in things, rather that it exists because of some interreaction between the thing and the brain that perceives the thing.

I don't call that an abuse of anything. It serves as a response to the problem that if beauty is in things and things alone, why don't we all see the same beauty in the same things?


----------



## mikeh375

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> I don't see how this goes against what I'm saying. Maybe I'm not understanding. I agree with what your saying. Would you agree that "the composer develops their own aesthetics" but it must be within the "realm" of beauty? Maybe that's too vague, but their own aesthetic must follow certain rules in order to be beautiful.


Apologies If I've misunderstood your position.
Yes, I believe a composer has to develop their own aesthetics and this tends to happen during the course of learning the craft, assimilating influences and maturing. With a more profound knowledge of music and its creative possibilities, the composer's perception of what defines beauty, or what is in "the realm of beauty" (apart from the obvious and immediate "buttons" and cliches), will inevitably become more esoteric and even quite possibly divorced from more popular notions of what beauty is in music. In other words their realm of beauty will be greatly expanded and their sense of beauty and how to achieve it will be guided by amongst other things, their individuality.

Whether a composer develops their own aesthetics and subsequently writes within the confines of what _they themselves_ perceive, or discover to be beautiful (perhaps 'appealing' is more appropriate), as opposed to any popular concept of beauty is an interesting angle to which I answer surely yes. This is because a composer will quite naturally tend to the things that appeal to them, technically, intellectually, formally, proportionally and musically. What this all means for any concept or realm of beauty as an over-arching and determining concept is something I am unsure of but I do know that the mix of artistic proclivities in part, defines not only the composer's sense of beauty however that is defined, but also their uniqueness imv.


----------



## Kreisler jr

chu42 said:


> Any reaction to music is in the mind of the listener. It just so happens that many humans share similar biological functions and thus will react similarly to certain music, whereas others won't.


Any reaction to the *physical world *happens within the mind or physiological systems of the reactor. Both very similar and rather different reactions among individuals occur to stimuli. This shows something, but overall not that much about the reality or specific qualities of the physical world (e.g. it certainly does not show that magnetism is an illusion or "construct" because humans have no direct sense for magnetism). It certainly does not show that the physical world is mind-dependent.

So one has to do far more to establish mind-dependence, or invidual subject dependence of aesthetic reactions. Because they are also often quite similar and sometimes quite different among individuals.


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> ...but as long as there are new people here wanting to ask the same old question (along with the old people who are happy to revisit the same old argument) you are obliged to explain yourself once more! :lol:
> 
> Anyway, whilst it might be instructive to read up on the subject, making up your own rules based on personal experience and defending them at all costs is so much more...meaningful.


And I've done that, repeatedly, in this thread and others. I've said there is no universal theory, i.e., there are no universally applicable principles, of art or aesthetics, and not surprisingly, no one here, in this thread or several other lengthy ones on this very topic, has shown otherwise.

I like to think of art as a celebration of our humanity. This at least narrows it down to a human activity. But is it a celebration by an artist, or by an audience? Are both needed? And what exactly is meant by "celebration"? And how do we know people are celebrating their humanity, and not something more specific, like a birthday, a wedding, the autumn harvest or the winter solstice? Or both?

I have no answers. Cultural traditions and customs, and those of societies and smaller subgroups, down even to individual families, determine all of that. But seeing art as an activity, and not as a tangible object, should help us free ourselves from the rationalist trap, and it should be especially easy to see music as an activity rather than as a tangible object. Yet even with music, people here obsessively search for a tangible object in which beauty can inhere. Where is the beauty in music if not in the score? ask some here. As if music necessarily has a score, or any tangible record. SMH.

Then, there are those here and elsewhere who concede art must be based on cultural traditions, but insist there is something inherently beautiful, or more beautiful, in their own cultural traditions, or those that they happen to favor, that is absent, or at least less apparent, in the art of other cultural traditions. I choose to no longer engage with those who persist in such ethnocentric or cultural supremacy arguments.


----------



## SanAntone

Music is a human expression which conveys something that cannot be expressed any other way. Communication is the purpose; what is being communicating gets complicated.

The first audience for a work is the composer, he is both creator and appreciator. The first audience a composer needs to interest, excite, move, challenge, etc., is the audience of himself. If he does that, then a wider audience is nice and obviously what a composer hopes for - but the success of the work is judged by him according to how well he accomplished what he set out to do. IF he judges his work a success it won't make any difference what the wider response may be, although he may be disappointed if his work is widely unappreciated.

Of course music does not require a score, not only that, the score is nothing more than the physical description of the music, and a rather crude description at that. And the vast majority of music across the globe and across the millennia has had no score nor needed one, nor could even accurately capture the music in written notation.

Beauty? This is a subjective concept. It is an opinion, something we all have about everything that matters to us. There can be no debate on beauty.


----------



## fbjim

Forster said:


> Why is it an 'abuse'? I'm not sure anyone is quite saying that anyway, as it sounds (the way you've written it) as if they could be saying there is no such thing as beauty. What some are saying is that beauty (whatever they mean by that concept) does exist, but that it doesn't _reside _in things, rather that it exists because of some interreaction between the thing and the brain that perceives the thing.
> 
> I don't call that an abuse of anything. It serves as a response to the problem that if beauty is in things and things alone, why don't we all see the same beauty in the same things?


This same sort of thing came up in one of the multiple "inherent goodness" debates where so many people threw accusations of denying all musical worth, when the word "great" was never the actual problem. "inherent" was the problem.


----------



## mossyembankment

Forster said:


> ... if beauty is in things and things alone, why don't we all see the same beauty in the same things?


My view is that the beauty is there in the thing, but different people will have differing ability (or often, willingness) to perceive and appreciate it. I think beauty is more universal than most people would acknowledge, and we should all be trying to ferret it out wherever possible. Someone who can see beauty where other people can't is probably doing it right.


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> This same sort of thing came up in one of the multiple "inherent goodness" debates where so many people threw accusations of denying all musical worth, when the word "great" was never the actual problem. "inherent" was the problem.


Yes, and people who believe Beethoven's music is great have a nearly unassailable position, so long as they recognize that this greatness must be viewed in the context of numerous cultural traditions and values, as well as both general and specific principles of craft, all of which had reached a high level of sophistication and complexity in Beethoven's case. As centuries pass, it may require increasingly more effort to gain an understanding of that context, but the greatness of Beethoven's music doesn't decrease for those willing and able to gain that understanding and accept it as part of their own personal, subjective aesthetic values.

But without context, as SanAntone says, there can be no debate on beauty.



mossyembankment said:


> My view is that the beauty is there in the thing, but different people will have differing ability (or often, willingness) to perceive and appreciate it. I think beauty is more universal than most people would acknowledge, and we should all be trying to ferret it out wherever possible. Someone who can see beauty where other people can't is probably doing it right.


I agree, so long as the art is viewed in the appropriate cultural context and framework. Absent that context, there is no universally applicable theory of aesthetic beauty in the abstract. That's why there is no point in comparing Beethoven with Miles Davis, for example.


----------



## progmatist

JTS said:


> Does it have to be either / or ?
> 
> It can be one or the other or sometimes a combination of both. Whatever floats your boat


I'm old enough to remember easy listening stations, which played "elevator music." It was "beautiful" to be sure, but substantively, there wasn't much there.


----------



## fluteman

progmatist said:


> I'm old enough to remember easy listening stations, which played "elevator music." It was "beautiful" to be sure, but substantively, there wasn't much there.


I brought up the conductor, arranger and composer Mantovani, one of the main originators of the easy listening "elevator music" genre, in a different thread. Hugely popular at first, eventually his music became so pervasive as to become an annoying cliche for many, hence the derogatory description, "elevator music." (Which wasn't entirely unfair, as in the early days of piped-in music in public places like elevators, his genre was a common choice.)

As you say, the judgment of time has not been kind to Mantovani.


----------



## Woodduck

Forster said:


> Why is it an 'abuse'? I'm not sure anyone is quite saying that anyway, as it sounds (the way you've written it) as if they could be saying there is no such thing as beauty. What some are saying is that beauty (whatever they mean by that concept) does exist, but that it doesn't _reside _in things, rather that it exists because of some interreaction between the thing and the brain that perceives the thing.
> 
> I don't call that an abuse of anything. It serves as a response to the problem that if beauty is in things and things alone, why don't we all see the same beauty in the same things?


I agree that there is no beauty without a consciousness to perceive it. My argument is that aesthetic perception is a specific kind of perception, not merely a sensation of pleasure, and that aesthetic perception identifies certain kinds of qualities which are inherent in things, qualities by virtue of which we call things beautiful. Pleasure is purely subjective. Beauty is not. The beauty of things - the capacity of things to arouse an aesthetic response and appraisal - is something we discover, not something we invent and attribute randomly, and we may not see the beauty of a thing - we may not see aesthetic qualities in it or experience its capacity to create an aesthetic response - on initial exposure, or at all.


----------



## fbjim

we identify and perceive the qualitative aspects of things, some of which, depending on our tastes, upbringing, and a billion other external factors, we classify as beautiful or not. 

i feel like this is sort of rediscovering basics of aesthetic discourse from first principles.


----------



## Eriks

The beauty is in the mind/brain but is stimulated externally. (an aside: can a composer experience beauty when composing by trying out options in their mind?)

If trying to apply Kant’s philosophy to music I arrive at something like the following:

Exposure to noise leads to formation of “sound-concepts” that our minds employ when synthesising the experience we call music. The experience of hearing music might lead to formation of new concepts or modification of existing concepts. So we can not experience a piece of music exactly the same way twice. Beauty is probably some kind of resonance between inputs and our existing concepts. And also about a mixture of satisfied expectations and surprise. 

If our minds would be a blank slate we would not have any concepts to interpret the noise, so it would remain just noise. But gradually our mind would build up concepts that would allow synthesis of noise into music. 

It’s likely we come into the outside world with such concepts, as before birth we will be musically marinated by our mothers heart-beat and her voice will have served to give us our first sense of melody. After birth the sounds we are exposed to will determine the formation of “sound-concepts” and hence people from different backgrounds might get different musical preferences; however, as when we hear music we love the mixture of recognition and surprise, hearing new music and new types of music can be very stimulating. But if too different the resonance is lost. We may then still find such music interesting but not beautiful. However, upon continued exposure we may possibly find the resonance.


----------



## fluteman

Alas, Kant believed music was the least of the arts. Perhaps if he had lived in the 19th century he would have come to a different conclusion.


----------



## science

This is a little like asking whether which side of the coin is the quarter.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> It's no accident that we call things beautiful, rather than merely calling ourselves pleased.


Probably a not-accident that tells us more about the shortcuts we take for communication's sake than it does about the explanation of the phenomenon that beings with our kinds of minds tend to be please by certain things or find certain things beautiful.

So much of this old debate just comes down to how we feel about and prefer to use words like "pleasure," "feeling," and of course "beauty." I say that because as far as I can tell after going over this so many times you're arguing more for an elevated way of speaking than for the idea that beauty is an objective reality independent of any and all kinds of perceivers, the way we usually assume mathematics or the physical world is. You use words that suggest the latter because you like how they feel, but in the end you know that you're part of a community of people who are describing shared experiences rather than enumerating physical principles.


----------



## Eriks

fluteman said:


> Alas, Kant believed music was the least of the arts. Perhaps if he had lived in the 19th century he would have come to a different conclusion.


Not to hijack the thread but I wonder why as I think many would agree that music is the art that will most strongly and directly affect ones mood. Maybe Königsberg simply was a musical backwater?


----------



## science

Eriks said:


> Not to hijack the thread but I wonder why as I think many would agree that music is the art that will most strongly and directly affect ones mood. Maybe Königsberg simply was a musical backwater?


I guess he might have agreed, but whether "strong and directly affecting one's mood" is a good thing or not might have been another question.

However, I don't actually know about Kant's ideas about music; this is just an educated guess.


----------



## Eriks

“It's no accident that we call things beautiful, rather than merely calling ourselves pleased.”

The following is obvious (please excuse me for nitpicking) I think: the sounds that our brains synthesise into music are a complicated wave mechanics as a function of time, so the “physical thing” is a process This process is converted by the brain, which is a thing, into the music we experience. The sound is generated by wave generators (things) we call instruments. 

However, what about the score? Can a skilled musician feel similar beauty when reading a score as when hearing it? I find that hard to believe - at best it should be a very poor version of hearing it, and that experience will be preceded by extensive experience hearing music.


----------



## Eriks

science said:


> However, I don't actually know about Kant's ideas about music; this is just an educated guess.


I also do not know if Kant explicitly discussed music in any of the critiques.

Kant tried to set up a general system for how a self-conscious system would gain knowledge of the outside world. It's very general and I think can still be a good simplification when discussing the brain - I think brain science will have to conform with Kant's general conclusions, whereas the details might be very different.


----------



## fluteman

Eriks said:


> I also do not know if Kant explicitly discussed music in any of the critiques.


He did. A fearsome intellect, but with a fetish for categorizing. And so, hard to read straight through. Easier to diagram. But he was a writer who believed in the supremacy of the written word.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> Probably a not-accident that tells us more about the shortcuts we take for communication's sake than it does about the explanation of the phenomenon that beings with our kinds of minds tend to be please by certain things or find certain things beautiful.
> 
> So much of this old debate just comes down to how we feel about and prefer to use words like "pleasure," "feeling," and of course "beauty." I say that because as far as I can tell after going over this so many times you're arguing more for an elevated way of speaking than for the idea that beauty is an objective reality independent of any and all kinds of perceivers, the way we usually assume mathematics or the physical world is. You use words that suggest the latter because you like how they feel, but in the end you know that you're part of a community of people who are describing shared experiences rather than enumerating physical principles.


Certainly, beauty isn't a physical attribute like weight, color, or texture. As you note, I don't argue that it's "an objective reality independent of any and all kinds of perceivers." Beauty wouldn't exist if our minds didn't exist to create the concept. But the concept does depend for its existence and meaningful application on objectively existing qualities of specific kinds.

One of the major difficulties in discussing beauty is the failure to identify exactly what we mean by the word - to specify what sort of phenomena we apply it to and need it for. People talk about beautiful ideas, beautiful vacations, beautiful souls, beautiful weather, etc., etc. Is there something that all these things, and more, have in common that moves us to apply this peculiar descriptor to them? I don't agree that calling things beautiful is simply a "shortcut we take for communication's sake," since it's just as easy, and more indisputably true, to say something like "I love this." Perhaps attributing our experience to the object rather than to our own proclivities and preferences gives our statements a patina of objectivity which allows us to feel more authoritative or less personally revealing and vulnerable. But I don't believe that such motivations adequately explain why we attribute beauty to a sculpture, a building, a symphony, a novel, a dissertation, a scientific theory, or a landscape. It's for some qualities found in these things, qualities common to them, that I believe the word "beauty" exists in the first place, and it's for the purpose of referring to those qualities that I think the use of the term is most precise and useful.

A discussion of the qualities that make a thing beautiful, and inspire people to call it beautiful, would probably be a lengthy one. I'll just scratch the surface by saying that one of the major ones - maybe even the most basic one - is _harmony,_ or the fitness of part to part and part to whole, whether the "whole" under consideration is an object considered by itself or as a component of or contribution to a larger realm of life experience.


----------



## Enthusiast

The beauty is in the music but we can't hear the music without our brains processing and making sense of the what we hear (which is itself an interpretation by our brains of fluctuations in the air). So the question established a false dichotomy for us to choose between. What we call beauty can vary enormously between us but I imagine that there may be sounds and "music" that we might all agree are not at all beautiful? At the same time I am sure there is a lot more music whose beauty we may disagree about. I hear beauty in Lachenmann and Xenakis as well as Bach and Beethoven but I hear nauseating ugliness in much of the music of, for example, Annunzio) Mantovani, music that a great many people used to find beautiful. But we are all responding to what is "in the music".


----------



## fluteman

Enthusiast said:


> I hear beauty in Lachenmann and Xenakis as well as Bach and Beethoven but I hear nauseating ugliness in much of the music of, for example, Annunzio) Mantovani, music that a great many people used to find beautiful. But we are all responding to what is "in the music".


That's because in your unique, individual mind, there is a vast wealth of cultural tradition, social custom, and everything your unique individual environment has brought to you for your entire life that profoundly impacts how you respond to an outside stimulus like the sound of music. There is no separating out your response from your own unique circumstances.

You acknowledge this is so when you recognize that many people used to find Mantovani's music beautiful, but not so much nowadays. The music itself is absolutely identical to what it was at the zenith of its fame and popularity. But the beauty that seemed to be in it is no longer there. What has changed is its context.

Ever vinyl record collector knows that at the very bottom of every cache of LPs, after it has been picked over almost ad infinitum, are Mantovani records. Not far behind are Sing Along With Mitch, the Ray Conniff singers, the Lettermen, Andy Williams, Robert Goulet, Steve Lawrence and Eydie Gorme, etc. You get the picture.

These were skilled artists who had the ability to cater to a particular set of aesthetic tastes, really short term fashions, that prevailed in their time. They produced popular music that well served its large and enthusiastic audience. But especially with popular music, that usually is intentionally designed to have the greatest possible short term success rather than any longer term impact, it's easy to see how quickly beauty can evaporate even in "The Most Beautiful Music", as the easy listening radio stations often called it.


----------



## DaveM

Mantovani, Percy Faith and the like were popular during the 50s and 60s and generally followed the Big Band era. The music was generally referred to as Mood Music. During the pre-stereo era of the 50s, as the improvement of 33 1/3 rpm vinyl records replaced the shellac 78 rpms and monaural amplifiers underwent major improvement, the big deal was to have a HI-FI which consisted of a big tube amplifier and a large single speaker unit with tweeter and huge woofer.

The Mantovani recordings and the like with the lush strings and hummable movie themes were often favorite records (if one wasn’t into classical music) to show off one’s HI-FI. Though it did continue as mono gave way to stereo in the 60s, it was a relatively short-lived era all things considered, though millions of records were sold. The music was considered to be ‘very beautiful’ by middle-aged people like my father.


----------



## fbjim

Enthusiast said:


> The beauty is in the music but we can't hear the music without our brains processing and making sense of the what we hear (which is itself an interpretation by our brains of fluctuations in the air). So the question established a false dichotomy for us to choose between. What we call beauty can vary enormously between us but I imagine that there may be sounds and "music" that we might all agree are not at all beautiful?


as far as harmony went- Charles Ives's idea of the most beautiful sound in the world was a congregation singing "How Great Thou Art" a bit out of tune, and even if you don't like his music, I think it's not hard to have sympathy for his worldview. So much of this depends on what associations we make with certain aesthetics and sounds.


----------



## progmatist

DaveM said:


> Mantovani, Percy Faith and the like were popular during the 50s and 60s and generally followed the Big Band era. The music was generally referred to as Mood Music. During the pre-stereo era of the 50s, as the improvement of 33 1/3 rpm vinyl records replaced the shellac 78 rpms and monaural amplifiers underwent major improvement, the big deal was to have a HI-FI which consisted of a big tube amplifier and a large single speaker unit with tweeter and huge woofer.
> 
> The Mantovani recordings and the like with the lush strings and hummable movie themes were often favorite records (if one wasn't into classical music) to show off one's HI-FI. Though it did continue as mono gave way to stereo in the 60s, it was a relatively short-lived era all things considered, though millions of records were sold. The music was considered to be 'very beautiful' by middle-aged people like my father.


And of course such recordings were notorious for overusing the stereo pan control.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> That's because in your unique, individual mind, there is a vast wealth of cultural tradition, social custom, and everything your unique individual environment has brought to you for your entire life that profoundly impacts how you respond to an outside stimulus like the sound of music. There is no separating out your response from your own unique circumstances.
> 
> You acknowledge this is so when you recognize that *many people used to find Mantovani's music beautiful, but not so much nowadays. The music itself is absolutely identical to what it was at the zenith of its fame and popularity. But the beauty that seemed to be in it is no longer there.* What has changed is its context.
> 
> Ever vinyl record collector knows that at the very bottom of every cache of LPs, after it has been picked over almost ad infinitum, are Mantovani records. Not far behind are Sing Along With Mitch, the Ray Conniff singers, the Lettermen, Andy Williams, Robert Goulet, Steve Lawrence and Eydie Gorme, etc. You get the picture.
> 
> These were skilled artists who had the ability to cater to a particular set of aesthetic tastes, really short term fashions, that prevailed in their time. They produced popular music that well served its large and enthusiastic audience. But especially with popular music, that usually is intentionally designed to have the greatest possible short term success rather than any longer term impact, it's easy to see how quickly beauty can evaporate even in "The Most Beautiful Music", as the easy listening radio stations often called it.


I realize that you don't read my posts, but I need to point out - again - that an assessment of beauty is not merely an emotional response. I don't like the music of Mantovani, but that doesn't cause me to be unable to perceive beauty in it. Beauty in music is not a specific, concrete sound or set of sounds, but neither is it merely the sounds you or I happen to like, vanishing like a dream just because we no longer like them. Beauty can take an infinity of forms, and we can find and appreciate it, if only in a detached way, even in music we don't care for. The artists you list don't appeal to contemporary sensibilities as much as they appealed to those of our parents or grandparents. That doesn't make their work devoid of beauty, and if we want to we can awaken, or reawaken, to some of the qualities that made them appealing to people of their generation. We do this with the styles and eras of "classical music" all the time. How limited we'd be if we couldn't!

An idea of beauty that includes only what we happen to like at the moment is a poor idea. A _good_ idea doesn't have to depend on everyone agreeing on every particular, all the time - which is what we should expect whenever objective reality meets subjective response.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Enthusiast said:


> I hear beauty in Lachenmann and Xenakis as well as Bach and Beethoven but I hear nauseating ugliness in much of the music of, for example, Annunzio) Mantovani, music that a great many people used to find beautiful. But we are all responding to what is "in the music".


To me, it's not a matter of beauty vs ugliness. I think there's art based on predictability (classical), and also art based on unpredictability (avant-garde contemporary), and there's practical uses/applications of both in society and culture. ("Are The Beatles Avant-Garde?": 



)
And to my mind, some people and certain academics are too obsessed to lump these two different things into the same group, even though they're clearly different. It doesn't do good for the enthusiasts of both. And I don't think Lachenmann and Xenakis are any more "classical" than John Williams is.


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> as far as harmony went- Charles Ives's idea of the most beautiful sound in the world was a congregation singing "How Great Thou Art" a bit out of tune, and even if you don't like his music, I think it's not hard to have sympathy for his worldview. *So much of this depends on what associations we make with certain aesthetics and sounds.*


It's possible for a thing to be beautiful in one way but not in another. What we call "beautiful" is a question of both a thing's internal qualities and its relationship to a wider context. Things which are not beautiful intrinsically, in terms of their own internally proposed "rules," may seem "beautiful" in the right context. Heard in relation to a society, a religion, a tradition, a set of life experiences, an out-of-tune congregation with tone-deaf tenors and wobbly old sopranos may be moving and inspiring (our mother may be one of those sopranos!). Heard in isolation from such experiences - _heard purely as a kind of music_ - that same congregation's singing may sound like nothing but a poor attempt to hit the right notes and a horrible thing to inflict on a beautiful hymn. By shifting our perspective we may be able to judge it in both ways.

Like many (maybe most) examples of the lack of specificity with which the word "beautiful" is attached to things, Ives's bare statement (if it isn't merely clever and rhetorical, which isn't certain) isn't acknowledging context. He's really talking about a cultural phenomenon and a personal life experience which certain musical sounds evoke for him. But is that all any judgment of beauty entails? I don't think so. We may judge as beautiful things far removed from our own life experience, as my own encounters with the classical music of India and the traditional ink painting of China (among other things) have shown me. My immersion in the milieu of either culture is approximately nil, but the beauties of the art are overwhelming, in certain respects surpassing the achievements of my own Western culture.


----------



## RogerWaters

My brain isn't yellow when I experience a balloon that gives rise to the experience of a yellow object. Likewise, my brain isn't beautiful when I'm experiencing a piece of music that gives rise to the experience of a beautiful artwork. My brain might be in a particular _state_, but so what? My brain is in a particular state when it gives rise to the true perception of a yellow balloon, but this state is not itself yellow.

When I say 'that piece of music was beautiful', I'm not talking about my brain! I'm talking about _the music_, just as I am talking about _the balloon_ when I say 'that balloon is yellow'.

Of course, I attribute beauty to different features of music than some people do. And neither of us is 'wrong', in an objective sense.


----------



## Forster

I'm relieved to see that, notwithstanding the occasional dogmatic assertion (in response to a binary poll),* the difficulty in defining 'beauty' (wrt music) and saying "where" it is continues unabated.

Most posts have shown how elusive a thing it is, like pinning down one corner of a tent flying in a wild storm. What seems unavoidable is that as fast as one person gives an attribute or characteristic, someone else will assert that if it's not universal for all the things we want to call 'beautiful', the counter argument is that some just can't see it or that what is claimed to be beautiful isn't.



* Some have come to this poll without having followed the thread which gave rise to it, and criticised its crude simplicity. I'm perfectly happy that it attempts to resolve the problem in the prior thread of tackling a question without derailing the other topic.


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> It's possible for a thing to be beautiful in one way but not in another. What we call "beautiful" is a question of both a thing's internal qualities and its relationship to a wider context. Things which are not beautiful intrinsically, in terms of their own internally proposed "rules," may seem "beautiful" in the right context. Heard in relation to a society, a religion, a tradition, a set of life experiences, an out-of-tune congregation with tone-deaf tenors and wobbly old sopranos may be moving and inspiring (our mother may be one of those sopranos!). *Heard in isolation from such experiences* - _heard purely as a kind of music_ - that same congregation's singing may sound like nothing but a poor attempt to hit the right notes and a horrible thing to inflict on a beautiful hymn. By shifting our perspective we may be able to judge it in both ways.
> .


I think the issue is whether or not isolating art from our own experiences, tastes, and worldviews is how art is generally engaged with. I don't think it's impossible to do this but I also don't think it's close to the "standard" way that most listeners listen to music.


----------



## mikeh375

fbjim said:


> I think the issue is whether or not isolating art from our own experiences, tastes, and worldviews is how art is generally engaged with. I don't think it's impossible to do this but I also don't think it's close to the "standard" way that most listeners listen to music.


Interestingly enough Jim, I find I can engage with music without prejudice or pre-formed notions and perhaps that's because I have a more intimate knowledge of the art's artifice than the average lay listener may have.


----------



## SanAntone

Woodduck said:


> It's possible for a thing to be beautiful in one way but not in another. What we call "beautiful" is a question of both a thing's internal qualities and its relationship to a wider context. Things which are not beautiful intrinsically, in terms of their own internally proposed "rules," may seem "beautiful" in the right context. Heard in relation to a society, a religion, a tradition, a set of life experiences, an out-of-tune congregation with tone-deaf tenors and wobbly old sopranos may be moving and inspiring (our mother may be one of those sopranos!). Heard in isolation from such experiences - _heard purely as a kind of music_ - that same congregation's singing may sound like nothing but a poor attempt to hit the right notes and a horrible thing to inflict on a beautiful hymn. By shifting our perspective we may be able to judge it in both ways.
> 
> Like many (maybe most) examples of the lack of specificity with which the word "beautiful" is attached to things, Ives's bare statement (if it isn't merely clever and rhetorical, which isn't certain) isn't acknowledging context. *He's really talking about a cultural phenomenon and a personal life experience which certain musical sounds evoke for him.* But is that all any judgment of beauty entails? I don't think so. We may judge as beautiful things far removed from our own life experience, as my own encounters with the classical music of India and the traditional ink painting of China (among other things) have shown me. My immersion in the milieu of either culture is approximately nil, but the beauties of the art are overwhelming, in certain respects surpassing the achievements of my own Western culture.


Yes. This is a point that needs stressing, IMO. We experience art as humans with a back stories which inform our appreciation of it. One piece of music may resonate with someone for personal biographic reasons which another person fails to comprehend, or those personal reasons are irrelevant to their experience of the music.

Also cultural context is IMO the most important aspect of any art. Which is why I have no patience with those who complain about out of tune singing from Blues singers, or raised eyebrows at Carnatic music.

The old saw "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" has always been true and is the fact of the matter, and I can't help but think we are trying to complicate something which is actually fairly simple.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> Yes. This is a point that needs stressing, IMO. We experience art as humans with a back stories which inform our appreciation of it. One piece of music may resonate with someone for personal biographic reasons which another person fails to comprehend, or those personal reasons are irrelevant to their experience of the music.
> 
> Also cultural context is IMO the most important aspect of any art. Which is why I have no patience with those who complain about out of tune singing from Blues singers, or raised eyebrows at Carnatic music.
> 
> The old saw "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" has always been true and is the fact of the matter, and I can't help but think we are trying to complicate something which is actually fairly simple.


Yes, it should be simple, but philosophers from Plato and Aristotle (if not earlier) until the 18th century struggled with this conundrum. We should remember that it is only in the past five centuries that explorers have circled the globe and found all of the human societies living in it and then begun to learn enough about them so as to not dismiss people in the more recently discovered societies as primitive savages to be exterminated, or at least to be converted to our own cultural traditions. (The latter process of gaining enlightened understanding of other cultures is sadly unfinished, imo.)



Forster said:


> Most posts have shown how elusive a thing [beauty] is, like pinning down one corner of a tent flying in a wild storm.


Nicely put.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> I can't help but think we are trying to complicate something which is actually fairly simple.


I can't help but think the opposite...at the same time. It is simultaneously simple and complicated.

It occurs to me, picking up the point about context, that while we might all agree that a sunrise (or sunset if you prefer) is beautiful, maybe it only works if the sun is framed in some way by the surrounding vista. A sun without something to set into or to rise from is just a sun.


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> I can't help but think the opposite...at the same time. It is simultaneously simple and complicated.
> 
> It occurs to me, picking up the point about context, that while we might all agree that a sunrise (or sunset if you prefer) is beautiful, maybe it only works if the sun is framed in some way by the surrounding vista. A sun without something to set into or to rise from is just a sun.


What I think is there are some people who enjoy philosophical discussions, and others (myself) who don't. I am more of a brass tacks kind of guy. "Beauty" is what we each perceive where we find it. Trying to define "beauty" in some abstract fashion is a wild goose chase, IMO.


----------



## fbjim

RogerWaters said:


> My brain isn't yellow when I experience a balloon that gives rise to the experience of a yellow object. Likewise, my brain isn't beautiful when I'm experiencing a piece of music that gives rise to the experience of a beautiful artwork. My brain might be in a particular _state_, but so what? My brain is in a particular state when it gives rise to the true perception of a yellow balloon, but this state is not itself yellow.


funny enough attributions of color are not entirely objective and vary a lot based on language and culture. the Japanese consider the bottom light of a traffic light to be blue, for instance.

to break it down excessively- an object gives off a certain wavelength of visible light, but the classification of this into the concept of "yellow" and the associations "yellow" has with us (some people "see" music as being "colored", for instance) are not inherent.

(i think many cultures actually consider blue and green to be shades of the same color, in the same way westerners view navy blue and light blue to be different "forms" of blue)


----------



## fbjim

mikeh375 said:


> Interestingly enough Jim, I find I can engage with music without prejudice or pre-formed notions and perhaps that's because I have a more intimate knowledge of the art's artifice than the average lay listener may have.


I think it's possible to go into art with a detached attitude where even things like personal preference are rejected (which is why we can say things like, "I love this, even though it's bad") but I think that's just another way of viewing things which preferences certain aspects like craftsmanship and mechanical perfection over affective qualities.

more to the point, I don't consider this the "true" way to view art- just another way to view it.


----------



## janxharris

fbjim said:


> I think it's possible to go into art with a detached attitude where even things like personal preference are rejected (which is why we can say things like, "I love this, even though it's bad") but I think that's just another way of viewing things which preferences certain aspects like craftsmanship and mechanical perfection over affective qualities.


Could you give an example fbjim?


----------



## fbjim

janxharris said:


> Could you give an example fbjim?


the finale of Beethoven's 9th, which I love almost because it's basically a mess. I like it being a mess because it gives it an ecstatic quality, like a kid babbling incoherently about something joyful, but from a detached point of view I can also get caught up in it's diffuse structure and some of the worse sounding soloist writing.

though most of my examples of "this is terrible but I love it" are outside the realm of classical music


----------



## Simon Moon

fbjim said:


> I think it's possible to go into art with a detached attitude where even things like personal preference are rejected (which is why we can say things like, "I love this, even though it's bad") but I think that's just another way of viewing things which preferences certain aspects like craftsmanship and mechanical perfection over affective qualities.
> 
> more to the point, I don't consider this the "true" way to view art- just another way to view it.


Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like you are referring to, what are often known as "guilty pleasures".

For example, as bad as it is, I can watch the 1991 movie, "Point Break" over and over. There is seriously no artistic redeeming qualities to this movie at all, the premise is dumb, the acting barely passable, the action way over the top.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> What I think is there are some people who enjoy philosophical discussions, and others (myself) who don't. I am more of a brass tacks kind of guy. "Beauty" is what we each perceive where we find it. Trying to define "beauty" in some abstract fashion is a wild goose chase, IMO.


I'm not keen on the deepest of philosophical discussions, but happy for brass tacks ones. I prefer the works of Julian Baggini to Descartes in the original French!


----------



## janxharris

fbjim said:


> the finale of Beethoven's 9th, which I love almost because it's basically a mess. I like it being a mess because it gives it an ecstatic quality, like a kid babbling incoherently about something joyful, but from a detached point of view I can also get caught up in it's diffuse structure and some of the worse sounding soloist writing.
> 
> though most of my examples of "this is terrible but I love it" are outside the realm of classical music


I share some of your views - and yet the ninth is hailed as top tier here and almost everywhere else.


----------



## fbjim

janxharris said:


> I share some of your views - and yet the ninth is hailed as top tier here and almost everywhere else.


true, though "the finale of the 9th is heavily flawed" is expressed so often that it barely qualifies as a contrarian view anymore


----------



## Forster

fbjim said:


> true, though "the finale of the 9th is heavily flawed" is expressed so often that it barely qualifies as a contrarian view anymore


Well, it may not be a 'contrarian' view any more...but it's still just a view. Not one I subscribe to.


----------



## SanAntone

fbjim said:


> I think it's possible to go into art with a detached attitude where even things like personal preference are rejected (which is why we can say things like, "I love this, even though it's bad") but I think that's just another way of viewing things which preferences certain aspects like craftsmanship and mechanical perfection over affective qualities.
> 
> more to the point, I don't consider this the "true" way to view art- just another way to view it.


I am more inclined to do the opposite, i.e. recognize that a work is "great" but not like it very much. My list of ten favorite composers includes just one of the five composers I list as "great."


----------



## janxharris

fbjim said:


> true, though "the finale of the 9th is heavily flawed" is expressed so often that it barely qualifies as a contrarian view anymore


I find it flawed, but I can't imagined that such a view would hold for those that voted for it as the most recommended work here on TC.


----------



## mmsbls

RogerWaters said:


> My brain isn't yellow when I experience a balloon that gives rise to the experience of a yellow object. Likewise, my brain isn't beautiful when I'm experiencing a piece of music that gives rise to the experience of a beautiful artwork. My brain might be in a particular _state_, but so what? My brain is in a particular state when it gives rise to the true perception of a yellow balloon, but this state is not itself yellow.
> 
> When I say 'that piece of music was beautiful', I'm not talking about my brain! I'm talking about _the music_, just as I am talking about _the balloon_ when I say 'that balloon is yellow'....


Thanks for this example. It made me think in more detail about the question.

The reason things appear yellow is not because they are made of yellow objects but rather the molecules on the surface preferentially reflect photons with wavelengths near 580 nm or so. The objects absorb photons of other wavelengths. The photons that are reflected we call yellow, but they are not always perceived as yellow in our brains. The illusion called Color Dogs shows two objects of the same color, but our brain interprets one to be yellow and the other to be blue. It would seem incorrect to say the yellow (or the blue) color was in the picture, but those colors are certainly experienced in our brain. So I would say that the picture has surface molecules which absorb some wavelengths of light and reflect other wavelengths, and neural processes in our brain "analyze" that sensory input causing other processes to produce the sensation of yellow color in our brain. The yellow, then, exists in our brains

Similarly, I would say that music consists of sound waves (or the score of visual stimuli) that are input to our brains, and brains process the sound waves in various modules. Eventually one or more neural processes create the experience of beauty (or not depending on many factors) in our brain.


----------



## Forster

mmsbls said:


> Similarly, I would say that music consists of sound waves (or the score of visual stimuli) that are input to our brains, and brains process the sound waves in various modules. Eventually one or more neural processes create the experience of beauty (or not depending on many factors) in our brain.


This does not negate the fact that the sound waves originated from the orchestra which was following specific instructions. The composer's instructions are based on knowledge of the characteristics of the instruments, the effect these sounds have on the composer, and the range of effects the sounds will have on the listener; as well as the patterns, textures, melodies, rhythms etc that the composer wants the orchestra to play.


----------



## fbjim

Simon Moon said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like you are referring to, what are often known as "guilty pleasures".
> 
> For example, as bad as it is, I can watch the 1991 movie, "Point Break" over and over. There is seriously no artistic redeeming qualities to this movie at all, the premise is dumb, the acting barely passable, the action way over the top.


to an extent, maybe, though it's more liking something enough that you actively overlook (rather than don't notice) its flaws. the contrary view (which SA mentioned) is recognizing something as being masterfully crafted, but not enjoying it.


----------



## Forster

Forster said:


> So, having read one of the two articles you recommended, [...]


Now, having read the second of the two articles recommended by fluteman, I would quote this short extract:



> aesthetic theory is far from worthless. Indeed, it becomes as central as anything in aesthetics, in our understanding of art, for it teaches us what to look for and how to look at it in art. What is central and must be articulated in all the theories are their
> debates over the reasons for excellence in art-debates over emotional depth, profound truths, natural beauty, exactitude, freshness of treatment, and so on, as criteria of evaluation-the whole of which converges on the perennial problem of what makes a work of art good.


(Morris Weitz, "The Role of Theory in Aesthetics," _The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism_, XV (1956), 27-35)[/QUOTE]

Whilst the article focuses on the question, "What sort of a concept is 'art'?" it nevertheless recommends itself as of value to answer the question, "What sort of a concept is 'beauty'?"

It's only 7 pages and I found it easier to digest than the first article fluteman recommended. Interestingly, it picks up on the idea, offered by Woodduck, of 'harmonisation' as one of the "similarity conditions" that we may find in works of art.


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> Now, having read the second of the two articles recommended by fluteman, I would quote this short extract:
> 
> (Morris Weitz, "The Role of Theory in Aesthetics," _The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism_, XV (1956), 27-35)
> 
> Whilst the article focuses on the question, "What sort of a concept is 'art'?" it nevertheless recommends itself as of value to answer the question, "What sort of a concept is 'beauty'?"
> 
> It's only 7 pages and I found it easier to digest than the first article fluteman recommended. Interestingly, it picks up on the idea, offered by Woodduck, of 'harmonisation' as one of the "similarity conditions" that we may find in works of art.


Yes. And for me, the fact that when we are analyzing art, we are really analyzing ourselves, only makes the analysis more worthwhile. I don't understand why people seem to think that if beauty emerges from our own values and psyches it is somehow less real and important than if it was the inherent attribute of an external object, such as the wavelength of yellow or the hardness of diamond.

The next step from Weitz is back to the work his is based upon, that of German philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. He was the first I know of to examine the aesthetic experience in detail, after the basic concepts formulated by Hume and Kant. Here's a 1938 quote from Wittgenstein: "To describe a set of aesthetic rules fully means really to describe the culture of a period." However, the idea of the passage you quote, describing a process of 'debate' in order to approach a consensus, is very much taken from Hume.


----------



## RogerWaters

mmsbls said:


> The reason things appear yellow is not because they are made of yellow objects but rather the molecules on the surface preferentially reflect photons with wavelengths near 580 nm or so. The objects absorb photons of other wavelengths. The photons that are reflected we call yellow, but they are not always perceived as yellow in our brains. The illusion called Color Dogs shows two objects of the same color, but our brain interprets one to be yellow and the other to be blue. It would seem incorrect to say the yellow (or the blue) color was in the picture, but those colors are certainly experienced in our brain. So I would say that the picture has surface molecules which absorb some wavelengths of light and reflect other wavelengths, and neural processes in our brain "analyze" that sensory input causing other processes to produce the sensation of yellow color in our brain. *The yellow, then, exists in our brains*


If the yellow 'exists in our brains', it should be perfectly possible for a surgeon to find this yellow in the brain. Now, I don't know about you, but I think a surgeon would look at me funny if I asked him to find the 'spherical yellow thing' in my brain that corresponds to the yellow balloon in the real world.



mmsbls said:


> Similarly, I would say that music consists of sound waves (or the score of visual stimuli) that are input to our brains, and brains process the sound waves in various modules. Eventually *one or more neural processes create the experience of beauty* (or not depending on many factors) in our brain.


One or more neural processes create the experience of _you_ when I talk to you, does that mean you exist in my brain? Is the surgeon to look for you in my brain?

I come back to the point that experiences are not of things in our brains. They are of things in the external world. The referents of our mental representations of yellow, beauty, velocity, size, existence, absence, etc, are things in (or not in, as it were) the world. Of course a mechanism is needed to produce these representations, but what these representations represent (yellow, beauty, velocity, size, etc.) isn't in the brain! That would be like saying what the sentence 'snow is white' represents (whiteness of snow) is in the sentence. But sentences don't contain whiteness or snow, simply words or letters, or even more reductively, squiggles/pixels.

I'm playing devil's advocate a little here for the 'in the music' line, as I don't think it's as simple as that at all, but I'm fascinated by reductive materialists who think its so easy to posit something like 'beauty is in the brain'. No. Brains contain hemispheres>circuits>neurons>cells>molecules>atoms. That's what they contain. No yellow spheres there, no beauty.


----------



## fluteman

RogerWaters said:


> If the yellow 'exists in our brains', it should be perfectly possible for a surgeon to find this yellow in the brain. Now, I don't know about you, but I think a surgeon would look at me funny if I asked him to find the 'spherical yellow thing' in my brain that corresponds to the yellow balloon in the real world.
> 
> One or more neural processes create the experience of _you_ when I talk to you, does that mean you exist in my brain? Is the surgeon to look for you in my brain?
> 
> I come back to the point that experiences are not of things in our brains. They are of things in the external world. The referents of our mental representations of yellow, beauty, velocity, size, existence, absence, etc, are things in (or not in, as it were) the world. Of course a mechanism is needed to produce these representations, but what these representations represent (yellow, beauty, velocity, size, etc.) isn't in the brain! That would be like saying what the sentence 'snow is white' represents (whiteness of snow) is in the sentence. But sentences don't contain whiteness or snow, simply words or letters, or even more reductively, squiggles/pixels.
> 
> I'm playing devil's advocate a little here for the 'in the music' line, as I don't think it's as simple as that at all, but I'm fascinated by reductive materialists who think its so easy to posit something like 'beauty is in the brain'. No. Brains contain hemispheres>circuits>neurons>cells>molecules>atoms. That's what they contain. No yellow spheres there, no beauty.


You're overthinking this. Beauty is a concept, not a tangible thing. A concept that is very much dependent on cultural traditions and conventions, and one's own environment and history living in that culture. The yellow balloon itself isn't beautiful, it's the concept triggered by the image of the balloon in the mind of of the viewer that is beautiful.


----------



## EdwardBast

As others have noted, this is somewhat like the "If a tree falls in the forest" question. The vibrations propagated through physical media caused by a falling tree are only sound if they are perceived by a sentient organism with appropriate sensory apparatus and processing capacities. So the answer to the If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it question is "almost surely" - not because sound is a physical phenomenon but because chipmunks (among others) have ears and brains, abundant contrary evidence to the latter not withstanding. Sound is a sensory-perceptual phenomenon.

Beauty is a perceptual-aesthetic phenomenon. Strictly speaking it doesn't reside in musical works. But this strict interpretation is moot and toothless if one adopts a functional definition of beauty like: _A musical passage is beautiful if it reliably evokes a certain aesthetic response in acculturated individuals_ - that is, if there is intersubjective agreement about its aesthetic effect. Musical beauty so defined is tautological but still meaningful because one can establish an objective raft of beauty-response-inducing features for most musical styles based on a statistical analysis of the responses of acculturated and stylistically competent listeners.

As for the poll? I didn't vote because my answer would be "both and neither" or "it's more complicated than that." The OP could at least have offered the obvious third alternative: An interaction between features of musical works and human minds.


----------



## fluteman

EdwardBast said:


> As others have noted, this is somewhat like the "If a tree falls in the forest" question. The vibrations propagated through physical media caused by a falling tree are only sound if they are perceived by a sentient organism with appropriate sensory apparatus and processing capacities. So the answer to the If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it question is "almost surely" - not because sound is a physical phenomenon but because chipmunks (among others) have ears and brains, abundant contrary evidence to the latter not withstanding. Sound is a sensory-perceptual phenomenon.
> 
> Beauty is a perceptual-aesthetic phenomenon. Strictly speaking it doesn't reside in musical works. But this strict interpretation is moot and toothless if one adopts a functional definition of beauty like: _A musical passage is beautiful if it reliably evokes a certain aesthetic response in acculturated individuals_ - that is, if there is intersubjective agreement about its aesthetic effect. Musical beauty so defined is tautological but still meaningful because one can establish an objective raft of beauty-response-inducing features for most musical styles based on a statistical analysis of the responses of acculturated and stylistically competent listeners.
> 
> As for the poll? I didn't vote because my answer would be "both and neither" or "it's more complicated than that." The OP could at least have offered the obvious third alternative: An interaction between features of musical works and human minds.


Easy for you to say! :lol: But all of that was anything but obvious, even to highly educated people, before the 18th century. You allude to concepts of aesthetic perception that arguably weren't fully pinned down until Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951). Even Hume and Kant, whom I've cited here repeatedly, have some ideas about art that seem quaint and archaic, though perhaps understandable given the era in which they lived. I mean, what is the date of the very earliest citation you can find to the concept of "intersubjective agreement"?

The OP here doesn't seem to grasp that the very idea of trying to establish a principle through a poll is a fundamentally modern empirical one (though one that applies much more to science than to art, as Wittgenstein takes pains to point out). But it seems that the premises underlying modern society are not as firmly accepted as one might think, as flat earth Cartesian skepticism, religious cult dogma and other long discredited ideas not only persist, but in recent years appear to be on the rise.


----------



## RogerWaters

fluteman said:


> You're overthinking this. Beauty is a concept, not a tangible thing. A concept that is very much dependent on cultural traditions and conventions, and one's own environment and history living in that culture. The yellow balloon itself isn't beautiful,* it's the concept triggered by the image of the balloon in the mind of of the viewer that is beautiful*.


Concepts aren't beautiful/yellow etc. I have a category of 'beautiful things' (a mental representation that refers to all and only things I find beautiful). But the category/mental representation itself isn't beautiful. That would be like saying the _written_ concept "B-E-A-U-T-Y" is itself beautiful. Well, it don't look beautiful to me, but maybe some modern artist could pass it off as profound.

When artists talk about the beautiful (or when they used to), they weren't talking about their own mental representations!


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> Beauty is a perceptual-aesthetic phenomenon. Strictly speaking it doesn't reside in musical works. But this strict interpretation is moot and toothless if one adopts a functional definition of beauty like: _A musical passage is beautiful if it reliably evokes a certain aesthetic response in acculturated individuals_ - that is, if there is intersubjective agreement about its aesthetic effect. Musical beauty so defined is tautological but still meaningful because one can establish an objective raft of beauty-response-inducing features for most musical styles based on a statistical analysis of the responses of acculturated and stylistically competent listeners.


Very nicely put. It checks all the boxes when it comes to how I see works collectively said to be beautiful in classical music.


----------



## mmsbls

RogerWaters said:


> If the yellow 'exists in our brains', it should be perfectly possible for a surgeon to find this yellow in the brain. Now, I don't know about you, but I think a surgeon would look at me funny if I asked him to find the 'spherical yellow thing' in my brain that corresponds to the yellow balloon in the real world.


The world is vastly more complicated than you suggest here and in the remainder of your post. Consider the illusion, Color Dogs. Both dogs are created to reflect the identical wavelengths of light yet one appears yellow and the other blue. Unless you believe that objects can be both yellow and blue at the same time, the color cannot be in the dogs. The color also cannot be in the photons that are reflected from the dogs since they have the same wavelength. The only place the color can exist is in the brain where the overall stimulus from the illusion is processed creating the experience of both yellow and blue.



RogerWaters said:


> ...I'm playing devil's advocate a little here for the 'in the music' line, as I don't think it's as simple as that at all, but I'm fascinated by reductive materialists who think its so easy to posit something like 'beauty is in the brain'. No. Brains contain hemispheres>circuits>neurons>cells>molecules>atoms. ...


You are correct that beauty is not as simple "as that". Beauty does not exist in a simple medium such as sound waves, time-varying pressure differences in gases. The phenomenon of beauty must exist in a vastly more complex system. Scientists view the brain as the most complex object we know in the universe, and some reductive materialists believe we may understand something about how this object containing 100 billion neurons with a million billion connections of varying strength that continuously learns over hundreds of millions of seconds might create beauty. You seem certain that beauty is not in the brain and consider the notion laughable. I obviously differ with that view, and I doubt we will change the other's brain.

It's interesting that you and I are basically the only ones discussing the OP, yet our discussion seems less appropriate for a musical forum than the other posts so I'll leave things here.


----------



## Forster

RogerWaters said:


> If the yellow 'exists in our brains', it should be perfectly possible for a surgeon to find this yellow in the brain.


A trifle too literal for my taste, and even a devil's advocate would struggle to drag anyone to hell with your argument.


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> The OP here doesn't seem to grasp that the very idea of trying to establish a principle through a poll is a fundamentally modern empirical one


I don't think the OP needed to grasp anything other than in the preceding thread, they were more or less dared to make a poll to try to test the question which we all know is not as simplistic as the poll suggests. See here:

What has surprised you the most on TC?


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

fluteman said:


> The OP here doesn't seem to grasp that the very idea of trying to establish a principle through a poll is a fundamentally modern empirical one


Apologies, I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean that I thought the result of the poll would tell us which option is correct/true?


----------



## vtpoet

It's all a matter of perspective. If you were to ask the average musician, for example, they would probably say the pocketbook.


----------



## Simon Moon

RogerWaters said:


> If the yellow 'exists in our brains', it should be perfectly possible for a surgeon to find this yellow in the brain. Now, I don't know about you, but I think a surgeon would look at me funny if I asked him to find the 'spherical yellow thing' in my brain that corresponds to the yellow balloon in the real world.


With the use of functional MRIs, when people look at a photo of an object of one color, then they look at a photo of the same object of another color, the 2 photos light up (show activity) slightly different areas of the brain.

Yellow is not an intrinsic property of the yellow balloon. It is the way our particular, human eyes collect the light being reflected from the object, and how it is interpreted by our brains. Bees are likely to perceive the yellow as a very different color, (they see into the ultraviolet) even though nothing has changed about the yellow balloon.

Humans find the smell of rotting meat repulsive, flies and vultures love it. There is no intrinsic repulsiveness in the aromatic molecules that make us gag, nor are their intrinsic delightfulness in those same molecules for flies and vultures. They are just molecules, that are perceived by different organisms in different ways.

Sights and smells do not have objective beauty, beauty and repulsiveness are subjective assessments. I am not sure why sounds (music) would be an exception?


----------



## vtpoet

Simon Moon said:


> Sights and smells do not have objective beauty, beauty and repulsiveness are subjective assessments. I am not sure why sounds (music) would be an exception?


And yet within that framework, we can make objective statements concerning what humans will and will not consider beautiful-including sounds.


----------



## fbjim

the visual concept of "yellow" doesn't encompass a specific wavelength of visible light- reductivley it encompasses a certain range of it. and these are not immutable-like I said before, quite a few cultures consider blue and green to be variations on the same color in the same way as most of us probably consider indigo and violet to be variations on "purple".


which is to say that the concept of "yellow" and the specific wavelength of a caution light are different things.


----------



## fluteman

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Apologies, I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean that I thought the result of the poll would tell us which option is correct/true?


Sorry, I misstated that point, and turned it into a put down of you, which wasn't appropriate. I have no idea what you think, of course. A poll like this is essentially meaningless, as a number of posters have mentioned. In fact, I've seen no posts claiming otherwise.



mmsbls said:


> It's interesting that you and I are basically the only ones discussing the OP, yet our discussion seems less appropriate for a musical forum than the other posts so I'll leave things here.


That's probably for the best, as ultimately this isn't a neurological issue, as our ideas of beauty arise from cultural traditions that come about in large part through historical accident, i.e., random chance. So unless you are bent on the quixotic quest for the determinist universe, better to take the approach of the cultural anthropologist.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

We hallucinate, both in the giving and receiving. Best if the artist leads in this.


----------



## violadude

I'd say beauty itself, not just within music, is the construct of a conscious mind.


----------



## RogerWaters

Simon Moon said:


> With the use of functional MRIs, when people look at a photo of an object of one color, then they look at a photo of the same object of another color, the 2 photos light up (show activity) slightly different areas of the brain.
> 
> Yellow is not an intrinsic property of the yellow balloon. It is the way our particular, human eyes collect the light being reflected from the object, and how it is interpreted by our brains. Bees are likely to perceive the yellow as a very different color, (they see into the ultraviolet) even though nothing has changed about the yellow balloon.
> 
> Humans find the smell of rotting meat repulsive, flies and vultures love it. There is no intrinsic repulsiveness in the aromatic molecules that make us gag, nor are their intrinsic delightfulness in those same molecules for flies and vultures. They are just molecules, that are perceived by different organisms in different ways.
> 
> Sights and smells do not have objective beauty, beauty and repulsiveness are subjective assessments. I am not sure why sounds (music) would be an exception?


I agree with all of this. However, it leaves out a vital part of the story: which is the conscious experience of the colour/smell/sound.

I don't think yellow is an objective feature of the universe like charge, spin, wavelength, magnitude, cell death, natural selection, etc. But it certainly isn't as simple as saying the yellow 'is found in the brain'. Where is it be found in the brain? Brains have neurons and networks of neurons. They don't have yellow colours in them.


----------



## RogerWaters

mmsbls said:


> Scientists view the brain as the most complex object we know in the universe, and some reductive materialists believe we may understand something about how *this object containing 100 billion neurons with a million billion connections of varying strength* that continuously learns over hundreds of millions of seconds might create beauty. You seem certain that beauty is not in the brain and consider the notion laughable. I obviously differ with that view, and I doubt we will change the other's brain.


Right - but no beauty.

Explaining away the incredible and complex phenomena of the human experience of beauty by moving it from the external world into the brain is an awkward shift that kind of repeats the mistake but in a different location.

The beauty is nowhere objective ('objective' in the sense that is sitting there latent and waiting for someone with the right tools to see/touch/smell it) - it's not in the score, the sound waves, nor in the brain.


----------



## Bruckner Anton

Is this suppose to be a materialism vs spirituality question? I do think both factor work, but the determining factor is the "material".


----------



## DaveM

Every one of our senses, every one of our emotions, every one of our perceptions including a sense of beauty are functions interpreted by our brain. End of story.


----------



## mmsbls

RogerWaters said:


> I don't think yellow is an objective feature of the universe like charge, spin, wavelength, magnitude, cell death, natural selection, etc. But it certainly isn't as simple as saying the yellow 'is found in the brain'. Where is it be found in the brain? Brains have neurons and networks of neurons. They don't have yellow colours in them.


You keep thinking that saying that the notion of yellow being in the brain is simple. It's actually one of the most complex phenomena humans have ever considered. It's not simple at all. Brains have neurons that act to crate the sense of yellow. We've determined that yellow is not in the Color Dogs picture. It's not in the photons. But it shows up in our experience due to an extremely complex network of interacting neurons that have undergone learning over a long time. Brains themselves are not yellow, but they produce the color yellow in our experience.



RogerWaters said:


> Explaining away the incredible and complex phenomena of the human experience of beauty by moving it from the external world into the brain is an awkward shift that kind of repeats the mistake but in a different location.
> 
> The beauty is nowhere objective ('objective' in the sense that is sitting there latent and waiting for someone with the right tools to see/touch/smell it) - it's not in the score, the sound waves, nor in the brain.


I'm not sure what is meant by moving our experience of beauty from outside our brain into our brain. All experiences are produced by our brain. How else could we think about them or be moved by them? Can I ask where beauty is?


----------



## RogerWaters

mmsbls said:


> You keep thinking that saying that the notion of yellow being in the brain is simple. It's actually one of the most complex phenomena humans have ever considered. It's not simple at all. Brains have neurons that act to crate the sense of yellow. We've determined that yellow is not in the Color Dogs picture. It's not in the photons. But it shows up in our experience due to an extremely complex network of interacting neurons that have undergone learning over a long time.* Brains themselves are not yellow, but they produce the color yellow in our experience.*


I agree with the bolded bit. Just as hydrogen and oxygen molecules interacting in the right way produce clear liquid which freezes at 0 degrees citigrade etc, brains produce experiences. But just as water isn't in the hydrogen and oxygen molecules, experiences isn't 'in' the brain, that's all I am getting at. The higher-level phenomena isn't in the parts that give rise to it: it emerges at a higher 'level'.

Water is an 'emergent' phenomena of hydrogen and oxygen molecules interacting in the right way. Experience is an emergent phenomena of neurons (perhaps of any complex information processing system - not necessarily neural based) interacting in the right way.

I don't think we necessarily fundamentally disagree: i just take issue with positing the higher-level phenomena inside the lower level parts that give rise to the higher-level phenomena...



mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure what is meant by moving our experience of beauty from outside our brain into our brain. All experiences are produced by our brain. How else could we think about them or be moved by them? *Can I ask where beauty is*?


...But unfortunately it's not as simple as the h20-water analogy, as water is still 'objective' in the sense it has extension, shape, and location in space. Experiences do not. Enter the mind/body conundrum.

Beauty is in the mind, not the brain. The Brain might give rise to the mind, as an emergent phenomena, but the phenomena that emerges (mind) is still bloody mysterious as it's subjective, not objective. We know of nothing else in the universe that is definitely subjective.

TL;DR: mind is complex on two fronts: first it is an emergent phenomena, second it is subjective.


----------



## Forster

RogerWaters said:


> the incredible and complex phenomena of the human experience of beauty by moving it from the external world into the brain is an awkward shift that kind of repeats the mistake but in a different location.


Should we distinguish between "beauty" and "the experience of beauty"? It maybe that both are "in the brain" in the sense that neither can be understood without brain activity, but they are not the same thing. If we're here to discuss an abstract concept such as 'beauty', it can't be anywhere but in the internal world of the brain. I should say (again, I think) that I assumed that the OP's question was not meant to be taken as a scientific, material question, with the brain referring literally to the blob of grey matter in our skulls. I assumed the question meant this:

"Is what we find beautiful - such as a Beethoven symphony - a construct arising from attributes that are an intrinsic part of the symphony itself, which can generally be found there by anyone equipped to hear and recognise it? Or is beauty a concept that is found only in our personal experiences of the symphony, and therefore not an objective, universal thing?"

"The brain" in this case is simply meant to represent the subjective human experience as opposed to something external and objective, and takes into account "the mind" without needing to call into question where the mind is (a whole other can of worms).

I've found the discussion of "yellow" a curious diversion from the OP, not a pure discussion of it. Whatever happened to talking about music?


----------



## mmsbls

RogerWaters said:


> I agree with the bolded bit. Just as hydrogen and oxygen molecules interacting in the right way produce clear liquid which freezes at 0 degrees citigrade etc, brains produce experiences. But just as water isn't in the hydrogen and oxygen molecules, experiences isn't 'in' the brain, that's all I am getting at. The higher-level phenomena isn't in the parts that give rise to it: it emerges at a higher 'level'.
> 
> Water is an 'emergent' phenomena of hydrogen and oxygen molecules interacting in the right way. Experience is an emergent phenomena of neurons (perhaps of any complex information processing system - not necessarily neural based) interacting in the right way.
> 
> I don't think we necessarily fundamentally disagree: i just take issue with positing the higher-level phenomena inside the lower level parts that give rise to the higher-level phenomena...
> 
> ...But unfortunately it's not as simple as the h20-water analogy, as water is still 'objective' in the sense it has extension, shape, and location in space. Experiences do not. Enter the mind/body conundrum.
> 
> Beauty is in the mind, not the brain. The Brain might give rise to the mind, as an emergent phenomena, but the phenomena that emerges (mind) is still bloody mysterious as it's subjective, not objective. We know of nothing else in the universe that is definitely subjective.
> 
> TL;DR: mind is complex on two fronts: first it is an emergent phenomena, second it is subjective.


In some sense we may not disagree. The difference is that I am a reductive materialist who believes the mind and brain are identical. So though we disagree on that issue, I think we each understand the other's position. I think Forster's comment brings our views together for the purposes of this thread.


----------



## RogerWaters

mmsbls said:


> In some sense we may not disagree. The difference is that I am a reductive materialist who believes the mind and brain are identical. So though we disagree on that issue, I think we each understand the other's position. I think Forster's comment brings our views together for the purposes of this thread.


How can they be identical when they have different properties? Brains have objective extension, shape, mass and can be encountered by anyone with the right tools (they are third-person accessible). Mind states don't have extension in physical space, shape nor mass (how much does my subjective 'image' of yellow weigh? A stupid question) and are only first-person accessible.

Mind states and brain states couldn't be any more different, in these ways!


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

fluteman said:


> Sorry, I misstated that point, and turned it into a put down of you, which wasn't appropriate. I have no idea what you think, of course. A poll like this is essentially meaningless, as a number of posters have mentioned. In fact, I've seen no posts claiming otherwise.


I genuinely don't understand the position that beauty doesn't reside in "the thing". So my aim in doing the poll and asking for comments was to see what everyone thought and to seek to understand that position. My thinking is that if beauty doesn't reside in "the thing" then beauty is not real. I understand that people do "react" differently to a piece of music, but I don't think it follows that that means the piece isn't beautiful.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Think of the "secondary qualities" of early modern philosophy. With the doctrine that only a few basic, easily measurable properties would be "primary qualities" everything else, e.g. colors got "substracted" from the thing and was located somehow in the interaction between the cognizing subject and the object. The quality red is not in the flower, instead there is some complex physical "property" that makes a flower appear red to healthy subjects under normal lighting conditions (see how complex and multivalued a formerly simple property/predicate has become, it now depends on the object, the subject and the conditions of perception). 
(There are lots of problems here (e.g. to understand "appear red" is parasitic upon understanding "being red", there is also a lot of post-Kantian philosophy that basically makes all qualities "secondary" in a sense of very general mind-dependence etc.), but ignore them for now.)

Now apply a similar idea to evaluative properties like "beautiful". IIRC there are comparably recent somewhat developed theories of aesthetic properties as "tertiary qualities" (cannot give direct sources, there is book by the late Roger Scruton from the 90s or so that at least discusses them but it's been a long time I read it and I never really studied that field). That is, they are something that arises in the interplay between the subject having the aesthetic experience and the object causing that experience (or more precisely the primary and secondary qualities of that object).

The advantage here is that such qualities are not totally independent from a subject (like maybe shape, mass etc. are) but like colors they are objective in the sense that they not personal preferences. One might prefer red to blue but with normal cognitive apparatus and normal light etc. poppy flowers are red and cornflowers are blue, there is no discussion about that.

You can also finesse and twiddle the subjective/perceptive side. Maybe one needs some education or training to become good at perceiving such qualities (like an experienced doctor has a very good eye identifying a dark spot on an x-ray as lung cancer whereas the student will not yet have "an eye for that".)


----------



## Forster

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> I genuinely don't understand the position that beauty doesn't reside in "the thing". So my aim in doing the poll and asking for comments was to see what everyone thought and to seek to understand that position. My thinking is that if beauty doesn't reside in "the thing" then beauty is not real. I understand that people do "react" differently to a piece of music, but I don't think it follows that that means the piece isn't beautiful.


So, can you give an example of a characteristic of beauty that is resident in a piece of music that we can all plainly perceive? (And for now, let "we" mean those of us here at TC).


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> To ask this question in the form of a poll is to demonstrate its answer. We're all empiricists if we're being scrupulously honest with ourselves, and know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.* Those who want to claim they are rationalists will come nowhere near this poll, or any other.* They know that their position can't be based on empirical data, which is all a poll can provide, but instead requires a theory of aesthetics. Which remains elusive after thousands of years. Good luck with that, as there's a reason it's called the essentialism fallacy.


I overlooked this statement previously. I'm puzzled by it's black-and-whiteness. Does anyone here want to claim they are "rationalists"? I'm not sure if I'm one. Though I do believe in rational enquiry (if that means I tend to reject a reliance on the spiritual for "answers") I'm not a literalist, if 'literalist' means that this poll is asking if we can detect "beauty" by a physical examination of the cerebrum, cerebellum, medulla oblongata, amygdala, or hypothalamus; or by a physical investigation of the score or the sound waves produced by an orchestra following a score.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Forster said:


> So, can you give an example of a characteristic of beauty that is resident in a piece of music that we can all plainly perceive? (And for now, let "we" mean those of us here at TC).


No.

Maybe a musician would be able to help here?


----------



## Chilham

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> ... t I don't think it follows that that means the piece isn't beautiful.


Define, "Beautiful".


----------



## mmsbls

RogerWaters said:


> How can they be identical when they have different properties? Brains have objective extension, shape, mass and can be encountered by anyone with the right tools (they are third-person accessible). Mind states don't have extension in physical space, shape nor mass (how much does my subjective 'image' of yellow weigh? A stupid question) and are only first-person accessible.
> 
> Mind states and brain states couldn't be any more different, in these ways!


This issue is really outside the scope of TC. I'm aware of the arguments from dualists, and I assume you are aware of arguments from those like myself who do not believe there is a separate entity, the mind.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Chilham said:


> Define, "Beautiful".


I cant.

What does that prove?

You use the word beautiful, you call things beautiful, can you define it?


----------



## Bruxo

The answer to the question "Is beauty objective or subjective?" can not be, in my opinion, other than "both". Mainly, however, I believe that beauty is objective - is in the music itself. What lies within each of us is our ability to perceive beauty in things, but we do not create it when we perceive it, it was already there.


----------



## mmsbls

Moving away from my earlier discussion, let me ask this question.

To make the issue simpler to discuss, let's assume person A defines musical beauty as including complex counterpoint but excluding strong dissonance and person B defines beauty as including strong dissonance but excluding complex counterpoint. One can use any other musical components to substitute for complex counterpoint and strong dissonance. Further, let's assume they respond in a similar way to their definitions (i.e. A factually finds beauty in music with complex counterpoint but without strong dissonance).

So A listens to a piece from the Baroque period and finds it beautiful, but B listens and does not. What can we say about the inherent beauty in that piece? Is it there, but B can't see it? That would imply that what's really in the music are properties that some associate with beauty and others do not, but I'm not sure why it would make sense to say that _beauty rather than those properties_ was in the music.


----------



## eljr

mmsbls said:


> Moving away from my earlier discussion, let me ask this question.
> 
> To make the issue simpler to discuss, let's assume person A defines musical beauty as including complex counterpoint but excluding strong dissonance and person B defines beauty as including strong dissonance but excluding complex counterpoint. One can use any other musical components to substitute for complex counterpoint and strong dissonance. Further, let's assume they respond in a similar way to their definitions (i.e. A factually finds beauty in music with complex counterpoint but without strong dissonance).
> 
> So A listens to a piece from the Baroque period and finds it beautiful, but B listens and does not. What can we say about the inherent beauty in that piece? Is it there, but B can't see it? That would imply that what's really in the music are properties that some associate with beauty and others do not, but I'm not sure why it would make sense to say that _beauty rather than those properties_ was in the music.


Frankly, I think the debate is misguided. I do not know how anyone can disagree that the perception of beauty is our personal perception.

So yes, you make a good point in this post.


----------



## Chilham

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> I cant.
> 
> What does that prove?...


That if you can't define it, it's unlikely to be intrinsic to the music.


----------



## violadude

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> I genuinely don't understand the position that beauty doesn't reside in "the thing". So my aim in doing the poll and asking for comments was to see what everyone thought and to seek to understand that position. My thinking is that if beauty doesn't reside in "the thing" then beauty is not real. I understand that people do "react" differently to a piece of music, but I don't think it follows that that means the piece isn't beautiful.


The very idea of beauty is not an objective thing that exists. It's a description of how we feel towards something rather than what the thing actually is. Think of it like this, why would we be physically attracted to some people and not attracted to others, when objectively we are all made of the same stuff?


----------



## violadude

Bruxo said:


> The answer to the question "Is beauty objective or subjective?" can not be, in my opinion, other than "both". Mainly, however, I believe that beauty is objective - is in the music itself. What lies within each of us is our ability to perceive beauty in things, but we do not create it when we perceive it, it was already there.


What are the qualities of beauty that are separate from human perception though?


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> Moving away from my earlier discussion, let me ask this question.
> 
> To make the issue simpler to discuss, let's assume person A defines musical beauty as including complex counterpoint but excluding strong dissonance and person B defines beauty as including strong dissonance but excluding complex counterpoint. One can use any other musical components to substitute for complex counterpoint and strong dissonance. Further, let's assume they respond in a similar way to their definitions (i.e. A factually finds beauty in music with complex counterpoint but without strong dissonance).
> 
> So A listens to a piece from the Baroque period and finds it beautiful, but B listens and does not. What can we say about the inherent beauty in that piece? Is it there, but B can't see it? That would imply that what's really in the music are properties that some associate with beauty and others do not, but I'm not sure why it would make sense to say that _beauty rather than those properties_ was in the music.


I can only address this issue using the era of CPT because contemporary music is so all over the map, there is absolutely no means by which to have any common ground with which to evaluate something like beauty. (I am not saying there is not beauty to be found in it by many.) For instance, dissonance is far more a characteristic of the 'avant-garde' music than anything in the CPT period. Someone who has a special preference for dissonance is more likely to find it in contemporary music than that of the CPT era. So, introducing the issue of those who might prefer strong dissonance as part of what they consider beautiful is not particularly relevant when it comes to CPT music.

When restricting the discussion to CPT music, addressing your question becomes easier. (EdwardBlast has already addressed this elsewhere better than I can.) The term 'common practice' infers a set of general rules/guidelines that defines the construct of the music. As a result, composers and listeners over time have developed a consensus as to what is considered beautiful and as a result, certain works of the CPT period are consistently described as being especially beautiful. Of course, not everybody is going to agree, but the consensus, for the most part stands.


----------



## norman bates

Art Rock said:


> Given that different people react differently to the same music, I would think it's obviously in the listeners brain.


actually a lot of people tend to react in a similar way to music. There are differences of course, but also a lot of similarities, otherwise there would be absolutely no point in discussing music, or even making music in the first place.

So my answer is: in the brain of the listener, but since people tend to react in a similar way to a certain degree, there's also something that while not "objective" is as it it's objective, at least to a certain degree.


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> I overlooked this statement previously. I'm puzzled by it's black-and-whiteness. Does anyone here want to claim they are "rationalists"? I'm not sure if I'm one. Though I do believe in rational enquiry (if that means I tend to reject a reliance on the spiritual for "answers") I'm not a literalist, if 'literalist' means that this poll is asking if we can detect "beauty" by a physical examination of the cerebrum, cerebellum, medulla oblongata, amygdala, or hypothalamus; or by a physical investigation of the score or the sound waves produced by an orchestra following a score.


I meant "rationalist" in the sense of what is often called Cartesian Rationalism. In his Compendium Musicae and other writings, Rene Descartes (1596-1650) attempted to reduce music to a series of universal mathematical principles based on the natural harmonic series. Former TC member Millionrainbows was a hard-core proponent of this approach, which he tried to apply to Schoenberg and much of 20th century modernism, to the consternation of many of his opponents, who used their own version of it to bolster their arguments of the inherent inferiority of 'atonal' music, i.e., music that does not invariably observe the conventions of a hierarchy organized around a tonal center based on the diatonic scale, the triad, and harmonic progressions around the circle of fifths.

My point was, to look at the matter empirically, i.e., to ask, do we observe in practice that people tend to dislike atonal music, or at least like it less than tonal music, is to abandon the search for universal, immutable, objective principles altogether. To poll people to see whether or not they believe such principles exist is no better, for if such principles did exist, they would exist entirely independent from whether most, or some, or any people thought they existed. Polls can only reflect subjective perceptions.


----------



## eljr

norman bates said:


> actually a lot of people tend to react in a similar way to music. There are differences of course, but also a lot of similarities, otherwise there would be absolutely no point in discussing music, or even making music in the first place.
> 
> So my answer is: in the brain of the listener, but since people tend to react in a similar way to a certain degree, there's also something that while not "objective" is as it it's objective, at least to a certain degree.


You you referring to societal bias predominantly.

Of course there is also the response to sound deep in our minds that is universal. This is from ages of associations to stimuli from sounds.

A response is neither objective or subjective in such circumstance, it is conditioned.

I must nap now, I'll try to get back to explaining this more later.

Peace


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> I can only address this issue using the era of CPT because contemporary music is so all over the map, there is absolutely no means by which to have any common ground with which to evaluate something like beauty. (I am not saying there is not beauty to be found in it by many.) For instance, dissonance is far more a characteristic of the 'avant-garde' music than anything in the CPT period. Someone who has a special preference for dissonance is more likely to find it in contemporary music than that of the CPT era. So, introducing the issue of those who might prefer strong dissonance as part of what they consider beautiful is not particularly relevant when it comes to CPT music.


Well, you could substitute some CPT musical attribute for dissonance.



DaveM said:


> When restricting the discussion to CPT music, addressing your question becomes easier. (EdwardBlast has already addressed this elsewhere better than I can.) The term 'common practice' infers a set of general rules/guidelines that defines the construct of the music. As a result, composers and listeners over time have developed a consensus as to what is considered beautiful and as a result, certain works of the CPT period are consistently described as being especially beautiful. Of course, not everybody is going to agree, but the consensus, for the most part stands.


I assume you mean that composers and listeners have developed a consensus as to what works are beautiful not to what aspects of music are beautiful. One problem is that we don't really know why works are experienced as beautiful. It's enormously complicated. You say that not everyone agrees on which works are beautiful so just consider two people who differ about the beauty of a given work. That will give you person A and B, and you have the same situation I described.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> Well, you could substitute some CPT musical attribute for dissonance.


That's understood and I'm familiar with CPT works that have dissonance, but few CPT works are defined by dissonance as a number of contemporary works are. Listeners looking for dissonance as a priority aren't going to find much in CPT music.



> I assume you mean that composers and listeners have developed a consensus as to what works are beautiful not to what aspects of music are beautiful. One problem is that we don't really know why works are experienced as beautiful. It's enormously complicated.


Yes I mainly mean works, but below I mention what might be called one aspect. And yes, why works are experienced as beautiful is still somewhat in the weeds, but it's not a total mystery. Staying within CPT music we do know that melody appears to be a frequent component of what is considered beautiful and there is a consensus on some of the more well known melodies as being beautiful. (It is only on this forum where this will be argued against just because every single person may not agree on a particular work as beautiful which suggests a misunderstanding of the word 'consensus'.)

That doesn't mean we know the exact mechanism by which beauty is perceived in the brain, but, if memory serves (don't have them at my fingertips), there have been Pet Scan and EEG studies showing that beautiful music lights up pleasure centers in the brain.



> You say that not everyone agrees on which works are beautiful so just consider two people who differ about the beauty of a given work. That will give you person A and B, and you have the same situation I described.


As I allude to above, the fact that someone doesn't agree that a particular work is beautiful when there is a significant consensus that it is doesn't mean much to me. There is a good reason why certain CPT works reliably fill concert halls and almost always the word 'beautiful' is in some way associated with those works.


----------



## fbjim

Mozart is a concert staple but what else is? CPE Bach? Gluck? There's far less classical period in the concert repertoire than there is romantic or even baroque.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> That's understood and I'm familiar with CPT works that have dissonance, but few CPT works are defined by dissonance as a number of contemporary works are. Listeners looking for dissonance as a priority aren't going to find much in CPT music.


I meant substitute some _other_ attribute for dissonance.



DaveM said:


> As I allude to above, the fact that someone doesn't agree that a particular work is beautiful when there is a significant consensus that it is doesn't mean much to me. There is a good reason why certain CPT works reliably fill concert halls and almost always the word 'beautiful' is in some way associated with those works.


I agree with pretty much everything you say here especially about consensus, but for the purposes of this thread, selecting two people who disagree about a work's beauty calls into question the view that beauty is in the music rather than developed in people's brain/mind. There is enough disagreement about the beauty of works that it's not some odd group of people who simply can't see the beauty. The last movement of Beethoven's 9th symphony is a good example.


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> I meant substitute some _other_ attribute for dissonance.
> 
> I agree with pretty much everything you say here especially about consensus, but for the purposes of this thread, selecting two people who disagree about a work's beauty calls into question the view that beauty is in the music rather than developed in people's brain/mind. There is enough disagreement about the beauty of works that it's not some odd group of people who simply can't see the beauty. The last movement of Beethoven's 9th symphony is a good example.


And even if two people happen to agree that Beethoven's 9th symphony is beautiful, it is more than likely because they share a long list of cultural traditions and values, so even there, it is ultimately about the minds of the listeners rather than the music itself. Also, sorry to be a downer, but if we're talking strictly about 'consensus' without cultural context, most people I know would rather listen to fingernails on a chalkboard than anything by Beethoven.


----------



## parlando

In an entirely different field of art, William Butler Yeats ended his justly famous poem “Among School Children” with a related question, “How can we know the dancer from the dance.” Think ballet or a stupefyingly good teacher. This is a performance question. It’s relatively easy to tell the science from the scientist, or the maths from the mathematician, even the philosophy from the philosopher. Not so easy with non-forged paintings. As to Yeats, I think he was asking a cosmic question about the dance of the universe, as well as referencing a shimmy versus the artiste who shimmies. 

In music, so much depends on the performer’s or ensemble’s execution of a piece — and how that is evaluated by the recipient. A great artist can make “Happy Birthday” almost profound, so that even a hostile audience will accept the magic into the mind. Music offers a feast; the taste is in each person, or not.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> I agree with pretty much everything you say here especially about consensus, but for the purposes of this thread, selecting two people who disagree about a work's beauty calls into question the view that beauty is in the music rather than developed in people's brain/mind. There is enough disagreement about the beauty of works that it's not some odd group of people who simply can't see the beauty. The last movement of Beethoven's 9th symphony is a good example.


Well, I would posit that the beauty develops in people's brain/mind; it has to, but the works we associate with beauty in CPT music appear to elicit similar responses in many brains/minds. How can it be otherwise? Again I refer to PET Scan studies that show that some things beyond music elicit a response in pleasure centers in the majority of humans.

Maybe those that don't like the last movement of Beethoven's 9th symphony aren't 'odd', but why would one (it seems to me) base conclusions about beauty of a work because not every single person agrees. When is anything 100% when it comes to humans? But there often is a consensus and often the consensus in certain works of the CPT era is particularly strong.

I mean geez, is it a stretch to say there is a consensus about the final movement of the 9th as being one of the great works of 19th century with beauty being an important part of it? I have to say that TC has changed over the years I've been on it where questions are raised about our iconic composers and works that I've never heard before. I don't know what to make of it though I have my theories.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fbjim said:


> Mozart is a concert staple but what else is? CPE Bach? Gluck? There's far less classical period in the concert repertoire than there is romantic or even baroque.


It depends on what you mean by "Classical period" (does it include Beethoven, Weber, Schubert?).
Even Boccherini (his famous minuet), Clementi, to a lesser extent (his sonatine Op.36 No.1, a famous piece among piano students) have their "signature pieces". But does Telemann have one? Whatabout Corelli? I don't get your occasional context-free, groundless accusations on certain common practice periods.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> For instance, dissonance is far more a characteristic of the 'avant-garde' music than anything in the CPT period. Someone who has a special preference for dissonance is more likely to find it in contemporary music than that of the CPT era.


Seventh chords in jazz don't sound as dissonant as they do in common practice music. If you use dissonances for dissonances' sake, at certain point they all start to sound the same and don't sound striking anymore. (I'm not saying jazz is like this. I'm just saying the style of dissonance matters more than the dissonance itself.) I have a preference for dissonance; it's just that I think it sounds more striking when it's controlled (in the voice-leading and stuff), and not "spammed".


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> Seventh chords in jazz don't sound as dissonant as they do in common practice music. If you use dissonances for dissonances' sake, at certain point they all start to sound the same and don't sound striking anymore. (I'm not saying jazz is like this.) I have a preference for dissonance; it's just that I think it sounds more striking when it's controlled (in the voice-leading and stuff), and not "spammed".


I think I agree with your main conclusion. It gives me a chance to mention one of the most often mentioned CPT works with pronounced dissonance, Beethoven's Grosse Fugue. While dissonance is apparent throughout much of this work, it is controlled and waxes and wanes as opposed to constantly overwhelming the music. And I hear a melodic line throughout the work, more apparent in certain sections of the work than others. To me, it is a haunting line culminating in the wondrous resolution at the conclusion.


----------



## BachIsBest

Serious question: to the Greeks, where was green? Of course now, we know there is an empirical basis for green based on the wavelength of the light reflected by green things, but the Greeks didn't know this, to them, green was perceived, the perception was a widely shared one based on mutual, intuitive, understanding of what Green was and so it was reasonable to refer to certain objects as green. The fact that the perception of green was not universally the same amongst everyone, and only had broad similarities, did not stop them from recognising that they were, in some way, pointing to properties of the green object resulting in its greenness, beyond mere opinion.

If you believe that because beauty has no known empirical basis and therefore exists only in the opinions of people, then surely you must agree that, prior to the discovery of of the theory of light and colour, saying "the grass is green" was, of course, merely just a changeable opinion since it, at that point, had no empirical basis. And if anyone dare reason that so many peoples perception of green was reasonably congruent, where, once taught what green was, most could identify it reliably, then you would just point to the raging ancient Greek debate around tennis balls. Are they Green or Yellow? Federer says they're yellow, but that's just an appeal to authority.


----------



## science

I'm not sure why this is so difficult or interesting. I despair of the words "objective" and "subjective" since so many people confidently use them incorrectly, but:

- Most or all of us experience different "depths" of pleasure, from the "superficial" to the "profound." We call whatever gives us visual or aural pleasure "beautiful," although some people reserve that word for things that give deep pleasure. That's arbitrary semantics, not worth debating. _Either way, as long as we use the words consistently_:

- Perhaps our genes build our minds to consider some things beautiful. We also come to consider many other things beautiful through experience; over time, our experiences affect our minds, so that what we experience as beautiful also changes.

- Since our minds are mostly alike but somewhat different, our experiences of many but not all things are similar. We can agree about how beautiful some things are, but we will disagree about how beautiful some other things are.

- We might even learn to recognize, albeit imperfectly, what many other people consider (or, since we're often so focused on the past, have considered) beautiful even when we do not feel that we experience the same pleasures.

- The features that we or others find beautiful are "in" the things we look at (or listen to or whatever), but clearly we find those things beautiful because of the kinds of minds we have.

For now I'll stop short of the political and social implications of this.


----------



## Forster

I asked the OP "can you give an example of a characteristic of beauty that is resident in a piece of music that we can all plainly perceive?" To which he replied,



Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> No.
> 
> Maybe a musician would be able to help here?


Nor can I, if the emphasis is on the universality. However, I am satisfied that as Weitz says in the article I cited that,



> There are no necessary and sufficient conditions but there are the strands of similarity conditions, i.e., bundles of properties, none of which need be present but most of which are


He was talking about 'art', but I believe this is equally applicable to 'beauty'. I'm reluctant to quote more in case I fall foul of copyright limits, but I would hope that anyone else reading the article would follow the same logic.

Thanks to DaveM for volunteering 'melody' as a 'similarity condition' present in works he finds beautiful. Like him, and unlike those who seek a more specific ("aesthetic") definition of 'beauty', I'm content to say that what I find beautiful is that which gives me pleasure. Also, like DaveM, melody is one such condition for me too, though not all melodies or all types of melodies.

Unlike the OP, I'm not willing to wait for a musician, and in any case, I don't think I need to. One other component of music that I find beautiful is anticipation and resolution. This might be when music leaves the home key then returns (especially pleasing when the return is deferred for a long wander everywhere but home!); or when a dissonance is resolved, which allows for dissonances to be beautiful also.

I don't believe that there is a single, immutable definition of 'beauty' that can be applied to all music and for all listeners. I do believe that there are a number of attributes that many can agree apply to a variety of pieces of music that they describe as beautiful. That allows anyone to find the 4th movement of Beethoven's 9th 'not beautiful', and Verklarte Nacht beautiful, because the conditions that fulifil _their _version of beauty are, or are not present in those cases.

So, that returns us to the idea that 'beauty' is both resident in the works that we find beautiful (because there are particular elements of the work itself that provoke a beauty response) and in the brain since it is the brain that makes the response.


----------



## fluteman

science said:


> I'm not sure why this is so difficult or interesting.


I think a major reason is the major cultural changes brought on in the 20th and 21st centuries by technology and globalization. For music, recording, electrical amplification, broadcast radio and TV, global communication and finally digital electronics and the internet have resulted in a rapid quantum shift in cultural and aesthetic values. This leaves many people feeling culturally displaced, uncomfortable, alienated and nostalgic for an earlier era. I can sympathize because in some ways I am one of those people, though I like to think I can recognize nostalgia for what it is.

I see the puzzling term "Common Practice". What exactly are the features of common practice, and how, if at all, does it differ from diatonic, triad-based harmony, which is still quite common? It turns out that "Common Practice" refers to a time and place, i.e., western music before 1900 (back to 1650 according to Wikipedia, earlier according to other sources), i.e., before these seismic shifts in cultural paradigm brought on mainly by modern technology and globalization.

All of that is fine. The trouble comes when people try to invest their nostalgia or preference for the aesthetic values that prevailed in the pre-modern technology and pre-globalization era with some theoretical justification. There's no need. People's aesthetic tastes don't proceed in perfect lock step with the latest cultural evolutions, and don't need to.


----------



## Aries

fluteman said:


> I see the puzzling term "Common Practice". What exactly are the features of common practice, and how, if at all, does it differ from diatonic, triad-based harmony, which is still quite common? It turns out that "Common Practice" refers to a time and place, i.e., western music before 1900 (back to 1650 according to Wikipedia, earlier according to other sources), i.e., before these seismic shifts in cultural paradigm brought on mainly by modern technology and globalization.
> 
> All of that is fine. The trouble comes when people try to invest their nostalgia or preference for the aesthetic values that prevailed in the pre-modern technology and pre-globalization era with some theoretical justification. There's no need. People's aesthetic tastes don't proceed in perfect lock step with the latest cultural evolutions, and don't need to.


Which technology relevant for music was introduced in 1900? None? Which was introduced much afterwards? Electronics. What do electronics have to do with ugly music? Nothing.

Some composers started at 1900 to turn towards the ugly, but that has nothing to do directly with technology or globalization. And the aesthetic tastes of the wider public did not do the same back then, and not even today.

The rejection of common aesthetic values needs no justification. But it is valueable to understand what is going on. It is clear that the rejection of atonal music has something to do with it being perceived as ugly. It would be useful, if those who want atonal music would just admit that they want it because of the ugliness.


----------



## fbjim

BachIsBest said:


> Serious question: to the Greeks, where was green? Of course now, we know there is an empirical basis for green based on the wavelength of the light reflected by green things, but the Greeks didn't know this, to them, green was perceived, the perception was a widely shared one based on mutual, intuitive, understanding of what Green was and so it was reasonable to refer to certain objects as green. The fact that the perception of green was not universally the same amongst everyone, and only had broad similarities, did not stop them from recognising that they were, in some way, pointing to properties of the green object resulting in its greenness, beyond mere opinion.
> 
> If you believe that because beauty has no known empirical basis and therefore exists only in the opinions of people, then surely you must agree that, prior to the discovery of of the theory of light and colour, saying "the grass is green" was, of course, merely just a changeable opinion since it, at that point, had no empirical basis. And if anyone dare reason that so many peoples perception of green was reasonably congruent, where, once taught what green was, most could identify it reliably, then you would just point to the raging ancient Greek debate around tennis balls. Are they Green or Yellow? Federer says they're yellow, but that's just an appeal to authority.


If you ask a Westerner what color the bottom light of a traffic light is, they will say "green". If you ask a Japanese person, they will say "blue". Blue, in fact, has been a historically problematic color in terms of cultures defining it different - and the Greeks didn't view color as we did, they were more concerned with classifying lightness or darkness rather than specifying hues.

In fact any classification of color should make it clear how much of it is cultural. We classify violet and indigo as "purple" - other cultures classify shades of green and blue together as shades of the same color. Philosophical discussions about whether the concepts of colors are primarily physical properties or cultural conventions date all the way back to the beginnings of philosophy!


----------



## Forster

@Aries. Music recording devices took off around the turn of the 20th century. That's the technology that changed music.


----------



## mmsbls

Aries said:


> The rejection of common aesthetic values needs no justification. But it is valueable to understand what is going on. It is clear that the rejection of atonal music has something to do with it being perceived as ugly. It would be useful, if those who want atonal music would just admit that they want it because of the ugliness.


That's a bit like saying it would be useful, if those who want CPT music would just admit that they want it because they like to live in the distant past. Neither statement is true or useful. Do you honestly believe people who "want" atonal music like it because they think it's ugly? How many people do you know who like things to be ugly?

One of the most beautiful works I've ever heard is Berg's Violin Concerto, an atonal work. I don't really know which modern works I hear are atonal, but many are enjoyable and interesting. People like music simply because they enjoy it.


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> That's a bit like saying it would be useful, if those who want CPT music would just admit that they want it because they like to live in the distant past. Neither statement is true or useful. Do you honestly believe people who "want" atonal music like it because they think it's ugly? How many people do you know who like things to be ugly?
> 
> One of the most beautiful works I've ever heard is Berg's Violin Concerto, an atonal work. I don't really know which modern works I hear are atonal, but many are enjoyable and interesting. People like music simply because they enjoy it.


There you go. The great violinist Nathan Milstein (1903-1992) was a classic conservative musically (politically too, I suspect -- he never returned to the Soviet Union after he left at 21 on the advice of a soon-to-be-purged Soviet official). For him, the Beethoven and Mendelssohn violin concertos were perfect, the Brahms concerto a lesser version of the Beethoven, the Elgar concerto lesser still, and in fact, awful, and almost everything after that depended on personal and political circumstances. He famously performed the Glazunov concerto as a child prodigy under the composer's direction. Though not one of his favorites, that was in. The Sibelius concerto was a famous vehicle for his arch-rival Heifetz, so that was out. His friend and colleague Stravinsky wrote his violin concerto with the help of another (and to Milstein, far lesser) violinist and Milstein never forgave him. Out. Prokofiev was also a friend, so Milstein championed his two concertos and tried to dissuade him from returning to the USSR. Shostakovich was a Soviet patriot, so his two concertos were out.

But the Berg concerto was one of Milstein's all time favorites, even though it was commissioned by another violinist, Louis Krasner. Milstein never recorded it commercially, but with Krasner's permission performed a version for violin and piano.


----------



## Aries

mmsbls said:


> That's a bit like saying it would be useful, if those who want CPT music would just admit that they want it because they like to live in the distant past.


Beauty and ugliness is less about CPT, but about dissonance. But is dissonance really an upcoming or an dated concept? "Modernism" isn't really modern, because there is "postmodernism".

That consonant music is of the past and dissonant music of the present and future, seems like a wrong history version.



mmsbls said:


> Do you honestly believe people who "want" atonal music like it because they think it's ugly?


Yes at least a lot of them. This is no secret. Most of the time they rather attack beauty as a false ideal instead of pretending that ugliness can be beautiful too or that beauty doesn't exist.

See:


milk said:


> I find "beauty" as a concept to be vague, boring, and even possibly dangerous





GrosseFugue said:


> She explained that some people have told her that she should not compose beautiful melodies in the twenty-first century, because music must reflect the complexity and ugliness of the modern world. "But I think that these people just got a little bit confused. If the world is so ugly, then what's the point of making it even uglier with ugly music?"





mmsbls said:


> How many people do you know who like things to be ugly?


I myself like ugly dissonances with restrained and meaningful usage.

A lot of people like ugly splatter movies. Most people don't like it. But a film like Titanic with ugly end was one of the most successful films in history.



mmsbls said:


> One of the most beautiful works I've ever heard is Berg's Violin Concerto, an atonal work.


For an atonal work it is not that dissonant and ugly imo.


----------



## fbjim

Aries said:


> Beauty and ugliness is less about CPT, but about dissonance. But is dissonance really an upcoming or an dated concept? "Modernism" isn't really modern, because there is "postmodernism".
> 
> That consonant music is of the past and dissonant music of the present and future, seems like a wrong history version.


I mean, yeah. A lot of these fights are strange because it's an old war- like a Civil War re-enactment at some points. Atonal music is now part of our musical history.

I don't think anyone would say "dissonant" or "atonal" music is "the future" - maybe they would in 1950, but not now. In some sense the question became whether or not we accepted it as part of our musical heritage.


----------



## violadude

Aries said:


> Which technology relevant for music was introduced in 1900? None? Which was introduced much afterwards? Electronics. What do electronics have to do with ugly music? Nothing.
> 
> Some composers started at 1900 to turn towards the ugly, but that has nothing to do directly with technology or globalization. And the aesthetic tastes of the wider public did not do the same back then, and not even today.
> 
> The rejection of common aesthetic values needs no justification. But it is valueable to understand what is going on. It is clear that the rejection of atonal music has something to do with it being perceived as ugly. It would be useful, if those who want atonal music would just admit that they want it because of the ugliness.


It's not about having a fascination with ugliness, but rather, a fascination with emotional expression that portrays the same kinds of emotion as older music, but in different ways. And sometimes this results in experiencing emotions that are between the usual ones, discovering types of expressions you didn't know existed before is a great experience.

Take the expression of the spiritual for example. Bach was a very religious composer and expressed spirituality in his music.





Schoenberg and Messiaen were both religious composers as well, especially the latter, and when they express spirituality in their music it's very different. For example, listen to the Burning Bush scene in Moses und Aron (the very beginning) or the love theme the Turangalila symphony. The 20th century language, to me, allows for the amount of otherworldliness that really expresses the unfathomability of the divine itself, whereas the Bach is more like the human reaction of awe and amazement in the presence of the divine. Two different aspects of the same kind of expression that new musical languages have revealed to us.


----------



## EdwardBast

Aries said:


> Beauty and ugliness is less about CPT, but about dissonance. But is dissonance really an upcoming or an dated concept? "Modernism" isn't really modern, because there is "postmodernism".
> 
> That consonant music is of the past and dissonant music of the present and future, seems like a wrong history version.
> 
> Yes at least a lot of them. This is no secret. Most of the time they rather attack beauty as a false ideal instead of pretending that ugliness can be beautiful too or that beauty doesn't exist.


There is keyboard music by Bach that's more dissonant than Schoenberg's atonal works. The issue isn't levels of dissonance. If there is an issue, and there apparently is for you, it's not dissonance per se, but how dissonances are treated. The abundant dissonances in Bach are resolved by step to consonances in a familiar way. Those that annoy you in "atonal" music probably aren't.

Now that you know what is actually bothering you, I hope that in the future you can complain about centuries of music you don't appreciate in a more accurate and responsible manner.


----------



## mmsbls

Aries said:


> Beauty and ugliness is less about CPT, but about dissonance. But is dissonance really an upcoming or an dated concept? "Modernism" isn't really modern, because there is "postmodernism".
> 
> That consonant music is of the past and dissonant music of the present and future, seems like a wrong history version.


Yes, I agree. That's why I said my statement was not true or useful.



Aries said:


> Yes at least a lot of them. This is no secret. Most of the time they rather attack beauty as a false ideal instead of pretending that ugliness can be beautiful too or that beauty doesn't exist.


Yes, some people do not think of music as beautiful or that music needs to be beautiful, but that doesn't mean they like ugly music. Most things that are not beautiful are also not ugly.



Aries said:


> For an atonal work it is not that dissonant and ugly imo.


Let's be clearer. For an atonal work, it's one of the most beautiful things ever created by humans.

I agree with you that most who reject atonal music likely find it ugly. Many of those who don't reject it find many atonal works rather enjoyable. And some people who used to find atonal music ugly, now find it beautiful, enjoyable, interesting, moving, etc..


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> There is keyboard music by Bach that's more dissonant than Schoenberg's atonal works. The issue isn't levels of dissonance. If there is an issue, and there apparently is for you, it's not dissonance per se, but how dissonances are treated. The abundant dissonances in Bach are resolved by step to consonances in a familiar way. Those that annoy you in "atonal" music probably aren't.


Well said. Music like Stockhausen's definitely has/had its uses/applications in modern culture (eg. The Beatles, music for horror films, etc)


----------



## mikeh375

hammeredklavier said:


> Well said. Music like Stockhausen's definitely has/had its uses/applications in modern culture (eg. The Beatles, music for horror films, etc)


....and to listen to of course..


----------



## DaveM

Aries said:


> Yes at least a lot of them. This is no secret. Most of the time they rather attack beauty as a false ideal instead of pretending that ugliness can be beautiful too or that beauty doesn't exist.


I know where you're coming from, believe me. But I think it's important to accept that those who like heavily dissonant contemporary music don't find it ugly. I do and can't find anything in avant-garde music that reminds me of what I have always defined as classical music. Remove melody, harmony and what I consider to be structure and what is left may be music, but is music in a different category. But God bless those who love it; they have every right to.

But that doesn't mean that they get to judge those of us who stay with the CPT era as if we do so on the basis of some kind of 'nostalgia (a silly concept) or some inability to put in the work to adjust to the category of contemporary music that bears no relationship to the CPT era. I choose not to make any effort to like music that I don't consider to be related to the classical music I grew up with. Fwiw, I'm not talking about all atonal music. I've actual developed some appreciation for Schoenberg et al.


----------



## Aries

EdwardBast said:


> There is keyboard music by Bach that's more dissonant than Schoenberg's atonal works.


Please show me such Bach works.



mmsbls said:


> Let's be clearer. For an atonal work, it's one of the most beautiful things ever created by humans.


What about the dissonance level? I think its more consonant than many atonal pieces.


----------



## fluteman

mikeh375 said:


> ....and to listen to of course..


Yes. But also, once an art genre seeps into the foundations of our culture, it's there to stay, and influences all sorts of things. Children grow up with it and it becomes second nature. Bauhaus and mid-20th century modern architecture and design are now ancient fodder for historians. Yet their influence remains and has become 'normal' to the point of not even being noticed by most. It's in furniture, in dining and kitchen utensils, in cars, and pretty much everywhere else in modern life, including a lot of today's architecture, even though other architecture and design movements have come along.


----------



## mmsbls

Aries said:


> Please show me such Bach works.
> 
> What about the dissonance level? I think its more consonant than many atonal pieces.


I believe that's correct. Did you mean to say earlier: It is clear that the rejection of dissonant music has something to do with it being perceived as ugly.

That's probably correct as well.


----------



## Simon Moon

hammeredklavier said:


> Well said. Music like Stockhausen's definitely has/had its uses/applications in modern culture (eg. The Beatles, music for horror films, etc)





mikeh375 said:


> ....and to listen to of course..


I wish you luck with trying to convince a certain population of TC members, that some of us enjoy atonal music for it's own sake.

There is much more to music, at least for me, than the obvious type of 'beauty' that Common Practice music 'wears on its sleeve' (so to speak).


----------



## Aries

DaveM said:


> But I think it's important to accept that those who like heavily dissonant contemporary music don't find it ugly.


I don't know. Some say heavily dissonant music can be beautiful, some say that music should not be beautiful, some say everything can be beautiful and it depends on the listener. Maybe some statements are just tactical. The trouble comes when people try to invest their preference for the aesthetic values of the avant-garde with some theoretical justification.



DaveM said:


> But that doesn't mean that they get to judge those of us who stay with the CPT era


The thought that consonant music is restricted to an past era isn't good. When the avant-garde started with modernism at around 1900 it wasn't that popular. Other composers continued to write conventional music and you can read about a lot of them which are less known today that they were actually rather popular during their lifetime.

While 19th century conventional composers are still accepted, 20th-21st conventional composers are attacked in many different ways. Popular show pieces are attacked as shallow kitsch, conventional film composers are attacked as not even being classical, eastern conventional compositions are attacked as propaganda dreck and western conventional composers are attacked as anachronistic.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

violadude said:


> I'd say beauty itself, not just within music, is the construct of a conscious mind.


The joy of beauty can come upon a community. And it need no apparent source. It's anarchistic in that way and mysterious and blessed. We do not invoke it. Perhaps we may be peaceful for and about it.


----------



## fbjim

Aries said:


> The thought that consonant music is restricted to an past era isn't good. When the avant-garde started with modernism at around 1900 it wasn't that popular. Other composers continued to write conventional music and you can read about a lot of them which are less known today that they were actually rather popular during their lifetime.


I think the opposite has happened. The likes of Samuel Barber, who was to an extent sidelined due to harsh criticism from serialist critics, has had his music come into appreciation more in the last few decades. Same for the likes of Rochberg and Schuman (W).


----------



## mmsbls

Aries said:


> I don't know. Some say heavily dissonant music can be beautiful, some say that music should not be beautiful, some say everything can be beautiful and it depends on the listener. Maybe some statements are just tactical. The trouble comes when people try to invest their preference for the aesthetic values of the avant-garde with some theoretical justification.


I'm not sure I have ever heard or read someone say that music should not be beautiful. Some certainly believe that music does not need to be beautiful (actually most people I know believe that). I don't know what you mean by "trouble" coming from theoretical justifications of avant-garde music. Most people I know don't believe music styles need to be justified.



Aries said:


> The thought that consonant music is restricted to an past era isn't good.


It's not so much that the thought is not good but rather any such thought is simply wrong. When I sample contemporary music from the Naxos Music Library, many (most?) works seem consonant to me.


----------



## SanAntone

Aries said:


> I don't know. Some say heavily dissonant music can be beautiful, some say that music should not be beautiful, some say everything can be beautiful and it depends on the listener. Maybe some statements are just tactical. The trouble comes when people try to invest their preference for the aesthetic values of the avant-garde with some theoretical justification.
> 
> The thought that consonant music is restricted to an past era isn't good. When the avant-garde started with modernism at around 1900 it wasn't that popular. Other composers continued to write conventional music and you can read about a lot of them which are less known today that they were actually rather popular during their lifetime.
> 
> While 19th century conventional composers are still accepted, 20th-21st conventional composers are attacked in many different ways. Popular show pieces are attacked as shallow kitsch, conventional film composers are attacked as not even being classical, eastern conventional compositions are attacked as propaganda dreck and western conventional composers are attacked as anachronistic.


I don't think it matters with what people invest in their aesthetic preferences. And I don't know why it should matter to you. IMO we all listen to the music we find interesting, enjoyable, beautiful, worthwhile, worth investigating, broadening to our horizons, etc.

We all probably listen to music that somebody somewhere thinks is none of those things.

Whatever.


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> I think the opposite has happened. The likes of Samuel Barber, who was to an extent sidelined due to harsh criticism from serialist critics, has had his music come into appreciation more in the last few decades. Same for the likes of Rochberg and Schuman (W).


Samuel Barber enjoyed a lot of recognition for his music right from the beginning. Dover Beach and the overture to The School for Scandal were major hits from the start and date to when he was 21. The Adagio for Strings comes from his string quartet composed when he was 26 and has been an orchestral repertoire standard from the start as well. So Barber was a major star from the beginning of his career, regardless of what some "serialist" critics wrote. Rochberg and Schuman are much less prominent to this day.

In general, I think this idea that serialist critics and academics somehow stymied non-serialist composers is greatly exaggerated. Copland, though not as precocious as Barber, was a major star after el Salon Mexico in 1936. Hindemith expressly rejected serialism, but was hurt more by being banned by Hitler as too modern than by any serialist critics. Schoenberg himself was bitterly disappointed late in life that his ideas, including serialism, did not become more generally accepted, and that his rival Stravinsky, most of whose music is very much not serialist, had a greater influence over modern music.


----------



## fbjim

fluteman said:


> Samuel Barber enjoyed a lot of recognition for his music right from the beginning. Dover Beach and the overture to The School for Scandal were major hits from the start and date to when he was 21. The Adagio for Strings comes from his string quartet composed when he was 26 and has been an orchestral repertoire standard from the start as well. So Barber was a major star from the beginning of his career, regardless of what some "serialist" critics wrote. Rochberg and Schuman are much less prominent to this day.
> 
> In general, I think this idea that serialist critics and academics somehow stymied non-serialist composers is greatly exaggerated. Copland, though not as precocious as Barber, was a major star after el Salon Mexico in 1936. Hindemith expressly rejected serialism, but was hurt more by being banned by Hitler as too modern than by any serialist critics. Schoenberg himself was bitterly disappointed late in life that his ideas, including serialism, did not become more generally accepted, and that his rival Stravinsky, most of whose music is very much not serialist, had a greater influence over modern music.


I think these issues were more prominent in Europe, to my knowledge. That said the sort of scratch-my-back incestuousness and cliques were sadly not unique to that time period, see the French opera in the 1800s.


----------



## Aries

fbjim said:


> I think the opposite has happened. The likes of Samuel Barber, who was to an extent sidelined due to harsh criticism from serialist critics, has had his music come into appreciation more in the last few decades. Same for the likes of Rochberg and Schuman (W).


A lot of rediscovering happened lately.

But there were a lot of rather traditional composers more popular during their lifetime than afterwards.

For example:
- Karl Goldmark (1830-1915)
- Max Reger (1873-1916)
- Emil Bohnke (1988-1928)
- Erkki Melartin (1875-1937)
- Julius Bittner (1874-1939)
- Stanley Bate (1911-1959)
- Leo Spies (1899-1965)
- Ottmar Gerster (1897-1969)
- Otar Taktakishvili (1924-1989)

That is just what I could collect quickly.

In the case of Samuel Barber I even read that a neoromantic period of music was described at the time.


----------



## fbjim

Well good lord, the history of music is full of composers more popular in their lifetimes than being now, including those specifically who wrote "proper" music. When's the last time you saw Spohr programmed?


----------



## vtpoet

Aries said:


> ...and western conventional composers are attacked as anachronistic.


Yes, poor Andrew Lloyd Webber. So much crying to and from the bank. So much. And whining too.


----------



## parlando

Although possessed of perfect pitch, I gave up violin at age twelve after three years because of a weak teacher and piano because I started violin, so I have been a consumer except for singing, whistling, and waving my arms while conducting to a loudspeaker, or announcing standard classical music on two FM stations and getting paid for it. I generally like what I hear on WQXR in New York City (which I listen to almost 24x7) or WFMT streamed when QXR is fund raising. That station is also streamed and has listeners very far afield. Neither of these stations, nor my announcing stations, favored much dissonance. _Vox populi_. Mozart, most Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Janacek, cimbalom, are among my nonpop loves. So, for me, beauty is in my personal mind. The sequence from dissonant tension to relaxation seems as lovely as I can generalize. Oh, and Sondheim.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Simon Moon said:


> I wish you luck with trying to convince a certain population of TC members, that some of us enjoy atonal music for it's own sake.


But the fact is that most people in the world encounter (or have demand for) this sort of musical aesthetics 



 through contents like 



 (18:30)
I think no other kind of music creates the feeling "something dreadful is happening / going to happen" better, in the context of a modern horror/grotesque show. No matter how you want to categorize this sort of music (ie. ugly or beautiful), it's something indispensable for modern culture.


----------



## Aries

fbjim said:


> Well good lord, the history of music is full of composers more popular in their lifetimes than being now, including those specifically who wrote "proper" music.


Is there maybe a systematic difference between avant-garde composers and traditional composers?

I looked up the number of newspaper entries for several composers per decade. I used the site "newspapers.com". Mainly american newspapers are archived there and I only searched for american newspapers. There are less very old newspapers and less very new newspapers archived. So interpret the results carefully. Here are the results for three avant-garde composers Schönberg, Berg and Webern and three rather traditional composers Goldmark, Reger and Barber:


DecadeArnold SchoenbergAlban BergAnton WebernKarl GoldmarkMax RegerSamuel Barber1900s61175131910s23985379142416051920s4402157110882612021930s135685873296198117371940s143641170120137135691950s18781947481112133488571960s3146340514811071397139701970s4745352813861241848116861980s5030534515931191316121271990s39713040121495935118612000s303517378179960679352010s1025723306272763965

Schönberg, Berg and Webern have their peak in the 1980s. Goldmark has his peak in the 1910s, Reger his in the 1930s and Barber his in the 1960s. Reger has more entries in the 1920s than Schönberg, Berg and Webern combined. Webern didn't overtake Goldmark before the 1950s. Barber peaks before the SVS even tough he is the youngest of these composers.

To recreate the results go to this site: https://www.newspapers.com/browse/ and type in the name of the composer in quotation marks.


----------



## Luchesi

No one needs to be reminded that JsB and LvB are consistently at the top of polls. It’s noteworthy, to say the least. 
It’s not the result of objective facts about their music? What else could it be? 


We like to say it’s the way humans are subjectively wired? I don’t know what that means, but I understand that it’s easier to think that way.


----------



## violadude

Luchesi said:


> No one needs to be reminded that JsB and LvB are consistently at the top of polls. It's noteworthy, to say the least.
> It's not the result of objective facts about their music? What else could it be?
> 
> We like to say it's the way humans are subjectively wired? I don't know what that means, but I understand that it's easier to think that way.


Er I feel this really misses the point. It doesn't matter how many people agree that something is beautiful, beauty itself is necessarily a subjective phenomenon because beauty is not something that exists outside of conscious perspective. In other words if the earth were bare, with no conscious minds interpreting anything, a major third might still exists objectively humming in the air somewhere but there would not be anything objectively beautiful about it because there's nothing around to perceive beauty.


----------



## EmperorOfIceCream

This can easily be resolved by looking at the language we use. We ascribe beauty to things: "the sunset is beautiful," "the painting is beautiful" etc. It's not even a question whether the beauty is "in" the brain; that is not an intelligible formulation of English. If you said, "Is the beauty inside or outside your brain?" or "What part of your brain is the beauty inside?" most people would have no idea what you are talking about. We use our brain to make the determination that something is beautiful, but the beauty isn't inside our brain. We see a dog using the visual processing faculties of our brain, but the dog isn't inside our brain!!!


----------



## Luchesi

violadude said:


> Er I feel this really misses the point. It doesn't matter how many people agree that something is beautiful, beauty itself is necessarily a subjective phenomenon because beauty is not something that exists outside of conscious perspective. In other words if the earth were bare, with no conscious minds interpreting anything, a major third might still exists objectively humming in the air somewhere but there would not be anything objectively beautiful about it because there's nothing around to perceive beauty.


We know why a vibrant sunset is 'beautiful' to humans.
We know why a park-like forest scene is 'beautiful' to humans.
We know why kids happily playing together is 'beautiful ' to humans.
Bach's music is composed of the intervals and resolutions and relationships and forms which are 'beautiful' to humans. Much has been made of the natural dominance patterns in music and how integer relationships in all the arts affect us subtly. I can't dismiss it all. I don't follow some of it.


----------



## fbjim

Luchesi said:


> No one needs to be reminded that JsB and LvB are consistently at the top of polls. It's noteworthy, to say the least.
> It's not the result of objective facts about their music? What else could it be?
> 
> We like to say it's the way humans are subjectively wired? I don't know what that means, but I understand that it's easier to think that way.


The objective fact is that classical music listeners tend to really like Beethoven.

The mistake, I think, is to ascribe some sort of essential quality to this which, if maximized like a variable, produces great music. Art is far more complex than that, and our evaluation of art is not so simple.


----------



## Luchesi

fbjim said:


> The objective fact is that classical music listeners tend to really like Beethoven.
> 
> The mistake, I think, is to ascribe some sort of essential quality to this which, if maximized like a variable, produces great music. Art is far more complex than that, and our evaluation of art is not so simple.


Yes, such listeners have the requisite experience to 'like' B. Sufficient experience is required to 'like' anything. So that's a clue.


----------



## DaveM

Aries said:


> While 19th century conventional composers are still accepted, 20th-21st conventional composers are attacked in many different ways. Popular show pieces are attacked as shallow kitsch, conventional film composers are attacked as not even being classical, eastern conventional compositions are attacked as propaganda dreck and western conventional composers are attacked as anachronistic.


Good point. I've been a collector of movie themes/soundtracks from the last 30 years. Some of the most beautiful melodies I've ever heard.


----------



## arpeggio

*Carter vs. Beethoven*

In my opinion, and it is just an opinion, Beethoven is the greatest classical composer.

My favorite classical composer is Mahler.

My favorite non-tonal composer is Elliott Carter. I will not stop listening to Carter because of bogus rhetorical gobbledygook that his music is not as pretty as a sunset :devil:


----------



## DaveM

arpeggio said:


> In my opinion, and it is just an opinion, Beethoven is the greatest classical composer.
> 
> My favorite classical composer is Mahler.
> 
> My favorite non-tonal composer is Elliott Carter. I will not stop listening to Carter because of bogus rhetorical gobbledygook that his music is not as pretty as a sunset :devil:


You mean like this?


----------



## Forster

EmperorOfIceCream said:


> It's not even a question whether the beauty is "in" the brain; that is not an intelligible formulation of English.


Fortunately, no-one intended the question to be taken that literally. You have read the thread all the way through?



fluteman said:


> This leaves many people feeling culturally displaced, uncomfortable, alienated and nostalgic for an earlier era.


The democratisation of music has that effect. A bit like democracy itself. If only those who know better - that Bach is the best because of absolute aesthetic values, for example - remained in charge, we'd all be much better off.



Aries said:


> The rejection of common aesthetic values needs no justification.


You need not justify what you find beautiful, I need not justify what I find beautiful. I think, though, that that is what worries you.



Aries said:


> I don't know. Some say heavily dissonant music can be beautiful, some say that music should not be beautiful, some say everything can be beautiful and it depends on the listener. Maybe some statements are just tactical. The trouble comes when people try to invest their preference for the aesthetic values of the avant-garde with some theoretical justification.


Wouldn't _"The trouble comes when people try to invest their preference for the aesthetic values of CPT with some theoretical justification"_ be an equally valid statement?


----------



## mikeh375

Simon Moon said:


> I wish you luck with trying to convince a certain population of TC members, that some of us enjoy atonal music for it's own sake.
> 
> There is much more to music, at least for me, than the obvious type of 'beauty' that Common Practice music 'wears on its sleeve' (so to speak).


I don't bother trying to convince people Simon, there's no point. I agree that beauty runs deeper than immediate appeal and am also happy with my ugly 'Shrek' ears. They represent only one facet of my listening, that of atonal and contemporary. I also listen to and am moved by, music spanning many, many centuries and many different styles.
It's just not so black and white as one might gather from some attitudes.


----------



## arpeggio

There are some members of the classical music community that believe that the greatest classical music was composed during the 18th and 19th centuries, and they are on a mission to prove it.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

violadude said:


> Er I feel this really misses the point. It doesn't matter how many people agree that something is beautiful, beauty itself is necessarily a subjective phenomenon because beauty is not something that exists outside of conscious perspective. In other words if the earth were bare, with no conscious minds interpreting anything, a major third might still exists objectively humming in the air somewhere *but there would not be anything objectively beautiful about it because there's nothing around to perceive beauty*.


No human beings around you mean.

You fail to understand the definition of objective. Human perception of a thing does does not give to a thing objectivity. We don't make it true, if its objectively true. That's the definition of objective. Something that is true outside of the mind in the real world. If for music to be beautiful you need humans to affirm that, that means its not objective, because if something is objectively true its true regardless of human opinion.

But you are saying the music needs a human to perceive it in order to be objectively beautiful, which makes no sense, then the beauty of the music would be subjectively dependent on the human perceiver.


----------



## janxharris

Luchesi said:


> We know why a vibrant sunset is 'beautiful' to humans.
> We know why a park-like forest scene is 'beautiful' to humans.
> We know why kids happily playing together is 'beautiful ' to humans.
> *Bach's music is composed of the intervals and resolutions and relationships and forms which are 'beautiful' to humans.* Much has been made of the natural dominance patterns in music and how integer relationships in all the arts affect us subtly. I can't dismiss it all. I don't follow some of it.


Bach's music is composed of the intervals and resolutions and relationships and forms which are 'beautiful' to _a good percentage of_ humans.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> No one needs to be reminded that JsB and LvB are consistently at the top of polls. It's noteworthy, to say the least.
> It's not the result of objective facts about their music? What else could it be?


Actually, according to statista.com, Classical and Opera are currently the 10th most popular genre in the US, behind Rock, Pop, Country, R&B and Soul, Hip Hop, Easy Listening, Electronic dance, Jazz and Blues.

So, by your reasoning, there must be something inherent about the music of those more favored genres that makes it superior to the music of Bach and Beethoven. As you put it, what could that be but the music itself? I'll go further and suggest what the source of that superiority might be:

6 of the 9 more-favored genres have a strong African-American influence: Rock, Pop, R&B and Soul, Hip Hop, Jazz and Blues. Pop music has recently seen a surge in influence from Japan and Korea, thanks to J-Pop and K-Pop. And all 9, though maybe to a lesser extent Jazz and Blues, have been strongly influenced by modern technology, including electrical amplification.

So, Bach and Beethoven have been soundly defeated by the 20th century trends of globalization and technology. And though it's heartening to see Classical and Opera as high as no. 10, you're going to have to accept the likes of Arvo Part, Leonard Bernstein and Philip Glass as Classical and Opera in order to accept that ranking. So, what is your favorite recording or performance of West Side Story? Einstein on the Beach? Spiegel im Spiegel?


----------



## AvidListener

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> When you hear a beautiful piece of music, is the beauty in the music itself or is it in the listeners brain?
> 
> Give a short explanation of why you voted either way.


*I believe the poll is missing an entry, but unfortunately there is no easy way to be succinct about it.*

Beauty is not entirely in the "sounds" of the music when it is playing... if a tree falls in the forest it does make a sound, even when no one is there to hear it, but if some loudspeakers play a Symphony in the forest and no one hears it where is the beauty? The sound waves will helplessly bounce off deaf trees and unthinking rocks... So, the beauty of music is not _intrinsic_ to an existing sequence of sound no matter what the pattern.

That said, the beauty of music is not entirely in the listener's brain, no arbitrary set of disorganized noises of a landslide or an avalanche are beautiful (musically) to any human mind, no matter how much one might wish to pretend. Musical beauty is not entirely _subjective_, though one can imagine a poser pretending that some kind of avante garde snorting and coughing, are music to his or her ears.

Musical beauty is a response of a listener's particular human brain, (having a particular auditory system, particular sensory and higher level structures and functions which perceive patterns and relationships, over time, and between frequencies of sounds) to particular patterns of sounds which create that response. Without the right patterns of sounds in time and frequency (notes), which at least are discernible and coherent to a mind and auditory system (dare I say a musical center of the brain?) structured and functioning as it does, the relationship of the experience of beauty does not arise... and all one has is confusion and noise. Equally, without the mind and auditory system of a human being to sense, perceive, and experience the sounds as beautiful, the sound literally falls on deaf ears in a forest of unhearing trees and unthinking rocks.

The beauty of music then is then _both_ in the nature (identity) of the sound pattern and in the nature (identity) of the human listener's brain.

Beauty in music, then is an objective experience, arising only in a listener only listening to something in particular, namely, music.

*Proposed Further Entry:*

_In an objective relationship between the listener and the music_


----------



## parlando

For me, a lot depends on my previous experience with European tonalities and expectations, even including the archaic hymn to Apollo (and which would include a certain amount of modern Greek popular music with its fascinating rhythms). However, though I know a bit of Mandarin, and have read that Confucius was a sensitive and opinionated critic of musical performances, I have great difficulty appreciating later classical Chinese opera. So there is more to perceiving beauty than whether the hairs in my inner ears vibrate in mathematically harmonious patterns or not — though I think that that factor is immensely important for me.


----------



## fluteman

parlando said:


> For me, a lot depends on my previous experience with European tonalities and expectations, even including the archaic hymn to Apollo (and which would include a certain amount of modern Greek popular music with its fascinating rhythms). However, though I know a bit of Mandarin, and have read that Confucius was a sensitive and opinionated critic of musical performances, I have great difficulty appreciating later classical Chinese opera. So there is more to perceiving beauty than whether the hairs in my inner ears vibrate in mathematically harmonious patterns or not - though I think that that factor is immensely important for me.


But it's hard to be objective about one's own tastes, isn't it? For this topic, I like to focus on what I observe in others.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> Actually, according to statista.com, Classical and Opera are currently the 10th most popular genre in the US, behind Rock, Pop, Country, R&B and Soul, Hip Hop, Easy Listening, Electronic dance, Jazz and Blues.
> 
> So, by your reasoning, there must be something inherent about the music of those more favored genres that makes it superior to the music of Bach and Beethoven. As you put it, what could that be but the music itself? I'll go further and suggest what the source of that superiority might be:
> 
> 6 of the 9 more-favored genres have a strong African-American influence: Rock, Pop, R&B and Soul, Hip Hop, Jazz and Blues. Pop music has recently seen a surge in influence from Japan and Korea, thanks to J-Pop and K-Pop. And all 9, though maybe to a lesser extent Jazz and Blues, have been strongly influenced by modern technology, including electrical amplification.
> 
> So, Bach and Beethoven have been soundly defeated by the 20th century trends of globalization and technology. And though it's heartening to see Classical and Opera as high as no. 10, you're going to have to accept the likes of Arvo Part, Leonard Bernstein and Philip Glass as Classical and Opera in order to accept that ranking. So, what is your favorite recording or performance of West Side Story? Einstein on the Beach? Spiegel im Spiegel?


I have no idea what sense it makes to respond to a claim of objective greatness within a specific genre of music by naming all the other genres that are more popular as if the evaluation of a classical composer depends on comparison with The Beatles, Willy Nelson or Snoop Dogg. If a jazz enthusiast names off what he/she considers to be the greatest jazz artists/composers and adds what he/she considers to be objective evidence, are you going to respond with this same spiel? This is a tired, irrelevant argument that needs to be permanently shelved.


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> Wouldn't _"The trouble comes when people try to invest their preference for the aesthetic values of CPT with some theoretical justification"_ be an equally valid statement?


Yes. So long as I am being paraphrased, remember that I tried to be very evenhanded about this a few pages back. The idea is, The trouble comes when people try to invest ANY set of aesthetic values with some theoretical justification.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> I have no idea what sense it makes [...]


Well I got the joke...


----------



## fbjim

janxharris said:


> Bach's music is composed of the intervals and resolutions and relationships and forms which are 'beautiful' to _a good percentage of_ humans.


Yes, but-

A good portion of music back then was specifically created according to those rules of tonality. There have been many times in history where classical works have been misattributed to Mozart, or Haydn. Now, musicologists, Mozart scholars and listeners with a lot of classical period experience may be able to pick out the stylistic elements which are specific to Mozart, or Haydn, or a Bach kid- but I guarantee that for the average listener, the subjective listening experience of listening to something when it's framed as a lost Mozart masterpiece, or if it's a misattributed piece by a minor classical period composer will be completely different. All of that is extramusical-theoretically, if all beauty and pleasure is inherent to the music, it shouldn't make a difference if an average listener is lied to, and told a non-Mozart work is by Mozart, but it clearly *does* make a difference.

All of this is to say that the pleasure people get from music frequently has to do with elements outside the music entirely.


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> Well I got the joke...


A long drawn out joke with no punchline.


----------



## eljr

Luchesi said:


> No one needs to be reminded that JsB and LvB are consistently at the top of polls. It's noteworthy, to say the least.
> *It's not the result of objective facts about their music? What else could it be? *
> 
> We like to say it's the way humans are subjectively wired? I don't know what that means, but I understand that it's easier to think that way.


Well, it could well be that circumstance evolved that forestered this belief and it has been passed down. I submit, you can take someone wholly unfamiliar with classical music and ask them to name the 3 greatest composers of all time and Bach, Beethoven and Mozart will bellow from their vocal box.

If someone is told something over and over, they assume it's fact and repeat it. They repeat it because they then believe it to be fact.

Religion is an excellent example of this. It is not dissimilar at all.


----------



## violadude

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> No human beings around you mean.
> 
> You fail to understand the definition of objective. Human perception of a thing does does not give to a thing objectivity. We don't make it true, if its objectively true. That's the definition of objective. *Something that is true outside of the mind in the real world. If for music to be beautiful you need humans to affirm that, that means its not objective, because if something is objectively true its true regardless of human opinion.
> *
> But you are saying the music needs a human to perceive it in order to be objectively beautiful, which makes no sense, then the beauty of the music would be subjectively dependent on the human perceiver.


That's exactly my point. The idea of beauty itself is a human construct so there can be no such thing as "regardless of human opinion" when it comes to it.

Or rather, to put it another way, beauty is an idea, not a concrete object so it cannot actually "exist" in the "real world" the same way that proton atoms do.


----------



## janxharris

fbjim said:


> Yes, but-
> 
> A good portion of music back then was specifically created according to those rules of tonality. There have been many times in history where classical works have been misattributed to Mozart, or Haydn. Now, musicologists, Mozart scholars and listeners with a lot of classical period experience may be able to pick out the stylistic elements which are specific to Mozart, or Haydn, or a Bach kid- but I guarantee that for the average listener, the subjective listening experience of listening to something when it's framed as a lost Mozart masterpiece, or if it's a misattributed piece by a minor classical period composer will be completely different. All of that is extramusical-theoretically, if all beauty and pleasure is inherent to the music, it shouldn't make a difference if an average listener is lied to, and told a non-Mozart work is by Mozart, but it clearly *does* make a difference.
> 
> All of this is to say that the pleasure people get from music frequently has to do with elements outside the music entirely.


Your post makes a good point, though it has nothing to do with with what I wrote - I was limiting Luchesi's assertion.


----------



## eljr

violadude said:


> That's exactly my point. The idea of beauty itself is a human construct so there can be no such thing as "regardless of human opinion" when it comes to it.
> 
> Or rather, to put it another way, beauty is an idea, not a concrete object so it cannot actually "exist" in the "real world" the same way that proton atoms do.


Yes it can. It exists within us. PET scans can show it although this technology, in this regard, is still in it's infancy.


----------



## Forster

eljr said:


> Yes it can. It exists within us. PET scans can show it although this technology, in this regard, is still in it's infancy.


Great joke:kiss: :lol:....


----------



## SanAntone

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> No human beings around you mean.
> 
> You fail to understand the definition of objective. Human perception of a thing does does not give to a thing objectivity. We don't make it true, if its objectively true. That's the definition of objective. Something that is true outside of the mind in the real world. If for music to be beautiful you need humans to affirm that, that means its not objective, because if something is objectively true its true regardless of human opinion.
> 
> But you are saying the music needs a human to perceive it in order to be objectively beautiful, which makes no sense, then the beauty of the music would be subjectively dependent on the human perceiver.


I guess you were sleeping when we learned that there is no such thing as objective truth. 

Does a dog perceive the "beauty" of a Mozart aria? Can you hold beauty in your hand?


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> Can you hold beauty in your hand?


Yes, my little Chihuahua.


----------



## janxharris

SanAntone said:


> Can you hold beauty in your hand?


----------------------------------------------


----------



## eljr

Forster said:


> Great joke:kiss: :lol:....


May I suggest a course in neuroscience of the mind would add to your edification on the matter. It would help you see the farcical nature of most entries in this thread.

Here is a book of benefit if your local university offers no such course.

https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195123753/

It may well be a heavy life for you to get through the 550 pages but I am sure you will find it's dalliance in music cognition, linguistics and cognitive science enlightening. You will no longer think of these things in the metaphysical.

Enjoy!


----------



## Kreisler jr

violadude said:


> Er I feel this really misses the point. It doesn't matter how many people agree that something is beautiful, beauty itself is necessarily a subjective phenomenon because beauty is not something that exists outside of conscious perspective. In other words if the earth were bare, with no conscious minds interpreting anything, a major third might still exists objectively humming in the air somewhere but there would not be anything objectively beautiful about it because there's nothing
> around to perceive beauty.


This is a rather wide definition of subjective. Most people do not understand it that way, cf. the case of colors. And it's also not conclusive arguing with counterfactuals. 
First, there might be other beings (such as God, angels, aliens) perceiving things as beautiful, if there never had been humans. 
Secondly, it seems to show too much. It does not really get the distinction we are trying to make when thinking about aesthetics vs. other fields. If there were no humans around there might be no maths either because maths is in fact done by conscious minds. But many people think maths is as objective as it gets, independent of beings actually doing maths. Maybe beauty is in many ways like maths (as Platonists would claim), so the major third might objectively beautiful as 2+3=5 is objectively true. Or maybe the idealists are correct and even what we think of as physical and "objective" and maths is mind-dependent or observer-relative which would again put the aesthetic properties into the same boat.
But as I said, I think this ontological consideration is mostly besides the point because that's not what most people mean in this discussion. 
As the world is, there are in fact conscious minds and humans perceiving beauty in nature and creating things they take to be beautiful, so it is not that relevant what would be the case, if there weren't any humans. Because that's just not the situation.  Again, in the common sense, cornflowers are blue and it is not very helpful to point out that this "subjective" because blue is "only" a subjective response of healthy human perceptive systems to certain wavelengths etc. It's just not how we deal with colors in everyday life. Even granted there would be such a reductive explanation for colors (quite doubtful which is called the "qualia problem" in philosophy of mind) it would neither take anything away from the reality of the experience of blue things and it would be cold comfort to a color-blind person who could not perceive blue. You could usually not "win" or end a discussion about whether a surface is a certain color by pointing out that colors are "only" see above. 
I think it is very similar with the discussion about the beauty of some painting or piece of music. It has to take place on the experiential, phenomenological level that is certainly there and it is not that important that aesthetic evaluation vanishes in some eliminative accounts.

Now with humans there is quite a bit of psychological and anthropological data for at least some widely shared aesthetic preferences. Symmetrical faces, certain waist-to-hip-ratios in females, and so on. Similarities in lullabies across cultures. And we still find many cave paintings beautiful 50000 year later. Sure, this is quite crude and does not give you a ranking of Mozart and Hummel  But it is a starting point. Like religion, law, ethics etc. I think aesthetic evaluation is a human universal. And as the other fields it can be developed, refined, compared, evaluated rationally.


----------



## Kreisler jr

violadude said:


> That's exactly my point. The idea of beauty itself is a human construct so there can be no such thing as "regardless of human opinion" when it comes to it.
> 
> Or rather, to put it another way, beauty is an idea, not a concrete object so it cannot actually "exist" in the "real world" the same way that proton atoms do.


The Eiffel tower is a human construction. It is not less real, "objective" or in the real world because of this, although it obviously would not be there without humans (and a lot of other conditions, such as late 19th century technology).

"beauty" is not necessarily an idea, it is a property ascribed to certain things. As such it can exist in the real world exactly like the property of having one unit of elementary positive charge can exist "within" a proton ("proton atoms" is probably a typo). Maybe it does not, but the facile formal way you suggest to exclude beauty from "reality candidates" is not convincing, I think.

Protons, charge and their precise mathematical descriptions can all also be understood as "human constructions". The actual physical theories certainly are such. They fit the world quite well and I with many others believe that they are reasonable close descriptions of things in the world (although there are dissenters stressing more the "construction" aspect).

But, although without the precision of mathematical physics, ascriptions of beauty *also* fit some things in the world reasonably well. Otherwise humans would not have used such descriptions for ages and would not have created things they and their fellow humans found beautiful.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fbjim said:


> Yes, but-
> 
> A good portion of music back then was specifically created according to those rules of tonality. There have been many times in history where classical works have been misattributed to Mozart, or Haydn. Now, musicologists, Mozart scholars and listeners with a lot of classical period experience may be able to pick out the stylistic elements which are specific to Mozart, or Haydn, or a Bach kid- but I guarantee that for the average listener, the subjective listening experience of listening to something when it's framed as a lost Mozart masterpiece, or if it's a misattributed piece by a minor classical period composer will be completely different. All of that is extramusical-theoretically, if all beauty and pleasure is inherent to the music, it shouldn't make a difference if an average listener is lied to, and told a non-Mozart work is by Mozart, but it clearly *does* make a difference.


Yes, but-

The "Bubbles" experiment - What is contemporary music worth? <-- This might be proof that "modernist individuality" is overrated. 
The 19th century greats, Beethoven, Chopin, Brahms also have had pieces misattributed to them (Witt's Jena symphony, Mayer's Le regret, Dietrich's piano trio in A), but I find them far more strikingly individual and original as artists than certain "composers of random notes" (of the 20th and 21th centuries).


----------



## fbjim

"By convention sweet and by convention bitter, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention color; but in reality atoms and void" - Democritus, 400 BC

(which is to say that the nature of color, and, by extension, properties defined by human perception and whether they exist as a concrete physical property is not only not a solved problem, but that debates on it have existed since antiquity)


----------



## parlando

parlando said:


> Although possessed of perfect pitch, I gave up violin at age twelve after three years because of a weak teacher and piano because I started violin, so I have been a consumer except for singing, whistling, and waving my arms while conducting to a loudspeaker, or announcing standard classical music on two FM stations and getting paid for it. I generally like what I hear on WQXR in New York City (which I listen to almost 24/7) or WFMT streamed when QXR is fund raising. That station is also streamed and has listeners very far afield. Neither of these stations, nor my announcing stations, favored much dissonance. _Vox populi_. Mozart, most Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Janacek, cimbalom, are among my nonpop loves. So, for me, beauty is in my personal mind. The sequence from dissonant tension to relaxation seems as lovely as I can generalize. Oh, and Sondheim.


Minor change to an item.


----------



## Simon Moon

Forster said:


> Great joke:kiss: :lol:....


No matter how much you flaunt your fallacious argument from ignorance 'reasoning', all the demonstrable evidence points to things like: perception of beauty, and consciousness in general, being products of a physical mind.

And none of it points to any need for magic or metaphysics.

All functions of the human mind, seem to be emergent properties of the physical brain. And as neuroscience progresses, more an more demonstrable, testable, falsifiable evidence is collected that continues to point to this.


----------



## Forster

Simon Moon said:


> No matter how much you flaunt your fallacious argument from ignorance 'reasoning', all the demonstrable evidence points to things like: perception of beauty, and consciousness in general, being products of a physical mind.
> 
> And none of it points to any need for magic or metaphysics.
> 
> All functions of the human mind, seem to be emergent properties of the physical brain. And as neuroscience progresses, more an more demonstrable, testable, falsifiable evidence is collected that continues to point to this.


I'm sorry, you've got the wrong guy. I don't understand what I've posted that leads you to conclude about me in the way you have.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Simon Moon said:


> And none of it points to any need for magic or metaphysics.


It's pointing that is unnecessary. Beauty as spirit may become shy when given such attention.


----------



## Simon Moon

Forster said:


> I'm sorry, you've got the wrong guy. I don't understand what I've posted that leads you to conclude about me in the way you have.


Then I must apologize!

I will have to go back over my thought processes, and see where that came from, or if it was meant for someone else.


----------



## fluteman

Simon Moon said:


> Then I must apologize!
> 
> I will have to go back over my thought processes, and see where that came from, or if it was meant for someone else.


No need. You've made sensible comments. In the end, what art is, or beauty in art is, is a question of cultural anthropology, which in turn is in significant part ultimately a question of neuroscience, as you say. But it is also in significant part a question of unpredictable historical events. Of wars, famines, epidemics, floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and long-term changes in weather patterns, of the rise and fall of political, military and religious leaders, and in recent centuries, industrial, scientific and technological revolutions. All of that has influenced our current culture, and as Wittgenstein said, "To describe a set of aesthetic rules fully means really to describe the culture of a period", and all of those things and more go into making it.


----------



## Forster

Simon Moon said:


> Then I must apologize!
> 
> I will have to go back over my thought processes, and see where that came from, or if it was meant for someone else.


I was just going to bed when I read your post, so couldn't check what went amiss. You replied to my response to the idea that Beauty can exist within us and that PET scans can show it. Regardless of accusations of ignorance or the need for education on my part, I still think that "Beauty" is an abstract concept, as discussed by philosophers, but that we can account for our "_experience _of Beauty" by looking at physical rather than metaphysical pocesses.

Where is the beauty in music?

I've already rejected the idea that Beauty is solely in the music being perceived, and solely, physically in the human doing the perceiving. I said so, briefly, on page 2, elaborated more fully over the course of the thread and lastly, here:

Where is the beauty in music?

What puzzles me more is that most here seem to hedge round what music they find beautiful and why. It seems that the "similarity conditions" we might begin to explore are as elusive as Beauty itself.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fbjim said:


> musicologists, Mozart scholars and listeners with a lot of classical period experience may be able to pick out the stylistic elements which are specific to Mozart, or Haydn, or a Bach kid-


You've said this in other similar threads, so I'll give you an example to refute it.
1. the sense to utilize dissonance in sequential passages:












2. the sense to juxtapose extreme dynamic contrasts in a direct way:












You'll never find the stylistic element 2 in the composer of the stylistic element 1, and vice-versa. Does it really take that much knowledge, experience, or intellect to be able to differentiate the two? If a listener tells me that they both sound the same and he's not able to tell the difference, it tells me more about the listener than the composers.



fbjim said:


> for the average listener, the subjective listening experience of listening to something when it's framed as a lost Mozart masterpiece, or if it's a misattributed piece by a minor classical period composer will be completely different.


Not exactly. Even with Mozart, the level of artistry differs from piece to piece, and it greatly affects people's appreciation for his music. Why is it that, of his vast output, only a handful is really well-known and widely appreciated? And to my knowledge so far, no one has been able to answer this satisfactorily:


hammeredklavier said:


> Is there a line (standard of quality) differentiating between the two? What are some examples of "masterpieces" by John Cage, and "less successful/valuable works" by him, for example? What are the individual elements or traits that determine "quality" in those works?
> Here's an example of "standard of quality" in common practice music":
> Malcolm Bilson: Taste in Mozart and Chopin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (3:02~5:40)
> Is there a similar method of reasoning for avant-garde music, in distinguishing the great stuff from the average/mediocre stuff?


----------



## hammeredklavier

fbjim said:


> A good portion of music back then was specifically created according to those rules of tonality.


And I don't know why you keep saying this in threads of this sort. I think it's a red herring. Two things I want to say about it:
1. "Breaking rules for the sake of breaking them" doesn't necessarily lead to greater variety, range of expression, individuality. (Again, look at the Bubbles experiment)
2. Williams and Cage obviously sound different, but that doesn't say anything about the inherent greatness or value of their music. I think you're trying to say "there's greater variety" in 20th century music than 18th century music, but why not claim that jazz, rock, metal, hiphop, and whatnot and their genre differences will give you even greater variety?


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> You've said this in other similar threads, so I'll give you an example to refute it.
> 1. the sense to utilize dissonance in sequential passages:


Would appreciate an explanation of what you are saying here; what does does it have to do with fbjim's post exactly?


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> Would appreciate an explanation of what you are saying here; what does does it have to do with fbjim's post exactly?


I'm not sure what point Fbjim is trying to make in relation to the thread topic either; maybe he just wants to trash certain common practice periods (about the mindset of the composers and the audiences) to make contemporary avant-garde look better by comparison (like how he did in #184). He has a history of doing it in other threads as well (I had to take the trouble to find them, since you ask), so I addressed his points in the manner that I think is the most appropriate [#260, #269, #270].



fbjim said:


> To an extent classical period music is probably the most similar to chart pop, with the emphasis on a basis of rules designed to produce music pleasing to the ears of those buying/commissioning it.





fbjim said:


> a lot of Mozart _is_ superficially similar to the music his contemporaries were making at the time





fbjim said:


> This is probably why it was historically relatively easy to write "fake" Mozart, or why many historic works were incorrectly attributed to him.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

violadude said:


> That's exactly my point. The idea of beauty itself is a human construct so there can be no such thing as "regardless of human opinion" when it comes to it.
> 
> Or rather, to put it another way, beauty is an idea, not a concrete object so it cannot actually "exist" in the "real world" the same way that proton atoms do.


Its a human construct? A human invention you mean?


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

SanAntone said:


> I guess you were sleeping when we learned that there is no such thing as objective truth.
> 
> Does a dog perceive the "beauty" of a Mozart aria? Can you hold beauty in your hand?


no a dog cannot perceive the beauty in music. They do not posses the faculties to perceive it. I'm not sure what this proves? That you need certain powers/abilities in order to perceive beauty?

Can you hold the number 2 in your hand? Can you hold logic in your hand?


----------



## Chilham

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> no a dog cannot perceive the beauty in music. They do not posses the faculties to perceive it. I'm not sure what this proves? That you need certain powers/abilities in order to perceive beauty?
> 
> Can you hold the number 2 in your hand? Can you hold logic in your hand?


No you can't. So beauty, like the number 2 and logic, is a construct. A perception. A sense.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Chilham said:


> No you can't. So beauty, like the number 2 and logic, is a construct. A perception. A sense.


Logic and numbers are not perceptions or senses.


----------



## Chilham

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Logic and numbers are not perceptions or senses.


What are they? ......


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm not sure what point Fbjim is trying to make in relation to the thread topic either; maybe he just wants to trash certain common practice periods (about the mindset of the composers and the audiences) to make contemporary avant-garde look better by comparison (like how he did in #184). He has a history of doing it in other threads as well (I had to take the trouble to find them, since you ask), so I addressed his points in the manner that I think is the most appropriate [#260, #269, #270].


Perhaps Fbjim will clarify.

So were you suggesting, with the M. Haydn example you cited, that it's very apparent the devices he uses (sequential dissonance) - so it's not necessary to be a musicologist?


----------



## fbjim

I'm not denying that for experienced listeners, seeing classical period composition styles is very possible, and I'm not even making a value judgment when saying that composers who composed via shared rules of tonality and taste would produce superficially similar work. It's not a value statement any more than if I said a lot of twelve-bar blues sounded similar to an inexperienced ear.


Do you really think a layman knows what 'dissonance in sequential passages' is?


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> I'm not denying that for experienced listeners, seeing classical period composition styles is very possible ....


Right. Possible, but not necessary for enjoying music. In his brilliant book The Classical Style, Charles Rosen first explains what he means by "The Classical Style". One might disagree with certain particulars, but I think he does a good job of that. Then, he picks who he thinks were the three best practitioners of that style: Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. Again, one might protest that he should have considered Michael Haydn or Boccherini or others, but I think he isn't too far off.

Only then can Rosen discuss in detail what it is about certain pieces of music that makes them great art. A listener needs to know or understand absolutely none of that to love this music. That knowledge and understanding is only needed if one wants to begin to understand the the specific rules and ultimately the broad aesthetic principles underlying them, all rather extensive and complex, behind the music.

In fact, if one wants to go beyond music theory into those broader aesthetic principles, one can read a book such as Walter Jackson Bate's From Classic to Romantic: Premises of Taste in 18th Century England. Bate was a literary and poetry critic and historian, known for his work on Keats.

All of that makes it clear how it is one person can think a piece of music is beautiful and another think it is ugly or worthless.


----------



## arpeggio

I do not have a problem with a person who wants to spend his life just listening to music that is as beautiful as a sunset.

But do not condemn those of us who like an occasional thunderstorm.


----------



## violadude

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Its a human construct? A human invention you mean?


No I meant human construct, a construct of the mind, being the result of our brains interaction with stimuli and our attempt to describe it from our point of view.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fbjim said:


> I'm not denying that for experienced listeners, seeing classical period composition styles is very possible, and I'm not even making a value judgment when saying that composers who composed via shared rules of tonality and taste would produce superficially similar work. It's not a value statement any more than if I said a lot of twelve-bar blues sounded similar to an inexperienced ear.


The same can be said about other kinds of music. I don't get your repeated accusations of this sort on a particular kind of music in other similar threads. If you don't much about Ravel's music, you won't be able to distinguish it from Debussy's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_Trio_in_A_major_(attributed_to_Brahms)



fbjim said:


> Do you really think a layman knows what 'dissonance in sequential passages' is?


I don't think he really needs to know what it is; he'll just "know" (or gradually come to know) what I mean by listening to the music. My father, who has absolutely zero knowledge in scales, intervals, chords, keys, etc, recognizes it. Maybe you could give me a counterexample to the example I've given? (ie. the composer of the stylistic element 1 writing in the stylistic element 2, or vice-versa?)



fluteman said:


> In his brilliant book The Classical Style, Charles Rosen first explains what he means by "The Classical Style".


Maybe the pianist is overrated as an author/critic/academic. Of course no one wanted/wants to take the trouble of going through lesser-known composers' works, and some academics make excuses when they could just have admitted "because I'm lazy in my research..".


----------



## EmperorOfIceCream

Either we're asking an empirical question, or we're talking about language. Most people are doing the latter without realizing it.


----------



## fbjim

hammeredklavier said:


> The same can be said about other kinds of music. I don't get your repeated accusations of this sort on a particular kind of music in other similar threads. If you don't much about Ravel's music, you won't be able to distinguish it from Debussy's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_Trio_in_A_major_(attributed_to_Brahms)


Of course you can say that. To some listeners, Bach sounds like Brahms because they have no affinity or experience with classical music. You are taking my statement that music composed to a specific set of cultural aesthetic conventions will sound superficially similar to be far more pejorative than it really is. It isn't intended to be pejorative at all.


----------



## fluteman

EmperorOfIceCream said:


> Either we're asking an empirical question, or we're talking about language. Most people are doing the latter without realizing it.


That's true. Wittgenstein used a term for music that has been translated as "language game".


----------



## eljr

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> no a dog cannot perceive the beauty in music. They do not posses the faculties to perceive it.


This is an interesting assertion.

What specifically is it they lack to perceive it?

or is it that there is none in music to perceive?


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> Yes. So long as I am being paraphrased, remember that I tried to be very evenhanded about this a few pages back. The idea is, The trouble comes when people try to invest ANY set of aesthetic values with some theoretical justification.


By looking at the scores, how do we recognize that a mature work by Brahms is better in every way than a very early piano work by Beethoven? just as an example that I'm thinking about.


----------



## Luchesi

eljr said:


> This is an interesting assertion.
> 
> What specifically is it they lack to perceive it?
> 
> or is it that there is none in music to perceive?


Their survival needs were different from ours.


----------



## Luchesi

eljr said:


> Well, it could well be that circumstance evolved that forestered this belief and it has been passed down. I submit, you can take someone wholly unfamiliar with classical music and ask them to name the 3 greatest composers of all time and Bach, Beethoven and Mozart will bellow from their vocal box.
> 
> If someone is told something over and over, they assume it's fact and repeat it. They repeat it because they then believe it to be fact.
> 
> Religion is an excellent example of this. It is not dissimilar at all.


Well, it's true that for any music analysis or criticism or evaluations to lead to logical conclusions the logic has to be understood.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> By looking at the scores, how do we recognize that a mature work by Brahms is better in every way than a very early piano work by Beethoven? just as an example that I'm thinking about.


That's the kind of question Rosen deals with in some detail. I recommend his books.


----------



## eljr

Luchesi said:


> Their survival needs were different from ours.


Specifically, how? And then, what neural pathways were not enabled that were in humans? And how does this negate them from appreciating the beauty in music?

Now mind you, there is no beauty in music, I simply pose the question to follow the logic that begat the post I quoted.


----------



## fluteman

eljr said:


> Specifically, how? And then, what neural pathways were not enabled that were in humans? And how does this negate them from appreciating the beauty in music?
> 
> Now mind you, there is no beauty in music, I simply pose the question to follow the logic that begat the post I quoted.


Heck, I'm in a quoting mood:

Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty. One person may even perceive deformity, where another is sensible of beauty; and every individual ought to acquiesce in his own sentiment, without pretending to regulate those of others. To seek in the real beauty, or real deformity, is as fruitless an enquiry, as to pretend to ascertain the real sweet or real bitter. According to the disposition of the organs, the same object may be both sweet and bitter; and the proverb has justly determined it to be fruitless to dispute concerning tastes. It is very natural, and even quite necessary to extend this axiom to mental, as well as bodily taste; and thus common sense, which is so often at variance with philosophy, especially with the skeptical kind, is found, in one instance at least, to agree in pronouncing the same decision.


----------



## eljr

fluteman said:


> Heck, I'm in a quoting mood:
> 
> Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty. One person may even perceive deformity, where another is sensible of beauty; and every individual ought to acquiesce in his own sentiment, without pretending to regulate those of others. To seek in the real beauty, or real deformity, is as fruitless an enquiry, as to pretend to ascertain the real sweet or real bitter. According to the disposition of the organs, the same object may be both sweet and bitter; and the proverb has justly determined it to be fruitless to dispute concerning tastes. It is very natural, and even quite necessary to extend this axiom to mental, as well as bodily taste; and thus common sense, which is so often at variance with philosophy, especially with the skeptical kind, is found, in one instance at least, to agree in pronouncing the same decision.


In fact, common sense may play a major role in the postulate advance by over 1/3 of our friends here. Common sense is sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception. The problem is, our perceptions, when measured, are often time very wrong.

What I see here are people who see the commonality of certain music to a response, pleasure. They then assign the cause as they perceive it. They are not wrong. The music does induce this response. But why? That is where they go astray.

Science has again come to our aid but some folks simply refuse science when it conflicts with their perception.


----------



## Luchesi

eljr said:


> Specifically, how? And then, what neural pathways were not enabled that were in humans? And how does this negate them from appreciating the beauty in music?
> 
> Now mind you, there is no beauty in music, I simply pose the question to follow the logic that begat the post I quoted.


I agree that beauty is a bad word to use unless you understand it in the context of symmetry, logic (resolutions from physics), humor (cleverness) and fulfilling anticipations and expectations - repetitions (pleasing us).

My wife who's an art therapist gets a little angry with me when I say that I don't see 'beauty' in a sunset, while I do see 'beauty' in plant community succession and planetary wave analysis.

What would a lower animal care about symmetry or logical sequences? What are their high-level expectations?


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> That's the kind of question Rosen deals with in some detail. I recommend his books.


Yes, I don't remember where (the stores I usually remember, because there weren't many that carried books like that) I first purchased it, but it was when it first came out. While reading it in my youth I said to myself I already knew "all that" he was talking about. I just didn't know his opinions about it all. But I did begin to agree with his opinions, so that was high praise from me in my know-it-all youth.

I still have the book around here somewhere, in one of the boxes of books (we've moved a few times). That's really a trip down memory lane to go through those boxes...


----------



## 59540

Art Rock said:


> Given that different people react differently to the same music, I would think it's obviously in the listeners brain.


On the other hand, a lot of different brains react in the same way.

As for the poll, I'd say both. There's no "proof" for either.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> Yes, I don't remember where (the stores I usually remember, because there weren't many that carried books like that) I first purchased it, but it was when it first came out. While reading it in my youth I said to myself I already knew "all that" he was talking about. I just didn't know his opinions about it all. But I did begin to agree with his opinions, so that was high praise from me in my know-it-all youth.
> 
> I still have the book around here somewhere, in one of the boxes of books (we've moved a few times). That's really a trip down memory lane to go through those boxes...


The key difference between Rosen and other writers on the subject is the length and care he goes to to describe and define "The Classical Style". This is important because a work of art does not exist and cannot be analyzed in isolation but rather in a cultural context.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

"Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?"
- Albus Dumbledore


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> In his brilliant book The Classical Style, Charles Rosen first explains what he means by "The Classical Style".





fluteman said:


> That's the kind of question Rosen deals with in some detail. I recommend his books.





fluteman said:


> The key difference between Rosen and other writers on the subject is the length and care he goes to to describe and define "The Classical Style".


I don't know why you and Tdc keep overrating the pianist. He did write a lot, but all his dissertations circle around those three composers only, due to his lack of knowledge. I also find that they lack substance in some cases due to his frequent expressions of unprofessionally subjective opinions. He didn't know about, for instance:

"Chopin continued to express, in both words and deeds, his admiration for Hummel. For example, on December 10, 1842, five years after Hummel's death, Chopin would proclaim that Hummel was one of the "masters we all recognize." It is noteworthy that the only other names on Chopin's list were Mozart and Beethoven. Chopin also showed his high regard by using so many of Hummel's works to teach his students, as his pupil Adolf Gutmann recalled: "Chopin held that Clementi's Gradus ad Parnassum, Bach's pianoforte fugues, and Hummel's compositions were the key to pianoforte-playing, and he considered a training in these composers a fit preparation for his own works. The two great pianists were also in complete agreement on many aspects of playing the keyboard. One was fingering, a matter of great importance to Chopin, who wrote in his own unfinished piano method "everything is a matter of knowing good fingering."

"William Mason, one of Liszt's American pupils, tells us in his book Touch and Technic (1889) that Liszt considered a "two-finger exercise" by Hummel to be the source of his technique. The exercise consisted of playing a scale with two fingers, alternating accented and unaccented notes and using an elastic touch by pulling the fingers in towards the palm. Liszt's high opinion of Hummel as an artist and as a man never diminished. It is evident in a letter he wrote to Weimar's Grand Duke Carl Alexander in 1860, reminding his employer that "he should be proud to create works that resemble [Hummel's]."

"Schubert must have been delighted to finally have personal contact with the composer of music he had known and admired for more than a decade. One of the works that Schubert knew quite well was Hummel's Septet in D minor, op. 74, his most popular chamber music composition. Schubert, in fact, used the quintet version of this work as the model for his famous Trout Quintet. The solo piano music that Schubert composed between 1816 and his death in 1828 also reveals the strong influence of Hummel's brilliant, virtuosic style of piano writing, culminating in the last three piano sonatas (D. 958-60). Schubert intended to dedicate these works to Hummel but died before they were published."

"the young Schumann, the aspiring virtuoso pianist studying with Friedrich Wieck in Leipzig in 1829, desperately wanted to become Hummel's student. Despite repeated attempts, he never realized this goal, but Hummel would remain Schumann's idol through-out his student years. He was also his role model, as we read in Schumann's letter to his mother of 15 May 1831: "I can have only four goals: Kapellmeister, music teacher, virtuoso and composer. With Hummel, for example, all of these are combined." Schumann's diary also tells us that he practiced Hummel's Clavierschule with a devotion bordering on obsession, once even writing that he planned to play all the exercises in succession. He maintained a lasting admiration for a select group of Hummel's works, such as the piano concertos in A minor and B minor, the Septet in D minor, op. 74, and the Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor, op. 81. The F-sharp minor sonata had a particularly significant impact on Schumann's early piano compositions, as can be seen by the striking similarity of the examples below (Fig. 1). Schumann acknowledged his admiration for Hummel's F-sharp minor sonata in his Neue Zeitschrift für Musik of April 26, 1839, predicting, "this sonata will alone immortalize his name.""

"Schubert, Schumann, Liszt, and Chopin - these emblematic symbols of the Romantic era are indeed indebted to Hummel. The same can be said for many other 19th-century composers, including César Franck, who graduated as a prize-winning pianist from the Paris Conservatoire by playing Hummel's music. Some critics have even found similarities between Hummel's F-sharp minor sonata and the Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor, op. 2, of Brahms. Hummel the Classicist, Hummel the Romantic - both descriptions are correct. His life spanned two eras, and so did his music."

-excerpts from "Hummel and the Romantics" by Mark Kroll


----------



## parlando

I think we’re trying to outdo Plato, bless his dopey little heart. If there were to be an Ideal Chair, it would have to have three or four or more legs, perhaps wheels, maybe be a recliner with leg extensions, and, to include rocking chairs, also have a pair of parallel rockers on, at a minimum, two sets of legs facing the proper way, or be an infant’s high chair—in other words, be quite useless: a monstrosity. 

But I digress. There must be different modes of Ideal Beauty for each sense. Pulchritude or a sunset for visual, My Sin perfume or coffee for olefaction, the Queen of Night or certain Debussy chords (from Wagner, ha) or Strauss (from Debussy), etc etc etc. Somethings for touch; somethings for taste. It’s hopeless. Surrender Dorothy immediately; Musical Beauty is in each person’s mind at any given time. Many individuals might agree, others won’t. Plato, you old fraud, tell us yourself!


----------



## DaveM

^^^ I don’t tend to read long quotes in teeny-tiny print, but those excerpts about Hummel were fascinating. I gobbled up Hummel’s piano concertos years ago. A couple were on Vox records in the 70s.


----------



## 59540

DaveM said:


> ^^^ I don't tend to read long quotes in teeny-tiny print, but those excerpts about Hummel were fascinating. I gobbled up Hummel's piano concertos years ago. A couple were on Vox records in the 70s.


When I first heard the Hummel concertos I was surprised at how much obvious influence they had on Chopin.


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> On the other hand, a lot of different brains react in the same way.
> 
> As for the poll, I'd say both. There's no "proof" for either.


I offered a link earlier in the thread that leads to the available science on this. Although a complete micro understanding is far from evidenced, it is clear in macro that the answer to the poll question is established.


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> I offered a link earlier in the thread that leads to the available science on this. Although a complete micro understanding is far from evidenced, it is clear in macro that the answer to the poll question is established.


That's fine. Let a hundred flowers bloom etc etc


----------



## tdc

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't know why you and Tdc keep overrating the pianist. He did write a lot, but all his dissertations circle around those three composers only, due to his lack of knowledge. I also find that they lack substance in some cases due to his frequent expressions of unprofessionally subjective opinions. He didn't know about, for instance:
> 
> "Chopin continued to express, in both words and deeds, his admiration for Hummel. For example, on December 10, 1842, five years after Hummel's death, Chopin would proclaim that Hummel was one of the "masters we all recognize." It is noteworthy that the only other names on Chopin's list were Mozart and Beethoven. Chopin also showed his high regard by using so many of Hummel's works to teach his students, as his pupil Adolf Gutmann recalled: "Chopin held that Clementi's Gradus ad Parnassum, Bach's pianoforte fugues, and Hummel's compositions were the key to pianoforte-playing, and he considered a training in these composers a fit preparation for his own works. The two great pianists were also in complete agreement on many aspects of playing the keyboard. One was fingering, a matter of great importance to Chopin, who wrote in his own unfinished piano method "everything is a matter of knowing good fingering."
> 
> "William Mason, one of Liszt's American pupils, tells us in his book Touch and Technic (1889) that Liszt considered a "two-finger exercise" by Hummel to be the source of his technique. The exercise consisted of playing a scale with two fingers, alternating accented and unaccented notes and using an elastic touch by pulling the fingers in towards the palm. Liszt's high opinion of Hummel as an artist and as a man never diminished. It is evident in a letter he wrote to Weimar's Grand Duke Carl Alexander in 1860, reminding his employer that "he should be proud to create works that resemble [Hummel's]."
> 
> "Schubert must have been delighted to finally have personal contact with the composer of music he had known and admired for more than a decade. One of the works that Schubert knew quite well was Hummel's Septet in D minor, op. 74, his most popular chamber music composition. Schubert, in fact, used the quintet version of this work as the model for his famous Trout Quintet. The solo piano music that Schubert composed between 1816 and his death in 1828 also reveals the strong influence of Hummel's brilliant, virtuosic style of piano writing, culminating in the last three piano sonatas (D. 958-60). Schubert intended to dedicate these works to Hummel but died before they were published."
> 
> "the young Schumann, the aspiring virtuoso pianist studying with Friedrich Wieck in Leipzig in 1829, desperately wanted to become Hummel's student. Despite repeated attempts, he never realized this goal, but Hummel would remain Schumann's idol through-out his student years. He was also his role model, as we read in Schumann's letter to his mother of 15 May 1831: "I can have only four goals: Kapellmeister, music teacher, virtuoso and composer. With Hummel, for example, all of these are combined." Schumann's diary also tells us that he practiced Hummel's Clavierschule with a devotion bordering on obsession, once even writing that he planned to play all the exercises in succession. He maintained a lasting admiration for a select group of Hummel's works, such as the piano concertos in A minor and B minor, the Septet in D minor, op. 74, and the Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor, op. 81. The F-sharp minor sonata had a particularly significant impact on Schumann's early piano compositions, as can be seen by the striking similarity of the examples below (Fig. 1). Schumann acknowledged his admiration for Hummel's F-sharp minor sonata in his Neue Zeitschrift für Musik of April 26, 1839, predicting, "this sonata will alone immortalize his name.""
> 
> "Schubert, Schumann, Liszt, and Chopin - these emblematic symbols of the Romantic era are indeed indebted to Hummel. The same can be said for many other 19th-century composers, including César Franck, who graduated as a prize-winning pianist from the Paris Conservatoire by playing Hummel's music. Some critics have even found similarities between Hummel's F-sharp minor sonata and the Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor, op. 2, of Brahms. Hummel the Classicist, Hummel the Romantic - both descriptions are correct. His life spanned two eras, and so did his music."
> 
> -excerpts from "Hummel and the Romantics" by Mark Kroll


He focuses mostly on those three composers yes, but he was aware of others too. He touches on the works of a lot of different composers. What makes you think Rosen was not aware of any of this?


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> That's fine. Let a hundred flowers bloom etc etc


I suppose you are right, if people want to romance and ruminate on the subjective, who am I to stick a pin in their balloon. :tiphat:


----------



## 59540

Woodduck said:


> What do people mean, then, when they say they've learned to hear the beauty in Indian music? Is it simply a matter of getting used to something strange, or do they actually learn to perceive qualities of imagination, form and expression they couldn't hear at first?


We're told to do that with modern western music as well that might at first seem "ugly" to us. Give it a chance and see if it's the listener who's sort of at fault. And actually I've found that to be true in some cases.


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> We're told to do that with modern western music as well that might at first seem "ugly" to us. Give it a chance and see if it's the listener who's sort of at fault. And actually I've found that to be true in some cases.


It is true. Repetition bring familiarity. This brings measurable increases of enjoyment.


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> It is true. Repetition bring familiarity. This brings measurable increases of enjoyment.


Well there are some things though that I don't see myself appreciating even if I listen a thousand times. On the other hand there are other things that I grow tired of after a thousand listens.


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> Well there are some things though that I don't see myself appreciating even if I listen a thousand times. On the other hand there are other things that I grow tired of after a thousand listens.


This is normal and does not contradict with familiarity enhancing enjoyment.

There are things I listened to insistently as a youth that I'd prefer to walk through fire to listening to even one more time.

Stay away from absolutes. One truth does not negate another.


----------



## tdc

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't know why you and Tdc keep overrating the pianist. He did write a lot, but all his dissertations circle around those three composers only, due to his lack of knowledge. I also find that they lack substance in some cases due to his frequent expressions of unprofessionally subjective opinions. He didn't know about, for instance:


Glance at the index of _The Classical Style_ it includes 14 pages of references to Hummel. Just a quick look at the first reference I found and it discusses the Chopin/Hummel fingering. In the book Rosen refers to Hummel as a composer who like Weber, was essentially working in a "post classical style". This is one of the reasons he is not a central subject in that book.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> The key difference between Rosen and other writers on the subject is the length and care he goes to to describe and define "The Classical Style". This is important because a work of art does not exist and cannot be analyzed in isolation but rather in a cultural context.


Musical analysis in a cultural context?


----------



## Luchesi

parlando said:


> I think we're trying to outdo Plato, bless his dopey little heart. If there were to be an Ideal Chair, it would have to have three or four or more legs, perhaps wheels, maybe be a recliner with leg extensions, and, to include rocking chairs, also have a pair of parallel rockers on, at a minimum, two sets of legs facing the proper way, or be an infant's high chair-in other words, be quite useless: a monstrosity.
> 
> But I digress. There must be different modes of Ideal Beauty for each sense. Pulchritude or a sunset for visual, My Sin perfume or coffee for olefaction, the Queen of Night or certain Debussy chords (from Wagner, ha) or Strauss (from Debussy), etc etc etc. Somethings for touch; somethings for taste. It's hopeless. Surrender Dorothy immediately; Musical Beauty is in each person's mind at any given time. Many individuals might agree, others won't. Plato, you old fraud, tell us yourself!


Can musical beauty also be in a score or do I delude myself because I want to see beauty there?


----------



## Kreisler jr

eljr said:


> May I suggest a course in neuroscience of the mind would add to your edification on the matter. It would help you see the farcical nature of most entries in this thread.


I'll grant you a perfect brain scan machine. After calibration you can tell by looking at the scan that a person is seeing a cow, thinking of a cow etc. 
This might tell you some or a lot of interesting stuff about the brain, but it tells you *next to nothing about cows, least of all that cows are not real or "really are in the brain".* Now replace cow with brown, then replace brown with beautiful, and your great machine can do the same thing as before with cow. 
Again it tells you something about brain structure but not if there "really" are brown things or beautiful things. Or what exactly do we learn from this about brown or beautiful?

I don't think we learn anything new about cow, brown, beautiful we didn't know before the brain scans or any difference or distinction between them we could have made before. (Or if we did learn something new, please tell me what.)
Even if there were surprising differences revealed in how the brain lights up or interconnects its parts between cow, brown and beautiful respectively, *all of this would only be information about information processing in the brain*.

Which experimental result of the perfect brain scanner could show that cow (or bovinity) refers to a real thing (or property) but beautiful does not? And why would it support or clinch such a distinction?

If I want to learn about cows, I am asking a zoologist or veterinarian, not a neuroscientist.
I think you are simply presupposing the difference between cow and beautiful that has nothing or very little to with neuroscience.


----------



## Kreisler jr

fluteman said:


> That's true. Wittgenstein used a term for music that has been translated as "language game".


Wittgenstein's point is that EVERY human field of knowledge, concious or cognitive behavior is a language game or is based on language games (Sprachspiele). There is absolutely no priority to be gained between "objective physics" and "subjective music appreciation" by invoking this idea of Wittgenstein. Quite the contrary.
(Wittgenstein's approach is more or less the polar opposite to the reductive physicalism or neuroscientism as basis for everything popular in this discussion here.)
Because *both* physics and music appreciation are "only" language games, they are incommensurable (have different rules, like basketball and soccer have) and neither is clearly more fundamental or objective than the other (or in any case if there are such differences, they are far from obvious and would take a lot of work to argue for and never will in this view physics be more than a particular pervasive game).
If we wanted to be Wittgensteinian we would have to ban all references to physics, neuroscience, even general philosophy from this discussion as irrelevant as hockey sticks in a basketball court and stick with the "game" of aesthetics and music appreciation.


----------



## Kreisler jr

While I think the Wittgensteinian approach can tend to block some interesting inquiries in some ways, I think it is pretty helpful in a field like aesthetics. As I tried to say further above, I don't think the ontological questions about the "true nature" of evaluative properties (or their elimination from the furniture of the world) while interesting in themselves, are all that important for more specific discussions on art and music. Therefore it can be advantageous to bracket them and just presuppose for the language games of aesthetics, musical analysis, history and appreciation that works of music and art have beauty and can be discussed "as if" they were real properties, regardless of a deeper theory defending or reducing these properties. Because this is actually how almost everyone playing, criticizing, listening to music does in fact behave most of the time.

Like when discussing particular soccer matches or players one is not all the time entering arguments that the rules might as well have been quite different (such as Rugby's) or that high level soccer presupposes a society that can afford professional athletes or debate the drainage of lawns or the architecture of soccer stadiums or all the myriad of conditions necessary for professional soccer. They are just not that interesting for the topic of actual soccer playing. If occasionally rules are discussed, it is very specific ones within the context of the whole of the game and its rules.


----------



## 59540

Kreisler jr said:


> ... *all of this would only be information about information processing in the brain*.
> 
> Which experimental result of the perfect brain scanner could show that cow (or bovinity) refers to a real thing (or property) but beautiful does not? And why would it support or clinch such a distinction?
> 
> If I want to learn about cows, I am asking a zoologist or veterinarian, not a neuroscientist.
> I think you are simply presupposing the difference between cow and beautiful that has nothing or very little to with neuroscience.


The cow is material, and "beauty" is abstract. I think eljr's position (and sorry if I'm wrong, eljr) is that ultimately everything is material or at least has an explanation based in and emanating from the material. Nothing is "real" but that which can be scientifically examined or explained. The "mysterious" is merely that for which science will one day have a full explanation. I would disagree with that view. To me, mathematical equations have a "beauty" as well. Are mathematical principles totally the products of our brains, or are they "external" principles that our brains have discovered? Would mathematics still exist even if humanity were wiped out? I know that's like a "tree falling in the forest making a sound" thing. The thing is, neuroscience at this point still hasn't scratched the surface with regards to memory, emotion, conceptualizing the future and a host of other things...much less provide settled answers.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't know why you and Tdc keep overrating the pianist. He did write a lot, but all his dissertations circle around those three composers only, due to his lack of knowledge. I also find that they lack substance in some cases due to his frequent expressions of unprofessionally subjective opinions. He didn't know about, for instance:
> 
> "Chopin continued to express, in both words and deeds, his admiration for Hummel. For example, on December 10, 1842, five years after Hummel's death, Chopin would proclaim that Hummel was one of the "masters we all recognize." It is noteworthy that the only other names on Chopin's list were Mozart and Beethoven. Chopin also showed his high regard by using so many of Hummel's works to teach his students, as his pupil Adolf Gutmann recalled: "Chopin held that Clementi's Gradus ad Parnassum, Bach's pianoforte fugues, and Hummel's compositions were the key to pianoforte-playing, and he considered a training in these composers a fit preparation for his own works. The two great pianists were also in complete agreement on many aspects of playing the keyboard. One was fingering, a matter of great importance to Chopin, who wrote in his own unfinished piano method "everything is a matter of knowing good fingering."
> 
> "William Mason, one of Liszt's American pupils, tells us in his book Touch and Technic (1889) that Liszt considered a "two-finger exercise" by Hummel to be the source of his technique. The exercise consisted of playing a scale with two fingers, alternating accented and unaccented notes and using an elastic touch by pulling the fingers in towards the palm. Liszt's high opinion of Hummel as an artist and as a man never diminished. It is evident in a letter he wrote to Weimar's Grand Duke Carl Alexander in 1860, reminding his employer that "he should be proud to create works that resemble [Hummel's]."
> 
> "Schubert must have been delighted to finally have personal contact with the composer of music he had known and admired for more than a decade. One of the works that Schubert knew quite well was Hummel's Septet in D minor, op. 74, his most popular chamber music composition. Schubert, in fact, used the quintet version of this work as the model for his famous Trout Quintet. The solo piano music that Schubert composed between 1816 and his death in 1828 also reveals the strong influence of Hummel's brilliant, virtuosic style of piano writing, culminating in the last three piano sonatas (D. 958-60). Schubert intended to dedicate these works to Hummel but died before they were published."
> 
> "the young Schumann, the aspiring virtuoso pianist studying with Friedrich Wieck in Leipzig in 1829, desperately wanted to become Hummel's student. Despite repeated attempts, he never realized this goal, but Hummel would remain Schumann's idol through-out his student years. He was also his role model, as we read in Schumann's letter to his mother of 15 May 1831: "I can have only four goals: Kapellmeister, music teacher, virtuoso and composer. With Hummel, for example, all of these are combined." Schumann's diary also tells us that he practiced Hummel's Clavierschule with a devotion bordering on obsession, once even writing that he planned to play all the exercises in succession. He maintained a lasting admiration for a select group of Hummel's works, such as the piano concertos in A minor and B minor, the Septet in D minor, op. 74, and the Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor, op. 81. The F-sharp minor sonata had a particularly significant impact on Schumann's early piano compositions, as can be seen by the striking similarity of the examples below (Fig. 1). Schumann acknowledged his admiration for Hummel's F-sharp minor sonata in his Neue Zeitschrift für Musik of April 26, 1839, predicting, "this sonata will alone immortalize his name.""
> 
> "Schubert, Schumann, Liszt, and Chopin - these emblematic symbols of the Romantic era are indeed indebted to Hummel. The same can be said for many other 19th-century composers, including César Franck, who graduated as a prize-winning pianist from the Paris Conservatoire by playing Hummel's music. Some critics have even found similarities between Hummel's F-sharp minor sonata and the Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor, op. 2, of Brahms. Hummel the Classicist, Hummel the Romantic - both descriptions are correct. His life spanned two eras, and so did his music."
> 
> -excerpts from "Hummel and the Romantics" by Mark Kroll


When I read that I thought those guys admired and looked to Hummel because he was like Mozart, with updates. LvB was still too harsh and challenging. They didn't have our perspective. I enjoy Hummel, it's not that I dismiss his achievements, but they're more predictable than any of these admirers. And that was good for their times. LvB changed so much!


----------



## Luchesi

Kreisler jr said:


> I'll grant you a perfect brain scan machine. After calibration you can tell by looking at the scan that a person is seeing a cow, thinking of a cow etc.
> This might tell you some or a lot of interesting stuff about the brain, but it tells you *next to nothing about cows, least of all that cows are not real or "really are in the brain".* Now replace cow with brown, then replace brown with beautiful, and your great machine can do the same thing as before with cow.
> Again it tells you something about brain structure but not if there "really" are brown things or beautiful things. Or what exactly do we learn from this about brown or beautiful?
> 
> I don't think we learn anything new about cow, brown, beautiful we didn't know before the brain scans or any difference or distinction between them we could have made before. (Or if we did learn something new, please tell me what.)
> Even if there were surprising differences revealed in how the brain lights up or interconnects its parts between cow, brown and beautiful respectively, *all of this would only be information about information processing in the brain*.
> 
> Which experimental result of the perfect brain scanner could show that cow (or bovinity) refers to a real thing (or property) but beautiful does not? And why would it support or clinch such a distinction?
> 
> If I want to learn about cows, I am asking a zoologist or veterinarian, not a neuroscientist.
> I think you are simply presupposing the difference between cow and beautiful that has nothing or very little to with neuroscience.


I think that beauty surprises our brain (electro-chemical) and then our memories come into the mix and into play. And then we quickly feel this inspiration and comfort and ego support and comparisons. It all comes from our natural history of survival - from what we've learned from evolutionary psychology.


----------



## eljr

Kreisler jr said:


> I'll grant you a perfect brain scan machine. After calibration you can tell by looking at the scan that a person is seeing a cow, thinking of a cow etc.
> This might tell you some or a lot of interesting stuff about the brain, but it tells you *next to nothing about cows, least of all that cows are not real or "really are in the brain".* Now replace cow with brown, then replace brown with beautiful, and your great machine can do the same thing as before with cow.
> Again it tells you something about brain structure but not if there "really" are brown things or beautiful things. Or what exactly do we learn from this about brown or beautiful?
> 
> I don't think we learn anything new about cow, brown, beautiful we didn't know before the brain scans or any difference or distinction between them we could have made before. (Or if we did learn something new, please tell me what.)
> Even if there were surprising differences revealed in how the brain lights up or interconnects its parts between cow, brown and beautiful respectively, *all of this would only be information about information processing in the brain*.
> 
> Which experimental result of the perfect brain scanner could show that cow (or bovinity) refers to a real thing (or property) but beautiful does not? And why would it support or clinch such a distinction?


Honest, I am not really in the mood to untangle all this. You are correct in some ways.

I know I posted this recently, not sure if it was in this thread or on another site. You cannot do a PET scan and see a tiny cow in a person's brain. You are correct.

You can however see consistent responses to stimuli in regards to music.

This is established fact.



> If I want to learn about cows, I am asking a zoologist or veterinarian, not a neuroscientist.


Depends what you want to know of the cow.



> I think you are simply presupposing the difference between cow and beautiful that has nothing or very little to with neuroscience.


Although it is a heavy lift, I have offered corroboration for my statements if you choose to invest the time.

Long ago I coined a phrase that is often quoted, I think it applies here. You may have an opinion in the absence of fact, not in conflict with it.

Peace


----------



## eljr

Kreisler jr said:


> Wittgenstein's point is that EVERY human field of knowledge, concious or cognitive behavior is a language game or is based on language games (Sprachspiele). There is absolutely no priority to be gained between "objective physics" and "subjective music appreciation" by invoking this idea of Wittgenstein. Quite the contrary.
> (Wittgenstein's approach is more or less the polar opposite to the reductive physicalism or neuroscientism as basis for everything popular in this discussion here.)
> Because *both* physics and music appreciation are "only" language games, they are incommensurable (have different rules, like basketball and soccer have) and neither is clearly more fundamental or objective than the other (or in any case if there are such differences, they are far from obvious and would take a lot of work to argue for and never will in this view physics be more than a particular pervasive game).
> If we wanted to be Wittgensteinian we would have to ban all references to physics, neuroscience, even general philosophy from this discussion as irrelevant as hockey sticks in a basketball court and stick with the "game" of aesthetics and music appreciation.


You seem to be a fan of the philosopher Wittgenstein.

I do find this interesting as he was somewhat famious for believing that his ideas were generally misunderstood, distorted. He also held little hope that he would be better understood in the future.

Paralleling your analogy on an earlier post, if you want to know what the science is on a subject you ask a scientist, not a philosopher. Especially one who claimed he is not understood, no?


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> Musical analysis in a cultural context?


It isn't possible otherwise. "To describe a set of aesthetic rules fully means really to describe the culture of a period." Cultural context underlies all aesthetic analysis.


----------



## DaveM

IMO, the Hummel Piano Concerto #3 op89 marked his transition from the classical style into a more romantic. This was the first concerto I ever heard of his long ago. The Larghetto is remarkable:


----------



## Captainnumber36

I'd say the music itself has objective qualities such as the theory that is behind any given piece and this portion exists within the music. However, how we make sense of it is subjective and exists in each man's mind.


----------



## Luchesi

Kreisler jr said:


> Wittgenstein's point is that EVERY human field of knowledge, concious or cognitive behavior is a language game or is based on language games (Sprachspiele). There is absolutely no priority to be gained between "objective physics" and "subjective music appreciation" by invoking this idea of Wittgenstein. Quite the contrary.
> (Wittgenstein's approach is more or less the polar opposite to the reductive physicalism or neuroscientism as basis for everything popular in this discussion here.)
> Because *both* physics and music appreciation are "only" language games, they are incommensurable (have different rules, like basketball and soccer have) and neither is clearly more fundamental or objective than the other (or in any case if there are such differences, they are far from obvious and would take a lot of work to argue for and never will in this view physics be more than a particular pervasive game).
> If we wanted to be Wittgensteinian we would have to ban all references to physics, neuroscience, even general philosophy from this discussion as irrelevant as hockey sticks in a basketball court and stick with the "game" of aesthetics and music appreciation.


Yes, everything is language (code). We're language beings. This is that - this is not that. It pumps up our confidence, for good and bad.


----------



## Luchesi

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'd say the music itself has objective qualities such as the theory that is behind any given piece and this portion exists within the music. However, how we make sense of it is subjective and exists in each man's mind.


Yes, I think we admire the objective facts that come from music theory, without thinking about it when we're listening.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> It isn't possible otherwise. "To describe a set of aesthetic rules fully means really to describe the culture of a period." Cultural context underlies all aesthetic analysis.


You think about the culture when you analyze a score? I don't think we're talking about the same thing.


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> The cow is material, and "beauty" is abstract. I think eljr's position (and sorry if I'm wrong, eljr) is that ultimately everything is material or at least has an explanation based in and emanating from the material. Nothing is "real" but that which can be scientifically examined or explained. The "mysterious" is merely that for which science will one day have a full explanation. I would disagree with that view. To me, mathematical equations have a "beauty" as well. Are mathematical principles totally the products of our brains, or are they "external" principles that our brains have discovered? Would mathematics still exist even if humanity were wiped out? I know that's like a "tree falling in the forest making a sound" thing. The thing is, neuroscience at this point still hasn't scratched the surface with regards to memory, emotion, conceptualizing the future and a host of other things...much less provide settled answers.


Yes, in macro you understand my submissions. 
I would not say however that beauty was abstract and the cow material. I would say they are the same, both are physical.

One enters our world through eyes, one through ears.

It is our perception of their physical manifestations that makes either, neither or both beautiful.

Neither is or isn't beautiful. Beauty is simply a description of a pleasurable response to physical properties. BTW, it is a description of a physical response within us, within our brain. This is why we able to see these reactions on PET scans.

Think of it as a chemical reaction. Physical properties (sound waves of music, light reflections of the cow) creating new physical properties (what sometimes we call beauty) through interaction.

BTW, I enjoy your posts, both here and especially in the various music appreciation threads. :tiphat:

Can mathematical equations be beautiful? Of course. If your consumption of them results in a pleasurable response.

And please, let's not forget, once the stimuli enters us, the math equation, the cow, the music, it mixes with all kinds of other chemicals (to keep it simple, it is far more complex)

As we all have different chemicals in our lab (our brain) we don't all have the same perceptions. As we do have many of the same basic chemicals in our labs, we often do have the same perceptions.

No philosophy is needed. Better evaluation tools in science are needed.

Indeed, "neuroscience at this point still hasn't scratched the surface." Talk about a science in it's infancy, this is certainly among the leaders.


----------



## eljr

Luchesi said:


> I think that beauty surprises our brain (electro-chemical) and then our memories come into the mix and into play. And then we quickly feel this inspiration and comfort and ego support and comparisons. It all comes from our natural history of survival - from what we've learned from evolutionary psychology.


good post

..............


----------



## fluteman

Kreisler jr said:


> While I think the Wittgensteinian approach can tend to block some interesting inquiries in some ways, I think it is pretty helpful in a field like aesthetics.


More than being "pretty helpful", Wittgenstein definitively answers the question of this thread, based on concepts first explicitly identified (as far as I know) by Hume and Kant. And unlike some here, he has a keen understanding of the distinction between philosophy and science, seeing that aesthetic "rules" are malleable cultural concepts and not ironclad, universal scientific principles.

This doesn't mean that how humans think isn't ultimately a matter of neuroscience. It means that as how human cultures are built up, evolve and eventually decay involve a long history of external factors acting on the human mind, many of which are essentially random, accidental or arbitrary, there is no way to fully reduce a cultural tradition like art to a set of principles more fundamental than those of its cultural context, and that is inevitably in significant part random, accidental, arbitrary and unique to a time and place.

That is why Wittgenstein warns against applying scientific principles to philosophy. I suspect he would accept cultural anthropology or sociology as valid approaches, though. Note that he observes:

"In describing musical taste you have to describe whether children give concerts, whether women do or whether men only give them, etc., etc. In aristocratic circles in Vienna people had [such and such] a taste, then it came into bourgeois circles, and women joined choirs, etc. That is an example of tradition in music."

That is not to deny that our faculties of perception ultimately depend on the principles of neuroscience.


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> Yes, in macro you understand my submissions.
> I would not say however that beauty was abstract and the cow material. I would say they are the same, both are physical.
> 
> One enters our world through eyes, one through ears.


Beauty is abstract though, otherwise we wouldn't have different perceptions of it. Someone may perceive a cow to be a horse, but that doesn't make a cow a horse.


----------



## Luchesi

Kreisler jr said:


> While I think the Wittgensteinian approach can tend to block some interesting inquiries in some ways, I think it is pretty helpful in a field like aesthetics. As I tried to say further above, I don't think the ontological questions about the "true nature" of evaluative properties (or their elimination from the furniture of the world) while interesting in themselves, are all that important for more specific discussions on art and music. Therefore it can be advantageous to bracket them and just presuppose for the language games of aesthetics, musical analysis, history and appreciation that works of music and art have beauty and can be discussed "as if" they were real properties, regardless of a deeper theory defending or reducing these properties. Because this is actually how almost everyone playing, criticizing, listening to music does in fact behave most of the time.
> 
> Like when discussing particular soccer matches or players one is not all the time entering arguments that the rules might as well have been quite different (such as Rugby's) or that high level soccer presupposes a society that can afford professional athletes or debate the drainage of lawns or the architecture of soccer stadiums or all the myriad of conditions necessary for professional soccer. They are just not that interesting for the topic of actual soccer playing. If occasionally rules are discussed, it is very specific ones within the context of the whole of the game and its rules.


Music theory is very interesting to me and I understand that other people don't care about it. My piano students ask me will music theory sour me to the mysterious joy of music? - and I have to say it might sour you, but then later you will be glad that you have the foundation (for further enjoyment).


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> Beauty is abstract though, otherwise we wouldn't have different perceptions of it. Someone may perceive a cow to be a horse, but that doesn't make a cow a horse.


No, we all hear the same notes. We all see the same light reflections of the cow.

We don't all have the same perception of a cow anymore than we do music.

You are confusing the universality of our perceptions, with the "processed" product. (how we individually mix those incoming signals with the chemicals we have in our lab)


----------



## Captainnumber36

Luchesi said:


> Yes, I think we admire the objective facts that come from music theory, without thinking about it when we're listening.


Unless one is making an attempt to listen for the theory behind the music, of course.


----------



## Luchesi

Captainnumber36 said:


> Unless one is making an attempt to listen for the theory behind the music, of course.


Yes, and I might be wrong about how much my culture has to do with my appreciation of how the physics results in the great achievements in music. It seems to be a deep subject to me - and I guess I'm just too much of a practical person, working in science as I do. And furthermore do I want to come to the sad realization that everything like this in life is subjective... 
I am reminded that science is only the current, best explanations - and anyone with better explanations is welcome to construct a theory, (but I think it must be a better explanation in accordance with everything we've discovered with the scientific method).


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> That is not to deny that our faculties of perception ultimately depend on the principles of neuroscience.


I'm not sure how many _are _rejecting the principles of neuroscience...I'm not, though I think I was misunderstood as believing in magic (though I can't for the life of me think what I said to mislead in this way).

Perhaps we should have a poll? :devil:

(No. No. No!)


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> No, we all hear the same notes. We all see the same light reflections of the cow.
> 
> We don't all have the same perception of a cow anymore than we do music.
> 
> You are confusing the universality of our perceptions, with the "processed" product. (how we individually mix those incoming signals with the chemicals we have in our lab)


Yes we do. Anyone in his/her right mind sees a cow as a cow. A cow is a material object. "Beauty" on the other hand depends on individual perception.


----------



## Luchesi

dissident said:


> Yes we do. Anyone in his/her right mind sees a cow as a cow. A cow is a material object. "Beauty" on the other hand depends on individual perception.


Is it a beautiful cow? Well, that depends upon your knowledge and experience and life path - what you want the appreciation for (music appreciation in this case and how it edifies us throughout the decades of our maturing).


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> I'm not sure how many _are _rejecting the principles of neuroscience...


26 and counting? :lol:


----------



## 59540

^ Really? What are the "principles of neuroscience"? It's hardly comprehensive at this point. The list of what neuroscience can't tell us is a lot longer than the list of things it can. Neuroscience can't even pin down what "consciousness" is, so I really don't see it as an all-inclusive guide to reality.


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> 26 and counting? :lol:


Not according to the comments posters have left, but as we already know, the poll has been quite loosely interpreted and responded to. This was never about the science, IMO, though some wanted to make it so.


----------



## SanAntone

eljr said:


> No, we all hear the same notes. We all see the same light reflections of the cow.
> 
> We don't all have the same perception of a cow anymore than we do music.
> 
> You are confusing the universality of our perceptions, with the "processed" product. (how we individually mix those incoming signals with the chemicals we have in our lab)


You are presenting a 100% nature argument, and I see it as balancing much more towards nurture. I doubt the brains of Africans are different chemically from those in England, e.g. - but they perceive beauty in music differently than the British do.


----------



## Luchesi

dissident said:


> ^ Really? What are the "principles of neuroscience"? It's hardly comprehensive at this point. The list of what neuroscience can't tell us is a lot longer than the list of things it can. Neuroscience can't even pin down what "consciousness" is, so I really don't see it as an all-inclusive guide to reality.


But it tells us reliable things with repeatable evidence. Not philosophy nor opinions from long traditions nor guesswork.


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> Not according to the comments posters have left, but as we already know, the poll has been quite loosely interpreted and responded to. This was never about the science, IMO, though some wanted to make it so.


Another famous quote: "You might think Aesthetics is a science telling us what's beautiful -- almost too ridiculous for words. I suppose it ought to include also what sort of coffee tastes well." Of course, this doesn't mean that the flavor of coffee or the aesthetics of music can't usefully be observed or analyzed from a scientific standpoint. It means that neither can ever fully be reduced to a set of absolute, universal, certain principles and rules.

The word "science" is used here in the same sense as when, after one has figured out exactly when to drive to the field pick up one's child from soccer practice, exactly where to park, even the brand of cold orange soda to have waiting for him/her in the car, one might say, "I have this reduced to a science!" [Example adapted from actual personal history.]


----------



## 59540

Luchesi said:


> But it tells us reliable things with repeatable evidence. Not philosophy nor opinions from long traditions nor guesswork.


It tells us what it can, in other words. Are you saying that philosophy is useless?


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> Yes we do. Anyone in his/her right mind sees a cow as a cow. A cow is a material object. "Beauty" on the other hand depends on individual perception.


No, no, no, no, lol

At the risk of being repetitious, information comes to us though our senses. Our minds then decodes what it is that has come in.

The object, cow or music, is universal in how it comes in to use. Our minds then decide of it contains beauty or not. A cow can be received as beautiful. So can music. Your ponderance should be on what makes something beautiful or not beautiful to us and why is our perception unique yet often similar to others?


----------



## Luchesi

dissident said:


> It tells us what it can, in other words. Are you saying that philosophy is useless?


 It's not 'useless' if young people have the time to learn and store it away in their modern minds. I'm biased. I dislike developments which have hindered progress such as old science (Aristotle's guesses and Newton's absolutes) and old philosophies.


----------



## 59540

Luchesi said:


> It's not 'useless' if young people have the time to learn and store it away in their modern minds. I'm biased. I dislike developments which have hindered progress such as old science (Aristotle's guesses and Newton's absolutes) and old philosophies.


Progress toward what, exactly?


----------



## eljr

fluteman said:


> 26 and counting? :lol:


Exactly. :lol:

I find this thread fascinating in regard to how people think.

Or what seems logical to some.

How determined they are in their provably wrong "opinions." This part I find frustrating as well as interesting.


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> Exactly. :lol:
> 
> I find this thread fascinating in regard to how people think.
> 
> Or what seems logical to some.
> 
> How determined they are in their provably wrong "opinions." This part I find frustrating as well as interesting.


Are you saying there's some sort of absolute logic?


----------



## Luchesi

dissident said:


> ^ Really? What are the "principles of neuroscience"? It's hardly comprehensive at this point. The list of what neuroscience can't tell us is a lot longer than the list of things it can. Neuroscience can't even pin down what "consciousness" is, so I really don't see it as an all-inclusive guide to reality.


Friends argue with me when I say there's no such thing as consciousness. It's always merely the combination of other efficient processes.


----------



## Luchesi

dissident said:


> Progress toward what, exactly?


The bland answer is, scientific progress for a better life.


----------



## 59540

Luchesi said:


> Friends argue with me when I say there's no such thing as consciousness. It's always merely the combination of other efficient processes.


But that's not saying it doesn't exist. That's like saying there's no such thing as a car, just an engine and tires and a metal body.


----------



## eljr

Forster said:


> Not according to the comments posters have left, but as we already know, the poll has been quite loosely interpreted and responded to. This was never about the science, IMO, though some wanted to make it so.


If it is not about the science, than it is not about fact, correct?

In that case, what is the point?

Why does this question feel philosophical to some?

I think maybe some people enjoy the romance of music and how it makes them feel and resent a cold clinical analysis???


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> If it is not about the science, than it is not about fact, correct?
> ...


Well I believe that inherent human rights and dignity are facts. But science can't prove it at all. Science can hypothesize and propose plausible explanations, but those aren't facts in the way that observable gravitational pull is a fact.


----------



## Luchesi

dissident said:


> But that's not saying it doesn't exist. That's like saying there's no such thing as a car, just an engine and tires and a metal body.


I like to avoid the guess that the 'car' still exists in a spiritual plane after it crumbles to rust.


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> Are you saying there's some sort of absolute logic?


Logic is "a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something."

So there are no absolutes.

That said, logic is often bastardized. We even have lists which show common mistakes of logic. Here is a long list of logical fallacies.


----------



## arpeggio

...........................
Deleted dumb post


----------



## Luchesi

dissident said:


> Well I believe that inherent human rights and dignity are facts. But science can't prove it at all. Science can hypothesize and propose plausible explanations, but those aren't facts in the way that observable gravitational pull is a fact.


We've all emerged on this planet the same way, according to the science view. Why wouldn't we all have the same inherent human rights and dignity?


----------



## 59540

Luchesi said:


> I like to avoid the guess that the 'car' still exists in a spiritual plane after it crumbles to rust.


But the car exists. If you can't understand its workings it's no use saying "it's not really there at all...it's just some components working together".


----------



## 59540

Luchesi said:


> We've all emerged on this planet the same way, according to the science view. Why wouldn't we all have the same inherent human rights and dignity?


So? Why would we?


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> I believe that inherent human rights and dignity are facts.


Can you expound on this, I do not know what this means.

Thanks


----------



## Luchesi

arpeggio said:


> This thread has become too esoteric for me


It really helps me to hear others viewpoints, and to think about mine.


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> Can you expound on this, I do not know what this means.
> 
> Thanks


It means what it says. Can you expound on the scientific proof for the validity of such a belief? We're dealing with cold hard fact here now.


----------



## Aries

"Where is the beauty in music?"

Isn't this a linguistical question? It says that it is in the music. So it is in the music.

But music can be in the brain, so it could be in both the music and the brain.

The longer I think about this, the more it seems like a really nonsensical question.

Beauty is a concept. Do concepts have locations? They can relate to things with locations like an instrument outside of the brain. And you can thing about concepts or perceive them inside of your brain.

Other questions are more interesting.


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> Logic is "a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something."
> 
> So there are no absolutes.
> 
> That said, logic is often bastardized. We even have lists which show common mistakes of logic. Here is a long list of logical fallacies.


So "proper and reasonable" would be absolute in some way. What's your standard for "proper and reasonable"?


----------



## Aries

Luchesi said:


> We've all emerged on this planet the same way, according to the science view. Why wouldn't we all have the same inherent human rights and dignity?


We all emerged on this planet the same way - nude. Like a mayfly. Why would we have any inherent rights and dignity?


----------



## Luchesi

dissident said:


> But the car exists. If you can't understand its workings it's no use saying "it's not really there at all...it's just some components working together".


So we should just say it's all the components working together and there's no mystery.


----------



## Luchesi

Aries said:


> We all emerged on this planet the same way - nude. Like a mayfly. Why would we have any inherent rights and dignity?


Why, because like all moral questioning, what are the consequences if we don't have them?


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> It means what it says. Can you expound on the scientific proof for the validity of such a belief? We're dealing with cold hard fact here now.


I have no clue what you are talking about.

I have no idea what your question is in reference to. " Can you expound on the scientific proof for the validity of such a belief? "

Human rights are an altruistic human philosophical desire.
Human rights are norms that aspire to protect all people everywhere from severe political, legal, and social abuses. 
I don't know how calling a philosophy a fact makes sense.

Human dignity is the recognition that human beings possess a special value intrinsic to their humanity. OK, if I agree or not, it is comprehensible that you believe this to be a fact.


----------



## arpeggio

I am tempted to start a thread about great works from the 18th and 19th century that are not beautiful.

Off the top of my head I can thing of:

The last two movements of Berlioz's _Symphonie Fantastique_.

Schubert's the "Erlkönig"

Mussorgsky's _Night on Bald Mountain_.


----------



## Aries

Luchesi said:


> Why, because like all moral questioning, what are the consequences if we don't have them?


We can just arbitrarily declare some that we like, what is the opposite of inherently having them.


----------



## Luchesi

Aries said:


> "Where is the beauty in music?"
> 
> Isn't this a linguistical question? It says that it is in the music. So it is in the music.
> 
> But music can be in the brain, so it could be in both the music and the brain.
> 
> The longer I think about this, the more it seems like a really nonsensical question.
> 
> Beauty is a concept. Do concepts have locations? They can relate to things with locations like an instrument outside of the brain. And you can thing about concepts or perceive them inside of your brain.
> 
> Other questions are more interesting.


There's the idea that some works are so 'beautiful' that they were discovered by the composer. That's what LvB was doing on his long walks.


----------



## eljr

Aries said:


> The longer I think about this, the more it seems like a really nonsensical question.


This sentence compelled a broad smile to appear on my face.


----------



## arpeggio

Check out this thread: https://www.talkclassical.com/70237-henry-david-thoreau-music.html?highlight=Mozart


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> So "proper and reasonable" would be absolute in some way. What's your standard for "proper and reasonable"?


Drawing conclusions based on accepted science seems proper and reasonable to me.

Can I get some insightful, unhurried explanations of your positions rather than deflective type questions? Make a case for something you believe that is counter to my narrative.


----------



## eljr

Luchesi said:


> Why, because like all moral questioning, what are the consequences if we don't have them?


Do we want them because they are not inherent?


----------



## arpeggio

Luchesi said:


> It really helps me to hear others viewpoints, and to think about mine.


I deleted the post because it was a dumb one.

Why do you think that I oppose other peoples points of view?


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> Drawing conclusions based on accepted science seems proper and reasonable to me.
> 
> Can I get some insightful, unhurried explanations of your positions rather than deflective type questions? Make a case for something you believe that is counter to my narrative.


I'm rarely unhurried. But drawing conclusions based on science alone would mean the Marquis de Sade was neither "right" nor "wrong". Or Hitler or Dresden or Hiroshima for that matter. In fact science facilitated the last three.


eljr said:


> Human rights are an altruistic human philosophical desire.
> Human rights are norms that aspire to protect all people everywhere from severe political, legal, and social abuses.
> I don't know how calling a philosophy a fact makes sense.
> 
> Human dignity is the recognition that human beings possess a special value intrinsic to their humanity. OK, if I agree or not, it is comprehensible that you believe this to be a fact.


But now you've gone beyond the bounds of cold hard scientific fact.


----------



## 59540

Luchesi said:


> So we should just say it's all the components working together and there's no mystery.


But it's still a car, and to understand how it works you have to have an understanding of how all those components work together. If science understood that as it relates to the brain then there'd be no question about consciousness. But neuroscience at present can't even address fully the mechanisms involved with memory, which is one component. Or emotion. Saying that memory and emotion don't exist separately either but again are just other components working together just won't do. It's just avoiding the issue by trying to make it disappear.


----------



## 59540

Luchesi said:


> There's the idea that some works are so 'beautiful' that they were discovered by the composer. That's what LvB was doing on his long walks.


But that does raise an interesting question, and it relates to math too. Is music a discovery or invention? Did Leibniz and Newton invent calculus, or discover principles that were already there but hadn't yet been understood?


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> But that does raise an interesting question, and it relates to math too. Is music a discovery or invention? Did Leibniz and Newton invent calculus, or discover principles that were already there but hadn't yet been understood?


I don't know the answer, but I know that mathematicians talk about discovering mathematical truths not inventing or creating them. What do composers say about their works? Do they talk about discovering them or creating them? I assume the latter.


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> I don't know the answer, but I know that mathematicians talk about discovering mathematical truths not inventing or creating them. What do composers say about their works? Do they talk about discovering them or creating them? I assume the latter.


Well yeah, but I mean "music" itself. The raw materials.


----------



## parlando

Luchesi said:


> Can musical beauty also be in a score or do I delude myself because I want to see beauty there?


It certainly was for Beethoven in the Ninth. When visiting certain relatives who used hymnals with shaped notes, the visual format helped the congregants aim their voices in advance, and thus anticipate the harmonic beauty in their minds. Music doesn't lie there on the page, like quantum decoherence it requires an observer of some sort, even a child in a country church.


----------



## fluteman

eljr said:


> Human rights are an altruistic human philosophical desire.
> Human rights are norms that aspire to protect all people everywhere from severe political, legal, and social abuses.
> I don't know how calling a philosophy a fact makes sense.


Yes, values and (scientific) facts are not the same thing. Beauty is not just a concept, it is an aesthetic value with many components, cultural and environmental, and the product of random events, as well as our physiology. In this thread and elsewhere, I've argued for what is often called an "anti-essentialist" approach to defining and evaluating art that is often linked to Ludwig Wittgenstein, whom I've quoted a lot here, and to John Dewey, whom I've quoted in other threads. But the idea really goes back at least to David Hume, who saw that although beauty is ever in the eye of the beholder, it is no accident that the plays of Terence and the poetry of Virgil (his examples) or the music of Bach and Beethoven (our examples), are still considered by many as examples of great and beautiful art.

It is no accident that anti-essentialism appeared in the 18th century, had its most articulate champions by the 1930s, and has yet to be seriously challenged, at least in its fundamental premises, and implications today. Behind it is a cosmopolitan world view, one that acknowledges that aside from individual differences, different societies tend to have slightly or vastly different cultural values, and therefore almost inevitably different aesthetic ones.

This whole thread brings back the shock I felt upon first arriving in London and discovering the people there drank warm beer. I remember sitting there thinking, How could this be? Is there a power outage? It was almost impossible for me to wrap my mind around the idea of warm beer.


----------



## Luchesi

dissident said:


> But it's still a car, and to understand how it works you have to have an understanding of how all those components work together. If science understood that as it relates to the brain then there'd be no question about consciousness. But neuroscience at present can't even address fully the mechanisms involved with memory, which is one component. Or emotion. Saying that memory and emotion don't exist separately either but again are just other components working together just won't do. It's just avoiding the issue by trying to make it disappear.


 We don't need to know how they work together because consciousness is merely a catch-all label for the combined actions of the brain centers. 
Yes, big questions. 
We don't know why we have a galaxy to inhabit. It should've flown apart long ago. 
Since it's not a force like the others, what is gravity? It's probably the result of time dilation as mass tells spacetime where to curve and how much. 'Blows my mind. 
And most concerning, we don't know what will happen to the dynamics of our atmosphere and our daily weather as the planet heats up. There are many educated guesses, but a cascade of tipping points needs to be timed.


----------



## Luchesi

eljr said:


> Do we want them because they are not inherent?


We should want them because they're good for our future.


----------



## Luchesi

arpeggio said:


> I deleted the post because it was a dumb one.
> 
> *Why do you think that I oppose other peoples points of view?*


For the same reasons I do.


----------



## 59540

Luchesi said:


> We don't need to know how they work together because consciousness is merely a catch-all label for the combined actions of the brain centers.
> Yes, big questions. ...


Uh.........what?? If you don't know how they work together how can you say anything at all about "consciousness"? That isn't "fact", that's "stab in the dark".


----------



## Luchesi

dissident said:


> But that does raise an interesting question, and it relates to math too. Is music a discovery or invention? Did Leibniz and Newton invent calculus, or discover principles that were already there but hadn't yet been understood?


It's a little of both, because the formulations have to be developed after the initial discoveries.


----------



## Luchesi

parlando said:


> It certainly was for Beethoven in the Ninth. When visiting certain relatives who used hymnals with shaped notes, the visual format helped the congregants aim their voices in advance, and thus anticipate the harmonic beauty in their minds. Music doesn't lie there on the page, like quantum decoherence it requires an observer of some sort, even a child in a country church.


In shape notes I think every note of the scale is named and the leader blows a pitch pipe for the key.


----------



## 59540

Luchesi said:


> It's a little of both, because the formulations have to be developed after the initial discoveries.


But these "developments" would just be more discoveries. What Leibniz and Newton invented was a symbolic representation of these principles they discovered.


----------



## Luchesi

dissident said:


> Uh.........what?? If you don't know how they work together how can you say anything at all about "consciousness"? That isn't "fact", that's "stab in the dark".


Because it's merely just a shortcut term for what we experience. It's those brain centers acting together.


----------



## 59540

Luchesi said:


> Because it's merely just a shortcut term for what we experience. It's those brain centers acting together.


Do you know enough about how those brain centers act together to determine that the proposed shortcut term is valid?


----------



## Luchesi

dissident said:


> Do you know enough about how those brain centers act together to determine that the proposed shortcut term is valid?


We don't need to know how in order to give it a shortcut label. A car has all those components, we sit in it and we call it a car or a hot rod or a Ford. The label's merely a label.
But the word consciousness has so much baggage and unjustified connotations.


----------



## 59540

Luchesi said:


> We don't need to know how in order to give it a shortcut label. ...


:lol: OK, I'm done now. By the way just a reminder that the word "science" comes from the Latin "scientia", "knowledge".


----------



## Luchesi

dissident said:


> :lol: OK, I'm done now. By the way just a reminder that the word "science" comes from the Latin "scientia", "knowledge".


And I think the word "religion" means to tie it all up (in an acceptable whole).


----------



## fbjim

Modeling and experimentation are foundational to science. One might not be able to perfectly know how a thing or process works, but we can still model the effects it has on inputs and outputs, or its surroundings.

There are many levels of abstraction to having "knowledge" on how a car works. If we drill down far enough we can probably reach interactions between elementary particles which we have only theoretical knowledge about. For obvious reasons, we use a level of abstraction appropriate to the situation - if the components of an engine aren't necessary for a discussion we are free to use a black box to model "engine" consisting of every process it contains.


----------



## fbjim

Luchesi said:


> We don't need to know how in order to give it a shortcut label. A car has all those components, we sit in it and we call it a car or a hot rod or a Ford. The label's merely a label.
> But the word consciousness has so much baggage and unjustified connotations.


I think it's something of a proposed model. There are certain discussions where it may be useful to presuppose that a distinct thing called "consciousness" exists even if we don't yet have the knowledge to know if this is a valid model or not.


----------



## Luchesi

fbjim said:


> I think it's something of a proposed model. There are certain discussions where it may be useful to presuppose that a distinct thing called "consciousness" exists even if we don't yet have the knowledge to know if this is a valid model or not.


Some animals have 'consciousness', some don't. I've wondered where the cutoff is.


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> This whole thread brings back the shock I felt upon first arriving in London and discovering the people there drank warm beer. I remember sitting there thinking, How could this be? Is there a power outage? It was almost impossible for me to wrap my mind around the idea of warm beer.


Like 'allegro' and 'adagio', your warm and my warm might be somewhat different. Real ale in the UK should generally be served between 11C and 13C (I think that's roughly 52F to 56F). I'd still put a light jacket or sweater on if I was out in those temperatures, so hardly warm.

https://cask-marque.co.uk/beer-temperature/
https://camra.org.uk/learn-discover/learn-more/learn-more-about-beer/beer-dispense/

Drinking "beer" so cold that you can't taste it properly is just barbaric. But then, you say tomayto and I say tomarto, you say color and I say colour...vive la difference!


----------



## Forster

eljr said:


> If it is not about the science, than it is not about fact, correct?


I didn't interpret the question as being about the precisely detailed physical mechanisms by which music is acoustically produced, transmitted through the air, received by the ear, translated by the brain and appreciated by the conscious mind (the "science", if you like).

I interpreted the question as being whether it could be or has been factually established that there are certain qualities "in the music" that are, always and for all listeners, "Beautiful" (such as "fugue" in Bach) OR that the appreciation of what is beautiful is dependent on what individual listeners determine is beautiful because of the significant role played by the brain/mind. All of this can deal both in established facts and in personal opinion. It's not a science/not science, fact/not fact thing.

As far as I can tell, whilst there has been some detailed description of acoustics and some hazarding of the current state of play around the "science" of the mind (eg how we actually perceive "yellow"), most posters have taken the same view as me that it is about the interplay of aesthetics, musicology and cultural background. All of this can entail discussion of facts.



eljr said:


> I think maybe some people enjoy the romance of music and how it makes them feel and resent a cold clinical analysis???


I think so too.


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> Drinking "beer" so cold that you can't taste it properly is just barbaric. But then, you say tomayto and I say tomarto, you say color and I say colour...vive la difference!


Does somebody say 'tomarto'? Or is it tomawto?


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> Does somebody say 'tomarto'? Or is it tomawto?


The only people I know who might say tomawto are the same people who say 'sex' when referring to the bags in which coal is delivered.


----------



## eljr

arpeggio said:


> Check out this thread: https://www.talkclassical.com/70237-henry-david-thoreau-music.html?highlight=Mozart


In school, I took a 3 credit course in Thoreau.

We had one lesson sitting among the ruins of his dwelling on Walden's Pond.


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> But now you've gone beyond the bounds of cold hard scientific fact.


Honest, what on earth are you talking about?

Peace


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> But it's still a car, and to understand how it works you have to have an understanding of how all those components work together. If science understood that as it relates to the brain then there'd be no question about consciousness. But neuroscience at present can't even address fully the mechanisms involved with memory, which is one component. Or emotion. Saying that memory and emotion don't exist separately either but again are just other components working together just won't do. It's just avoiding the issue by trying to make it disappear.


Your postulate is that if neuroscience can't explain memory in micro than all neuroscience is valueless.

This is obviously a logical fallacy.


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> But that does raise an interesting question, and it relates to math too. Is music a discovery or invention? Did Leibniz and Newton invent calculus, or discover principles that were already there but hadn't yet been understood?


It's an invention based on a discovery. The discovery being that sounds can be pleasurable and available on demand.

Seems pretty clear to me. :tiphat:


----------



## eljr

arpeggio said:


> Why do you think that I oppose other peoples points of view?


For the same reason I do, to learn.


----------



## eljr

fbjim said:


> Modeling and experimentation are foundational to science. One might not be able to perfectly know how a thing or process works, but we can still model the effects it has on inputs and outputs, or its surroundings.
> 
> There are many levels of abstraction to having "knowledge" on how a car works. If we drill down far enough we can probably reach interactions between elementary particles which we have only theoretical knowledge about. For obvious reasons, we use a level of abstraction appropriate to the situation - if the components of an engine aren't necessary for a discussion we are free to use a black box to model "engine" consisting of every process it contains.


Just an FYI, that the conversation has digressed to comparing music, to a cow and now to a car is rather awful.


----------



## eljr

fbjim said:


> I think it's something of a proposed model. There are certain discussions where it may be useful to presuppose that a distinct thing called "consciousness" exists even if we don't yet have the knowledge to know if this is a valid model or not.


consciousness is simply a name we give to a physiological process of wakeful awareness

There is no mystery here

The mystery is how it's done. That is what science is slowly unraveling.


----------



## eljr

Luchesi said:


> Some animals have 'consciousness', some don't. I've wondered where the cutoff is.


Along the evolutionary ladder around non-sentient animals. :tiphat:


----------



## Luchesi

eljr said:


> Along the evolutionary ladder around non-sentient animals. :tiphat:


I guess there was a cut off somewhere if you believe in consciousness-es.
Where was our consciousness before we were conceived? We grew our own.
My plants are 'conscious' of light and heat and cold.

We should all acquire Krishna Consciousness..


----------



## Simon Moon

eljr said:


> consciousness is simply a name we give to a physiological process of wakeful awareness
> 
> There is no mystery here
> 
> The mystery is how it's done. That is what science is slowly unraveling.


Yep.

Consciousness, as far as where all the evidence points, is an emergent property of a physical brain.

There is nothing, that makes us, "us", that seems to be anything that is not accounted for in the brain.

For example: personalities can be reset, memories lost, food preferences, art preferences, and sexual preferences changed, with brain injuries.


----------



## Simon Moon

eljr said:


> Along the evolutionary ladder around non-sentient animals. :tiphat:


Well...

Not to be pedantic, evolution is not a ladder. It is a branching tree.

A ladder implies that there is some sort of upward progress toward some better and better organism, toward some goal.

Evolution is random mutation coupled with natural selection, which selects for or against organisms best suited to survive in the environments. This caused various branches to form, where some continue to evolve, where other branches die out.

For example, humans are not any further along a ladder than any other living organism, since humans and other organisms have all been just as successful at surviving and reproducing (so far). Humans and all other organisms are on equally successful branches of the revolutionary tree.


----------



## Luchesi

Simon Moon said:


> Yep.
> 
> Consciousness, as far as where all the evidence points, is an emergent property of a physical brain.
> 
> There is nothing, that makes us, "us", that seems to be anything that is not accounted for in the brain.
> 
> For example: personalities can be reset, memories lost, food preferences, art preferences, and sexual preferences changed, with brain injuries.


Emergent properties are inscrutable, because everything's trial-and-error evolved. What is it in our genes that makes us really really want to safeguard our genes into the eternal future? Human DNA is one of the rarest substances in the whole universe! So there's that, but do we think about that consciously?


----------



## DaveM

Simon Moon said:


> Yep.
> 
> Consciousness, as far as where all the evidence points, is an emergent property of a physical brain.
> 
> There is nothing, that makes us, "us", that seems to be anything that is not accounted for in the brain.
> 
> For example: personalities can be reset, memories lost, food preferences, art preferences, and sexual preferences changed, with brain injuries.


All true, and yet, it should be mentioned that while we are who we 'are' at our finest, we can affect permanently (hopefully positively) those who are close around us, particularly children. And so, we will live on in them and perhaps have had an affect in changing their lives in ways we could never have anticipated, long after we are no longer the same person or not around at all.


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> All true, and yet, it should be mentioned that while we are who we 'are' at our finest, we can affect permanently (hopefully positively) those who are close around us, particularly children. And so, we will live on in them and perhaps have had an affect in changing their lives in ways we could never have anticipated, long after we are no longer the same person or not around at all.


Yes, we're doing that so well = overpopulation. We shouldn't ask why, we should just appreciate that we're living in the best of times.


----------



## eljr

Luchesi said:


> Where was our consciousness before we were conceived?


The same place it is when we are dead.


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> Your postulate is that if neuroscience can't explain memory in micro than all neuroscience is valueless.
> 
> This is obviously a logical fallacy.


Pointing out the limitations isn't calling it valueless. It's also not all-knowing, obviously. I see a lot of statements of certainty in this thread based on incomplete knowledge.


> It's an invention based on a discovery. The discovery being that sounds can be pleasurable and available on demand.
> 
> Seems pretty clear to me.


But that's not really clear since there's no clear dividing line between them. There's a lot of math in music, or rather a lot in music can be mathematically expressed. Now if the principles and logic behind a mathematical equation were already "out there" waiting to be discovered, why couldn't the sequences and combinations of tones in a Bach fugue also have been a "discovery"?


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> But that's not really clear since there's no clear dividing line between them. There's a lot of math in music, or rather a lot in music can be mathematically expressed. Now if the principles and logic behind a mathematical equation were already "out there" waiting to be discovered, why couldn't the sequences and combinations of tones in a Bach fugue also have been a "discovery"?


Isn't the difference that mathematicians search for mathemetical statements that can be proven? If they find a proof, thay view the statements as true. Composers obviously can't prove anything about music so they are really constructing works which meet their requirements rather than music that is true.


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> Composers obviously can't prove anything about music.


That's anything but obvious to many here, unfortunately.


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> Isn't the difference that mathematicians search for mathemetical statements that can be proven? If they find a proof, thay view the statements as true. Composers obviously can't prove anything about music so they are really constructing works which meet their requirements rather than music that is true.


Well then we have to get into the nature of what "proof" is. In the six part Ricercar Bach's "proof" at the end is a stretto which seems inevitable, mathematically necessary even, but which didn't really exist before. The fact that so many different brains recognize it as such would seem to mean that there's something more than strictly individual tastes involved. A lot of Bach fugues in fact do seem like mathematical equations working themselves out according to rules of logic...which is one element of beauty that millions for centuries now have found deeply satisfying.
Something similar could be said for a brilliantly-played game of chess. There is a beauty to it to those who know chess, but it isn't entirely subjective either. There are mathematical factors involved. And the proof is winning the game I would suppose.

Anyway I do believe that a composer like Bach or Mozart would disagree with your last sentence.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> Isn't the difference that mathematicians search for mathemetical statements that can be proven? If they find a proof, thay view the statements as true. Composers obviously can't prove anything about music so they are really constructing works which meet their requirements* rather than music that is true.*


I don't know what that means.


----------



## parlando

dissident said:


> But these "developments" would just be more discoveries. What Leibniz and Newton invented was a symbolic representation of these principles they discovered.


I don't want to hijack this thread, yet... Leibniz! What can I briefly say? Go Wikipedia. Irenic in metaphysics, he was a stupefying genius with a stupefying wig. Somewhat short in height, he more than made up that in achievements and the world's thickest toupee. The man who made calculus accessible: *his notation is used for everything except in certain relativistic domains.*

"In philosophy and theology, Leibniz is most noted for his optimism, i.e. his conclusion that our world is, in a qualified sense, the best possible world that God could have created, a view sometimes lampooned by other thinkers, such as Voltaire in his satirical novella Candide. Leibniz, along with René Descartes and Baruch Spinoza, was one of the three great early modern rationalists. His philosophy also assimilates elements of the scholastic tradition, notably the assumption that some substantive knowledge of reality can be achieved by reasoning from first principles or prior definitions. The work of Leibniz anticipated modern logic and still influences contemporary analytic philosophy, such as its adopted use of the term "possible world" to define modal notions."

Leibniz rocks!


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> Pointing out the limitations isn't calling it valueless. It's also not all-knowing, obviously. I see a lot of statements of certainty in this thread based on incomplete knowledge.
> 
> But that's not really clear since there's no clear dividing line between them. There's a lot of math in music, or rather a lot in music can be mathematically expressed. Now if the principles and logic behind a mathematical equation were already "out there" waiting to be discovered, why couldn't the sequences and combinations of tones in a Bach fugue also have been a "discovery"?


I am long past discussing the possible universe under my fingernail waiting to be discovered.

Peace


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> I am long past discussing the possible universe under my fingernail waiting to be discovered.
> 
> Peace


That's a sad existence then.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> I don't know what that means.


I'm not exactly sure to what you are referring - the idea that music can be true or that composers do not create music that is true. I have no idea what "music that is true" means. I know that no one can prove anything about music because it is not a formal system like math or logic. It cannot be empirically verified. Music is an artistic creation that people can like, people can hear as satisfying, sometimes follows rules, and in no sense is true.


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> I'm not exactly sure to what you are referring - the idea that music can be true or that composers do not create music that is true. I have no idea what "music that is true" means. I know that no one can prove anything about music because it is not a formal system like math or logic. ...


Well there's music theory. It's "not a formal system like math or logic" but I distinctly remember you and another commenter discussing what hard work modern composers have to put in to master modern technical components and harmonic language. Now it's true that music does not arrive at "correct/true logical answers" in the mathematical sense, but still there are some things that are "true" and demonstrable: a scale, a triad, intervals, clusters, cadences, canonic forms, augmentation, diminution and on and on...which are actually mathematical in nature. How much work did Bach have to put in just to follow "his own requirements"? They weren't really *his* requirements but the requirements of his craft.


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> Well there's music theory. It's "not a formal system like math or logic" but I distinctly remember you and another commenter discussing what hard work modern composers have to put in to master modern technical components and harmonic language. Now it's true that music does not arrive at "correct/true logical answers" in the mathematical sense, but still there are some things that are "true" and demonstrable: a scale, a triad, intervals, clusters, cadences, canonic forms, augmentation, diminution and on and on...which are actually mathematical in nature. How much work did Bach have to put in just to follow "his own requirements"? They weren't really *his* requirements but the requirements of his craft.


I agree with all of that. I still think mathematicians discover mathematical truths and musicians create music. In my mind, the two are enormously different. Composers can change their works and often do. Mathematicians can't change their theorems.


----------



## Woodduck

mmsbls said:


> I'm not exactly sure to what you are referring - the idea that music can be true or that composers do not create music that is true. I have no idea what "music that is true" means. I know that no one can prove anything about music because it is not a formal system like math or logic. It cannot be empirically verified. *Music is an artistic creation that people can like, people can hear as satisfying, sometimes follows rules, and in no sense is true.*


Your last statement doesn't exhaust the possibilities. In composing a piece of music, or any work of art, some choices are better than others. This is not merely a matter of "liking," "satisfaction," or following arbitrarily prescribed "rules." It's a matter of perceiving coherence, integrity, fitness. Some notes "work" - make perceptual sense - in the location where they are placed, others don't. Every artist, and everyone who really understands art, knows this to be - wait for it! - _true._ The people who claim not to know this (but may in fact know it) are those who think that nothing can be true, or be known to be true, unless it can be proved. No one can prove that a fugue of Bach is better, or more beautiful, than some first-year counterpoint student's imitation thereof. But even that first-year student can in all probability hear it. Even he knows that it's _true._ It isn't toward a more precise application of rules that he works, but toward a surer sense of aesthetic integrity - artistic truth, by another name.

It may be that neurological research will eventually be able to explain why certain configurations of notes seem coherent and beautiful, while others don't. Meanwhile, human beings have always been able to discern, or learn to discern (at every level, cognitive skills must be learned) the aesthetic rightness - the beauty - that they can't prove, yet know to be true. It's mainly for this reason that art produced centuries or millennia ago, by cultures remote from ours, can still seem to touch the very core of our being.


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> I agree with all of that. I still think mathematicians discover mathematical truths and musicians create music. In my mind, the two are enormously different. Composers can change their works and often do. Mathematicians can't change their theorems.


Musicians create music out of mathematical materials and relationships. I would still say that a lot of earlier composers would indeed say there is a "right answer" in music, not in the rigorous axiomatic mathematical sense, but still following rules of logic which require skill and training. I would suppose that's applicable to modern composers as well, with some post-Beethoven "isolated artist" ideology thrown in.


----------



## Forster

Woodduck said:


> In composing a piece of music, or any work of art, some choices are *better *than others.


But there are still choices. In maths, there are no choices in proofs. You can't prove Pythagoras' Theorem by looking at isosceles triangles. You can't choose a triangle that has angles of 60, 60 and 65 degrees.


----------



## mmsbls

Woodduck said:


> Your last statement doesn't exhaust the possibilities. In composing a piece of music, or any work of art, some choices are better than others. This is not merely a matter of "liking," "satisfaction," or following arbitrarily prescribed "rules." It's a matter of perceiving coherence, integrity, fitness. Some notes "work" - make perceptual sense - in the location where they are placed, others don't. Every artist, and everyone who really understands art, knows this to be - wait for it! - _true._ The people who claim not to know this (but may in fact know it) are those who think that nothing can be true, or be known to be true, unless it can be proved. No one can prove that a fugue of Bach is better, or more beautiful, than some first-year counterpoint student's imitation thereof. But even that first-year student can in all probability hear it. Even he knows that it's _true._ It isn't toward a more precise application of rules that he works, but toward a surer sense of aesthetic integrity - artistic truth, by another name.


It's true that some notes "work" better than others. Some finished works will be perceived as more coherent or having greater fitness. In what sense does that make the work itself true? By what standard does anyone determine that a work is true? Forget about proof. That only applies to logic and math. Most things we consider true don't fall into those categories. We consider other things true when they can be empirically verified.

A proton is more massive than an electron. The proton itself is not true, but it's true that it's mass is greater than an electron's mass. A work of music may be considered more elegent, more coherent, more fit than another work or another version of that work, but the work itself is not true. How would one empirically verify that? Or at least it's not true in the sense that I feel matters in discovery versus creation.

As Forster says, there are choices in creating the B minor mass. Anyone who thinks Bach could only have created that work in a unique way is mistaken. Yes, a particular note may be fixed given the notes around it, but the whole work had many possibilities. There is only one possibility for the sum of the interior angles in a triangle in Euclidean space. Many mathematicians can independently discover a mathematical truth, and that's happened numerous times. Even Bach, much less another composer, could not independently discover the B minor mass. It would be at least slightly changed.


----------



## Forster

mmsbls said:


> Even Bach, much less another composer, could not independently discover the B minor mass. It would be at least slightly changed.


Just to elaborate, if slightly repetitively, presumably, Beethoven could have chosen four different notes for the fate motif of his 5th Symphony? Or just one different. Of course, we can't unhear his 5th the way it is, so any change might seem unnatural. 
It would have made a different piece, but not necessarily any less "true".


----------



## Woodduck

mmsbls said:


> It's true that some notes "work" better than others. Some finished works will be perceived as more coherent or having greater fitness. In what sense does that make the work itself true? By what standard does anyone determine that a work is true? Forget about proof. That only applies to logic and math. Most things we consider true don't fall into those categories. We consider other things true when they can be empirically verified.
> 
> A proton is more massive than an electron. The proton itself is not true, but it's true that it's mass is greater than an electron's mass. A work of music may be considered more elegent, more coherent, more fit than another work or another version of that work, but the work itself is not true. How would one empirically verify that? Or at least it's not true in the sense that I feel matters in discovery versus creation.
> 
> As Forster says, there are choices in creating the B minor mass. Anyone who thinks Bach could only have created that work in a unique way is mistaken. Yes, a particular note may be fixed given the notes around it, but the whole work had many possibilities. There is only one possibility for the sum of the interior angles in a triangle in Euclidean space. Many mathematicians can independently discover a mathematical truth, and that's happened numerous times. Even Bach, much less another composer, could not independently discover the B minor mass. It would be at least slightly changed.


A fine work of art, like a fine human being, is true to itself. This is a different sense of the word "true" than we find in speaking of the truth of a proposition, but the two senses are not unrelated. They are united by the concept of _rightness._ A statement is _right_ when what it proposes is true, and a work of art is _right_ when its parts are true to each other and to the whole. A true proposition is a conclusion based on and coherent with evidence, or with premises which are also true. A true work of music is a construction based on and coherent with its constituent material. A true statement emerges from a logical, hierarchical progression of percept- and concept-formation. A true work of art emerges from a coherent - "logical" - progression of structural ideas. This is an analogy, but more than an analogy. Both processes are rooted in the hierarchical way in which the mind constructs a reality from data.

The presence of a coherent perceptual/conceptual hierarchy is a primary constituent of what we mean when we say a work of art - or a scientific theory - is beautiful.

Regarding Bach's choices: small alterations in works of music can make, and in the creative process require, substantial differences in the end result. The more sensitive a composer is to the implications of even small changes, the more likely he is to end up with a substantially different piece. Strictly speaking, anyone who thinks Bach could only have created the B-minor Mass in the unique way he did is correct. Had he made different choices it would be a different work - _how_ different, depending on the nature of the choices and their implications for the whole work. We need to remember, though, that the B-minor is a collection of pieces, not a single structure.


----------



## Woodduck

Forster said:


> Just to elaborate, if slightly repetitively, presumably, Beethoven could have chosen four different notes for the fate motif of his 5th Symphony? Or just one different. Of course, we can't unhear his 5th the way it is, so any change might seem unnatural.
> It would have made a different piece, but not necessarily any less "true".


The first movement of the Fifth must be the very demonstration model of a work of art true to itself - a tour de force of coherence, in which every detail, even that extraordinary and surprising oboe solo, makes an essential contribution to a statement of overwhelming rightness. If Beethoven had changed just one note of those four opening notes, he would have gone on to make a very different piece.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Luchesi said:


> Their survival needs were different from ours.


Utter speculation, for which there is no evidence.


----------



## Chilham

:lol: ........................


----------



## 59540

Luchesi said:


> Their survival needs were different from ours.


"It was for survival" sometimes seems like a catch-all explanation for everything that can't be understood. I don't see how art aids in survival at all. Other species thrive just fine without it.


----------



## Kreisler jr

There are "just-so" stories how about everything can aid survival. 
Art and ritual tighten community, make it more likely that people risk their life for the tribe in warfare, good artists attract females etc. Once you get the knack of them, they are a dime a dozen and about as valuable  And if you cannot come of with anything, the hard to explain features are "epiphenomena" or "spandrels". I studied/worked at the same institute with evolutionary psycho/biologists many years ago; they have some interesting things to tell but a very disproportionate idea of what they can "explain" or even "explain away".
I wouldn't deny that art can impress females or improve community cohesion. But so do many other things and even if plausible such a genesis does not really lead to any understanding of the specifics of a particular art or work of art (especially not in "old" cultures with centuries or millenia of tradition and reflection on arts).


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> It's true that some notes "work" better than others. Some finished works will be perceived as more coherent or having greater fitness. ....


The puzzling thing is, why is that?


Woodduck said:


> Had he made different choices it would be a different work - how different, depending on the nature of the choices and their implications for the whole work. We need to remember, though, that the B-minor is a collection of pieces, not a single structure.


That's true. If you take a look at the Kyrie alone, an F natural here or there could conceivably have been used instead of an F sharp. If you look at an Urtext edition of the WTC you'll see that notes and even passages here and there are like this in one source, but different in another. But the plan and structure overall, the way the voices "resolve", remain unchanged. The Kyrie of the B minor Mass also has that feeling of inevitably, the feeling that it really couldn't have been any other way.


----------



## eljr

Forster said:


> I didn't interpret the question as being about the precisely detailed physical mechanisms by which music is acoustically produced, transmitted through the air, received by the ear, translated by the brain and appreciated by the conscious mind (the "science", if you like).
> 
> I interpreted the question as being whether it could be or has been factually established that there are certain qualities "in the music" that are, always and for all listeners, "Beautiful" (such as "fugue" in Bach) OR that the appreciation of what is beautiful is dependent on what individual listeners determine is beautiful because of the significant role played by the brain/mind. All of this can deal both in established facts and in personal opinion. It's not a science/not science, fact/not fact thing.
> 
> As far as I can tell, whilst there has been some detailed description of acoustics and some hazarding of the current state of play around the "science" of the mind (eg how we actually perceive "yellow"), most posters have taken the same view as me that it is about the interplay of aesthetics, musicology and cultural background. All of this can entail discussion of facts.
> 
> .


This is exactly what I speak to in my posts.

Some sounds are generally pleasurable to most, some generally raise anxiety. We know this.

I say again, opinion is only acceptable in the absence of fact, not in conflict with it.

The problem with this thread is that it asks a philosophical question of something that is no longer in need of theory.

No one I have read denies the cultural influences. It would make a great discussion, how a culture's evolution has influenced the perception they have of music. 
Equally of interest would be delving into how sounds evolved the reactions in us we have. 
Why not start a thread on this? This thread did not ask such a question.

The bottom line seems to be that some people simply prefer to opine on such matters frivolously because it is less taxinging and more romantic.


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> I say again, opinion is only acceptable in the absence of fact, not in conflict with it.
> 
> The problem with this thread is that it asks a philosophical question of something that is no longer in need of theory.


You talk as if everything that can be known about aesthetic perception is known. But it isn't, and that's why we still have theories.


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> That's a sad existence then.


Interesting perspective. It brought a smile.

I would find the wasteful resource in such folly as fingernail constellation contemplation not as sad but rather uninteresting, unproductive. Maybe because as a youth I did ponder such things and in the end found them to be uninteresting, unproductive.

We need dreamers, I respect that.


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> Interesting perspective. It brought a smile.
> 
> I would find the wasteful resource in such folly as fingernail constellation contemplation not as sad but rather uninteresting, unproductive. Maybe because as a youth I did ponder such things and in the end found them to be uninteresting, unproductive.
> 
> We need dreamers, I respect that.


Well we each have our own aesthetic tastes.


----------



## mmsbls

Woodduck said:


> A fine work of art, like a fine human being, is true to itself. This is a different sense of the word "true" than we find in speaking of the truth of a proposition, but the two senses are not unrelated. They are united by the concept of _rightness._ A statement is _right_ when what it proposes is true, and a work of art is _right_ when its parts are true to each other and to the whole. A true proposition is a conclusion based on and coherent with evidence, or with premises which are also true. A true work of music is a construction based on and coherent with its constituent material. A true statement emerges from a logical, hierarchical progression of percept- and concept-formation. A true work of art emerges from a coherent - "logical" - progression of structural ideas. This is an analogy, but more than an analogy. Both processes are rooted in the hierarchical way in which the mind constructs a reality from data.
> 
> The presence of a coherent perceptual/conceptual hierarchy is a primary constituent of what we mean when we say a work of art - or a scientific theory - is beautiful.
> 
> Regarding Bach's choices: small alterations in works of music can make, and in the creative process require, substantial differences in the end result. The more sensitive a composer is to the implications of even small changes, the more likely he is to end up with a substantially different piece. Strictly speaking, anyone who thinks Bach could only have created the B-minor Mass in the unique way he did is correct. Had he made different choices it would be a different work - _how_ different, depending on the nature of the choices and their implications for the whole work. We need to remember, though, that the B-minor is a collection of pieces, not a single structure.


I agree that we are using the word "true" in a different sense. You mean true in the sense that it based on and coherent with its constituent material - that it fits together perfectly. I mean true as opposed to false. When composers modify works, are they changing them from wrong to right or right to wrong? Composers make changes frequently, and I can imagine people saying they made the work better. But I can't imagine someone saying Beethoven changed an incorrect work to a correct one.

Saying that the sum of the interior angles in a triangle in Euclidean space equals 179.9999 degrees rather than 180 degrees is a very small change that makes the statement or theorem wrong, not just different or not as perfect. With math, you either get it right or you get it wrong. That's one thing people like me love about math. That's why mathematicians feel they are discovering theorems rather than creating them. A slight change makes the theorem wrong not slightly less right.

"Small alterations in works of music can make, and in the creative process require, substantial differences in the end result. The more sensitive a composer is to the implications of even small changes, the more likely he is to end up with a substantially different piece." That's fine, but in math they change a threorem from right to wrong and not to a different theoem.


----------



## Forster

eljr said:


> This is exactly what I speak to in my posts [etc].


Right. So, we agree...I think. I'm not really sure.


----------



## Forster

Woodduck said:


> The first movement of the Fifth must be the very demonstration model of a work of art true to itself - a tour de force of coherence, in which every detail, even that extraordinary and surprising oboe solo, makes an essential contribution to a statement of overwhelming rightness. If Beethoven had changed just one note of those four opening notes, he would have gone on to make a very different piece.


Yes. Agreed. So, we can see that music cannot really have the same kind of "trueness" as maths... as mmsbls also argues


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> Yes. Agreed. So, we can see that music cannot really have the same kind of "trueness" as maths... as mmsbls also argues


So is there nothing at all about music that *is* "true? Consonance and dissonance are what they are and can be mathematically expressed. So can symmetry. What is it exactly about the aforementioned Bach six part ricercar that so many different brains have found to be so satisfying and "true"?


----------



## Simon Moon

dissident said:


> "It was for survival" sometimes seems like a catch-all explanation for everything that can't be understood. I don't see how art aids in survival at all. Other species thrive just fine without it.


Art is one of the methods humans use to show intelligence and skill, which is a demonstration of reproductive fitness.

People are attracted to other people with skills. These attractions occur in part of our minds that are non-rational, mostly the limbic system.

In effect, creating art is somewhat analogous to a peacock displaying its feathers and dancing around to attract a peahen.

There is also the ability of art to bring people together in communities, and since humans are social animals, this helped survival.


----------



## 59540

Simon Moon said:


> Art is one of the methods humans use to show intelligence and skill, which is a demonstration of reproductive fitness.


Warfare has also been historically one of those things humans use to display their intelligence and skill. Humans' greater intelligence has led to self-destruction and imaginative cruelty, plus the larger brains and larger skulls needed to house them made childbirth more difficult.


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> But there are still choices. In maths, there are no choices in proofs. You can't prove Pythagoras' Theorem by looking at isosceles triangles. You can't choose a triangle that has angles of 60, 60 and 65 degrees.


I trust you, mmbls, and others here who obviously have a background in math and science will be able to continue in this vein without my help. I've decided to devote my energies to an all-out attempt to accustom myself to warm beer.


----------



## fbjim

I do not like evopsych justifications, but if internal coherence has an appeal, I think it is because humans love to find patterns and meaning in things, even if these things aren't essential qualities, specifically created or can objectively be said to be correct.

In a sense, art isn't real, art is fake. The reason I don't believe attempts to find rational explanations for the appeal of works of art is because I think the ascription of profound meaning and beauty to abstract sounds is fundamentally irrational. The fact that we do this anyways is fascinating because it is such a specifically human behavior - and the things we do that have no obvious "evolutionary" or rational purpose may say more about us than our base instincts do.


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> I trust you, mmbls, and others here who obviously have a background in math and science will be able to continue in this vein without my help. I've decided to devote my energies to an all-out attempt to accustom myself to warm beer.


That's an excellent idea! 

I have no expertise in maths. I'm not really sure how we sidled across to it. I just wasn't happy with the notion that a musical composition could be like a mathematical theorem. Whether it is like maths in any other way doesn't seem relevant to the question of this thread. Someone could always start one


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> I do not like evopsych justifications, but if internal coherence has an appeal, I think it is because humans love to find patterns and meaning in things, even if these things aren't essential qualities, specifically created or can objectively be said to be correct.
> 
> In a sense, art isn't real, art is fake. The reason I don't believe attempts to find rational explanations for the appeal of works of art is because I think the ascription of profound meaning and beauty to abstract sounds is fundamentally irrational. The fact that we do this anyways is fascinating because it is such a specifically human behavior.


If art is "fake", what is it faking? What would be its opposite? How is it "irrational" to feel a sense of sadness or joy conveyed by a piece of music?
For all the fashionable bashing of Plato that I see, that is a Platonist view. Art is at odds with the Real.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> I'm not exactly sure to what you are referring - the idea that music can be true or that composers do not create music that is true. I have no idea what "music that is true" means. I know that no one can prove anything about music because it is not a formal system like math or logic. It cannot be empirically verified. Music is an artistic creation that people can like, people can hear as satisfying, sometimes follows rules, and in no sense is true.


Are you warning us about something, but not saying what it is, and the consequences?


----------



## Luchesi

Kreisler jr said:


> There are "just-so" stories how about everything can aid survival.
> Art and ritual tighten community, make it more likely that people risk their life for the tribe in warfare, good artists attract females etc. Once you get the knack of them, they are a dime a dozen and about as valuable  And if you cannot come of with anything, the hard to explain features are "epiphenomena" or "spandrels". I studied/worked at the same institute with evolutionary psycho/biologists many years ago; they have some interesting things to tell but a very disproportionate idea of what they can "explain" or even "explain away".
> I wouldn't deny that art can impress females or improve community cohesion. But so do many other things and even if plausible such a genesis does not really lead to any understanding of the specifics of a particular art or work of art (especially not in "old" cultures with centuries or millenia of tradition and reflection on arts).


I think it's deeper than that. Integer relationships, symmetries, the resolutions which are emotionally effective and affective repetitions, forms to think about. Well, rhythm too.


----------



## Luchesi

Luchesi said:


> Are you warning us about something, but not saying what it is, and the consequences?


added:
Your later posts explained it to me. But I can't say I like detracting from the huge human achievement. You're probably right, sobering looks at religion and philosophy and politics and even scientific formulations.


----------



## Luchesi

Luchesi said:


> I think it's deeper than that. Integer relationships, symmetries, the resolutions which are emotionally effective and affective repetitions, forms to think about. Well, rhythm too.


added: something with these characteristics pre-dates spoken language... I don't know about that speculation.


----------



## Simon Moon

dissident said:


> Warfare has also been historically one of those things humans use to display their intelligence and skill. Humans' greater intelligence has led to self-destruction and imaginative cruelty,


Very true.

There is nothing to say, that the survival and retrodictive traits that have been so successful for humans up until now, will continue to be successful. After all, 99% of all species that have ever lived, are now extinct, the vast majority were successful for millions of years longer than humans have been, yet, they all met their evolutionary demise.

For the majority of our evolutionary past, humans lived in small groups of 50-150 individuals. All the survival and reproductive traits we have, came about during that time, and from our ancestors (previous closely related species), that also lived in small groups.

6000 years of civilization is hardly enough time to negate millions of years of evolution of our ancestors. So, we are in effect, a species that evolved to live in groups of 100, with all those evolved survival and reproductive strategies, living with thousands or millions of, with advanced technologies.

So, as you point out, the very things that made us so successful, could end up being our evolutionary demise.



> plus the larger brains and larger skulls needed to house them made childbirth more difficult.


Very true. Evolution is not about survival of individuals, but survival of the species. From an evolutionary standpoint, enough individuals survive and make it into their reproductive years, to continue the species.


----------



## 59540

Simon Moon said:


> Evolution is not about survival of individuals, but survival of the species. From an evolutionary standpoint, enough individuals survive and make it into their reproductive years, to continue the species.


Yeah, but you don't have a species without those individuals, and the primary instinct of all of us is *self* preservation rather than thinking of the species as a whole. But that's all a topic for another nonmusical thread.


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> You talk as if everything that can be known about aesthetic perception is known..


No I don't. Only a fool would.

You seem to want insist on absolutes when the world is shades of grey.


----------



## eljr

Forster said:


> Right. So, we agree...I think. *I'm not really sure*.




That is a good thing, isn't it?


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> No I don't. Only a fool would.
> 
> You seem to want insist on absolutes when the world is shades of grey.


No, I didn't say anything about absolutes. The "absolutism" I've seen in this thread comes from those who seem to have the answers. All I can say is "I don't know" and that there's no real proof for either position.


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> No, I didn't say anything about absolutes. The "absolutism" I've seen in this thread comes from those who seem to have the answers. All I can say is "I don't know" and that *there's no real proof for either position.*


Oh my.

My, my my.

What can I say but wish you good health and peace.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> I'm not exactly sure to what you are referring - the idea that music can be true or that composers do not create music that is true. I have no idea what "music that is true" means. I know that no one can prove anything about music because it is not a formal system like math or logic. It cannot be empirically verified. Music is an artistic creation that people can like, people can hear as satisfying, sometimes follows rules, and in no sense is true.


Overall, I can't disagree, but while not a formal system like math or logic, as the CPT era developed from the 18th century into the early 1800s, IMO, a very real system developed that continued during the romantic era. The music followed similar rules consistent with what the listening public, academia and benefactors apparently liked and expected. Of course, towards the end of the 19th century and especially in the early 20th century, the whole system, for the most part went bye,bye.  Now we are in an era where there is no system and no rules for a significant segment of contemporary music.


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> Oh my.
> 
> My, my my.
> 
> What can I say but wish you good health and peace.


Well, there's the absolute.


----------



## fluteman

eljr said:


> Oh my.
> 
> My, my my.
> 
> What can I say but wish you good health and peace.


And, in less than 500 posts, once again we arrive at the dead end of Cartesian skepticism. We should get together for a beer -- warmer than what either of us would think was ideal, but too cold for Forster over there in Britannia.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

eljr said:


> No I don't. Only a fool would.
> 
> You seem to want insist on absolutes when the world *is* shades of grey.


is that an absolute?


----------



## arpeggio

Frankly I do not understand most of the more recent posts


----------



## 59540

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> is that an absolute?


An old dilemma. "There is no such thing as absolute truth" is itself presented as an absolute truth. What usually follows are mental and verbal gymnastics.


----------



## fluteman

dissident said:


> An old dilemma. "There is no such thing as absolute truth" is itself presented as an absolute truth. What usually follows are mental and verbal gymnastics.


Or, insistence that the earth is flat:

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-people-earth-flat.html


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> Or, insistence that the earth is flat:
> 
> https://phys.org/news/2019-01-people-earth-flat.html


or that the Earth is stationary, so that quasars billions of LYs away are revolving around our planet at billions of times the SOL (and reach the same position in our sky every day).


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> or that the Earth is stationary, so that quasars billions of LYs away are revolving around our planet at billions of times the SOL (and reach the same position in our sky every day).


OK, time for that beer. Ciao.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> Overall, I can't disagree, but while not a formal system like math or logic, as the CPT era developed from the 18th century into the early 1800s, IMO, a very real system developed that continued during the romantic era. The music followed similar rules consistent with what the listening public, academia and benefactors apparently liked and expected. Of course, towards the end of the 19th century and especially in the early 20th century, the whole system, for the most part went bye,bye.  Now we are in an era where there is no system and no rules for a significant segment of contemporary music.


The transition from Romantic to Modern music changed many of the rules. I don't know enough about music to know what rules exist in modern music in the sense of rules for CPT music. I think many composers feel liberated to some extent with the move away from the CPT system. Certainly music is vastly more diverse since that change, and many find that wonderful.


----------



## mmsbls

arpeggio said:


> Frankly I do not understand most of the more recent posts


There was a shift in the thread from the location of beauty in music to whether music is discovered or created. People compared music to math where many practitioners view there work as discovering truths. Some felt that music is similar to math in that composers discover music rather than create it. Arguments were made on both sides. I believe music is created and math is discovered, but some of the "music is discovered" arguments are reasonable in that one can imagine a composer at least "discovering" parts of a work. The composer would try to find the correct note or even the correct passage and seemingly finding a unique note or path that "fits".

The last page or so seems to have veered off again and I'm not sure what's happening.


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> The last page or so seems to have veered off again and I'm not sure what's happening.


Well such tangents are probably inevitable anyway. When you ask such a thing it's going to veer into metaphysics or "it's because of survival" or neuroscience. I think the thread could go on for 50 more pages and there wouldn't be a conclusive, comprehensive answer. Again all I can say is "I can't say for sure".


----------



## parlando

A melody, a chord progression, these can certainly be discovered.


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure what's happening.


What's happening is the inevitable arrival at the fallback position of Cartesian skepticism or doubt, i.e., a lot of people say the earth is (roughly) spherical, but nothing can ever be certain, the earth seems flat to me, ergo, as far as I'm concerned, the earth is flat. Nobody has yet been able to reduce music to a set of universal logical principles or mathematical theorems, but no one can definitively prove it's impossible, so I'll believe it's possible.

Wittgenstein rejects all of that, pointing out that aesthetics is not a question of science (though what he really means in our modern terminology is that music, art, beauty and aesthetics generally is a question of cultural anthropology or sociology, i.e., human thinking and behavior as it is impacted by an endless stream of accidental and random events and ever changing environmental conditions). A scientist here noted that even randomness can be modelled by scientists. But it can never be fully predicted by a theoretical system. Thus there can be no comprehensive theory of aesthetics. The best we can do is observe shared sets of cultural and aesthetic values that prevail in certain societies during certain eras, and analyze what we observe to the extent we can without any comprehensive theory.

I've now had my cold beverage, so I can continue no further.


----------



## Luchesi

dissident said:


> Well such tangents are probably inevitable anyway. When you ask such a thing it's going to veer into metaphysics or "it's because of survival" or neuroscience. I think the thread could go on for 50 more pages and there wouldn't be a conclusive, comprehensive answer. Again all I can say is "I can't say for sure".


I agree. ..I care about the young generations and what impressions they get from people they look up to. It might further allow for laziness. 
Therefore, in this case, it doesn't matter what's REALLY what, in the scientific sense. People should study music because it's good for their life, as with most technical subjects. Kids say they hate algebra, they'll never use it, but it widens their perspective etc..


----------



## Forster

mmsbls said:


> There was a shift in the thread from the location of beauty in music to whether music is discovered or created.





parlando said:


> A melody, a chord progression, these can certainly be discovered.


All this does is cast doubt on the difference between creating and discovering. To the extent that the number of possible melodies is infinite (though that makes an assumption about the definition of 'melody') and therefore already in existence, a composer can 'discover' them.

But for all practical purposes, composers are taking already-existing musical materials and shaping them into 'new' compositions, even if some are just slight variations on what already exists. I don't see how it helps a common-or-garden discussion of beauty in music to start thinking that composers are discovering rather than creating.


----------



## mikeh375

Has anybody thought that music can be discovered _and_ created? It strikes me that the two methods are closely related and somewhat reliant on one another. Heck, they might even be the same thing for all intents and purposes.
Related to this is the fact that music is also _invented_ in the day to day business of composing such as in designing (inventing) practical instrumental techniques to act as inner motors/drivers in a piece. Sometimes invention will be a dictating parameter prior to writing, influencing as it might how a composer sets about not only looking for material, but also how it is put down on paper.


----------



## EdwardBast

DaveM said:


> Now we are in an era where there is no system and no rules for a significant segment of contemporary music.


Or perhaps there are multiple systems of "rules" (don't like this term, but for convenience) for multiple styles coexisting, and sometimes applied within the same work? There's just no common practice. Anyone can draw on any historical style at any time. Scnittke sometimes used neo-Baroque, neo-Classical, neo-Romantic, dense contrapuntal, serial, and polytonal techniques within the same movement.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> So is there nothing at all about music that *is* "true? Consonance and dissonance are what they are and can be mathematically expressed. So can symmetry. What is it exactly about the aforementioned Bach six part ricercar that so many different brains have found to be so satisfying and "true"?





Forster said:


> But for all practical purposes, composers are taking already-existing musical materials and shaping them into 'new' compositions, even if some are just slight variations on what already exists. I don't see how it helps a common-or-garden discussion of beauty in music to start thinking that composers are discovering rather than creating.


And what is it about these guys' "discoveries" that makes them "less beautiful", in the context of the discussion here?:












(Is the discussion on "Bach, Mozart, Beethoven VS modern avant-garde music", OR "(general) common practice music VS modern avant-garde music" regarding "beauty"?)


----------



## Forster

EdwardBast said:


> Or perhaps there are multiple systems of "rules" (don't like this term, but for convenience) for multiple styles coexisting, and sometimes applied within the same work? There's just no common practice. Anyone can draw on any historical style at any time. Scnittke sometimes used neo-Baroque, neo-Classical, neo-Romantic, dense contrapuntal, serial, and polytonal techniques within the same movement.


[IRONY ALERT!]
I just can't understand why so many composers have in the past, and continue in the present, to compose so wilfully ugly. You'd think that even if they don't care about an audience, they'd at least compose to satisfy their own aesthetic standards. Obviously, since we know the music of those ghastly moderns is universally not beautiful, they must just be potty.


----------



## fluteman

EdwardBast said:


> Or perhaps there are multiple systems of "rules" (don't like this term, but for convenience) for multiple styles coexisting, and sometimes applied within the same work? There's just no common practice. Anyone can draw on any historical style at any time. Scnittke sometimes used neo-Baroque, neo-Classical, neo-Romantic, dense contrapuntal, serial, and polytonal techniques within the same movement.


Also Pierre Boulez, Terry Reilly and John Cage, all verboten to many here. You couldn't tell them, with their elaborate, intricate, complex, carefully regulated schemes, that they were free of structures or rules. Quite the opposite. If you want to hear music of today that, while not free of system or rules, is less tightly bound by them, jazz is your best bet.


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> I just can't understand why so many composers have in the past, and continue in the present, to compose so wilfully ugly. You'd think that even if they don't care about an audience, they'd at least compose to satisfy their own aesthetic standards. Obviously, since we know the music of those ghastly moderns is universally not beautiful, they must just be potty.


They don't compose "willfully ugly" - they _are_ composing to satisfy their own aesthetic standards. You simply lack the ability to appreciate their art.

This is not a problem, and there's nothing wrong with you - but the manner you express yourself is problematic since you do not appear to conceive that the composers themselves find their work beautiful, as do their audience.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> They don't compose "willfully ugly" - they _are_ composing to satisfy their own aesthetic standards. You simply lack the ability to appreciate their art.
> 
> This is not a problem, and there's nothing wrong with you - but the manner you express yourself is problematic since you do not appear to conceive that the composers themselves find their work beautiful, as do their audience.


He didn't mean that. He was being sarcastic, in the British way. They drink warm beer, too.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> They don't compose "willfully ugly" - they _are_ composing to satisfy their own aesthetic standards. You simply lack the ability to appreciate their art.
> 
> This is not a problem, and there's nothing wrong with you - but the manner you express yourself is problematic since you do not appear to conceive that the composers themselves find their work beautiful, as do their audience.


I thought my irony was heavy enough...and the emoji would help make my intent clear....


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> I thought my irony was heavy enough...and the emoji would help make my intent clear....


On this forum, it is very hard to tell when people are joking since all too often that kind opinion has been given in all earnestness.

Sorry, I had wondered if you were joking, but don't know you that well.


----------



## fluteman

fluteman said:


> He didn't mean that. He was being sarcastic, in the British way. They drink warm beer, too.


He knew all the tricks: dramatic irony, metaphor, pathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire. He was vicious.


----------



## arpeggio

SanAntone said:


> On this forum, it is very hard to tell when people are joking since all too often that kind opinion has been given in all earnestness.
> 
> Sorry, I had wondered if you were joking, but don't know you that well.


One of my many flaws I that I do not get when a post is joke and I respond and make a fool of myself.

At times I think there are members who like to make a joke and hope others will respond and make fools of themselves.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> On this forum, it is very hard to tell when people are joking since all too often that kind opinion has been given in all earnestness.
> 
> Sorry, I had wondered if you were joking, but don't know you that well.


I can't find it now, but in another thread, I had made clear that although I don't listen to much "modern" music, I'm not at all anti-modern.

My purpose in posting as I did was to draw attention to what is, I think, an absurd stance held by some anti-moderns. This is that these composers must be _deliberately _writing ugly music. It's absurd, IMO, because while some composers might have been taking a deliberate and provocative approach to their compositions, to upset the traditionalists, I don't believe they all do (did). As Edward Bast points out, new rules (or no rules) have been adopted which allows composers to write to their own aesthetic standards which may or may not have wider appeal to an audience expecting traditional beauty, but aims certainly to appeal to an audience looking for a "new" beauty.


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> ...
> My purpose in posting as I did was to draw attention to what is, I think, an absurd stance held by some anti-moderns. This is that these composers must be _deliberately _writing ugly music. It's absurd, IMO, because while some composers might have been taking a deliberate and provocative approach to their compositions, to upset the traditionalists, I don't believe they all do (did). ...


So how do you tell the difference? I don't know how you can call such a stance "absurd" and then say immediately afterward "well I concede that that might happen sometimes". The thing is, if you think this or that work is "ugly" then you're automatically tagged as "anti-modern" (whatever that means). If you don't like Vivaldi that doesn't make you "anti-Baroque". There's a lot of modern music I didn't like on first hearing but later came to appreciate.


EdwardBast said:


> Anyone can draw on any historical style at any time. Scnittke sometimes used neo-Baroque, neo-Classical, neo-Romantic, dense contrapuntal, serial, and polytonal techniques within the same movement.


From a purely personal perspective, I think sometimes that could run the risk of veering into incoherence, sort of a musical multiple personality disorder. However it's undeniable that composers are influenced by what came before.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

SanAntone said:


> They don't compose "willfully ugly" - they _are_ composing to satisfy their own aesthetic standards. *You simply lack the ability to appreciate their art.
> *
> This is not a problem, and there's nothing wrong with you - but the manner you express yourself is problematic since you do not appear to conceive that the composers themselves find their work beautiful, as do their audience.


Aren't you contradicting yourself here? I'm guessing your gonna say no 

Are you saying there's something intrinsic in the art that the person fails to grasp?


----------



## SanAntone

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Aren't you contradicting yourself here? I'm guessing your gonna say no
> 
> Are you saying there's something intrinsic in the art that the person fails to grasp?


You're right, I am going to say, "no contradiction." There is something the person is not grasping if the music sounds ugly to them. I don't think composers desire to write "ugly music" (that determination is in the mind of someone else).

A composer might write something harshly dissonant in order to create an effect in a work in which has theme dealing with something devastating, traumatic, or violent. But usually these episodes are contrasted with other gestures not harshly dissonant.

My basic rule of thumb is to say to myself, "I haven't found the music of this composer enjoyable ..... yet."


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> You're right, I am going to say, "no contradiction." There is something the person is not grasping if the music sounds ugly to them. I don't think composers desire to write "ugly music" (that determination is in the mind of someone else).
> ...


It's still contradictory. You're saying there's an inherent beauty there that some particular listener is missing.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> It's still contradictory. You're saying there's an inherent beauty there that some particular listener is missing.


How is that "contradictory"? What is it that is being contradicted?


----------



## eljr

Forster said:


> How is that "contradictory"? What is it that is being contradicted?


I learned the hard way. No mas!


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> How is that "contradictory"? What is it that is being contradicted?


"There's no such thing as 'inherent beauty' or 'inherent value' in any music."

"Those who find this or that music 'ugly' simply don't grasp its inherent beauty or value".

Contradictory.

Let me guess: next is the deflective "who has ever said that???" and then it's round and round in semantic hair-splitting circles.


----------



## fbjim

SanAntone said:


> A composer might write something harshly dissonant in order to create an effect in a work in which has theme dealing with something devastating, traumatic, or violent. But usually these episodes are contrasted with other gestures not harshly dissonant.


Relatively frequently, one can also find this sort of effect "ugly" or "harsh" but also well-constructed, or "correct" in terms of what the work is attempting to accomplish, and that sense of craftsmanship can be "beauty" in itself, if you'd like.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> "There's no such thing as 'inherent beauty' or 'inherent value' in any music."
> 
> "Those who find this or that music 'ugly' simply don't grasp its inherent beauty or value".
> 
> Contradictory.
> 
> Let me guess: next is the deflective "who has ever said that???" and then it's round and round in circles.


Did SanAntone write that first statement? If so, then yes, they contradicted themselves. Can you find where they did so?


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> Did SanAntone write that first statement? If so, then yes, they contradicted themselves. Can you find where they did so?


And there it is. :lol: Sorry, I'm not playing.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> And there it is. :lol: Sorry, I'm not playing.


Playing is exactly what you are doing.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> Let me guess: next is the deflective "who has ever said that???" and then it's round and round in semantic hair-splitting circles.


If you enjoy making others posts for them, maybe you should just do the whole thread yourself.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> I can't find it now, but in another thread, I had made clear that although I don't listen to much "modern" music, I'm not at all anti-modern.
> 
> My purpose in posting as I did was to draw attention to what is, I think, an absurd stance held by some anti-moderns. This is that these composers must be _deliberately _writing ugly music. It's absurd, IMO, because while some composers might have been taking a deliberate and provocative approach to their compositions, to upset the traditionalists, I don't believe they all do (did). As Edward Bast points out, new rules (or no rules) have been adopted which allows composers to write to their own aesthetic standards which may or may not have wider appeal to an audience expecting traditional beauty, but aims certainly to appeal to an audience looking for a "new" beauty.


I can't take too much of the 'sweet' resolutions that we get from so much music all around us. It's sickeningly sweet to me. Who wants it? Many people apparently. It reminds me of the coming onslaught of Christmas music..
Jazz sometimes clears the palette for me, but atonal explorations (in which I 'hear' many resolutions, but they're not as plucky and strong) are always the best remedy (until I'm accosted again).

added: my last earwig was "You do Something to Me" by Cole Porter but you can put it into a context with his keen, sophisticated songs - so what can I say. It wasn't so terrible in that case.

added2:
And most Christmas songs are quite clever with some interesting subtle ideas, but they are so so familiar!


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> All this does is cast doubt on the difference between creating and discovering. To the extent that the number of possible melodies is infinite (though that makes an assumption about the definition of 'melody') and therefore already in existence, a composer can 'discover' them.
> 
> But for all practical purposes, composers are taking already-existing musical materials and shaping them into 'new' compositions, even if some are just slight variations on what already exists. I don't see how it helps a common-or-garden discussion of beauty in music to start thinking that composers are discovering rather than creating.


It's likely aways both. Imagine Beethoven on one of his long walks in the woodlands and he discovers the psychological state (universal) of his Hammerklavier 1st Movement. He finally knows the 'fate' concept he wants, but now he has to use his craftsmanship and his music theory knowledge to write out the notes that will project effectively within his third period, expansive, figurations (with so much potential), which become so memorable as the movement continues past the opening. 
Imagine yourself composing something like one of his last works, and then pouring over the details endlessly. Is it draining? Is it invigorating? I think about it. I think it's our birthright to try! (all you need is a lot of experience with music etc.etc., but most people look at me like I'm crazy)


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> Did SanAntone write that first statement? If so, then yes, they contradicted themselves. Can you find where they did so?


Answer: I never said, "There's no such thing as 'inherent beauty'" - what I said was that beauty is perceived in the mind.

So, if I do not perceive beauty in a work, it is because my mind is not hearing beauty as I listen at a specific moment in time. However, that can change (and has done). I may later begin to perceive beauty in a work that I had not heard before.


----------



## SanAntone

My view is that to the extent beauty exists in a piece of music it does so only potentially. Until it is perceived and recognized by a listener it hasn't been realized. 

We all potentially can love or be loved - but until we experience love, it doesn't exist for us.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> My view is that to the extent beauty exists in a piece of music it does so only potentially. Until it is perceived and recognized by a listener it hasn't been realized.
> 
> We all potentially can love or be loved - but until we experience love, it doesn't exist for us.


But yet it's still there waiting to be discovered. Otherwise we'd have to be conditioned or "brainwashed" or somehow get our thinking "right" to perceive something that really isn't ultimately there. And it's a rare individual indeed that doesn't experience some kind of love in life. Even given such an individual, it doesn't mean "love" doesn't exist.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> They don't compose "willfully ugly" - they _are_ composing to satisfy their own aesthetic standards. You simply lack the ability to appreciate their art.
> 
> This is not a problem, and there's nothing wrong with you - but the manner you express yourself is problematic since you do not appear to conceive that the composers themselves find their work beautiful, as do their audience.


Well, of course, the response above is a (rather funny) misfire, but it is an example of a not infrequent response to those that find some contemporary music, usually avant-garde, distasteful (sometimes described as 'ugly') that infers personal weaknesses. It is unfortunate, misdirected and ineffective since avant-garde is probably the singular most troubling form of contemporary music for a large number of classical listeners and the reason has more to do with music that has little relationship to the music that preceded it than personal limitations of listeners.

None of the above infers that the same characteristics that drive quite a few away doesn't attracts others. Each to his own.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> "There's no such thing as 'inherent beauty' or 'inherent value' in any music."
> 
> "Those who find this or that music 'ugly' simply don't grasp its inherent beauty or value".
> 
> Contradictory.
> 
> Let me guess: next is the deflective "who has ever said that???" and then it's round and round in semantic hair-splitting circles.


To which SanAntone said:



> Answer: *I never said, "There's no such thing as 'inherent beauty'" *- what I said was that beauty is perceived in the mind.
> 
> [etc]


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> To which SanAntone said:


Distinction without a difference. Pink unicorns are also perceived in the mind.


----------



## SanAntone

************ duplicated post ***********


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> But yet it's still there waiting to be discovered. Otherwise we'd have to be conditioned or "brainwashed" or somehow get our thinking "right" to perceive something that really isn't ultimately there. And it's a rare individual indeed that doesn't experience some kind of love in life. Even given such an individual, it doesn't mean "love" doesn't exist.


Potentially then, beauty exists in all music - even the kind you find ugly.

It matters where exactly it exists: potentially, an abstract quality, in the ether or 2) in the real world as perceived by a human being.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> Distinction without a difference. Pink unicorns are also perceived in the mind.


But they don't exist in the real world.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> But they don't exist in the real world.


Well then neither does "beauty", so I guess that leaves conditioning.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> Well then neither does "beauty", so I guess that leaves conditioning.


No, beauty exists in the real world every time someone hears something they find beautiful.


----------



## Luchesi

dissident said:


> Well then neither does "beauty", so I guess that leaves conditioning.


 What's perceived in your mind? but what does the composer think should be perceived in your mind.?

We go to him because he has the experience and drive and dedication to create a perception for you. I guess we could do it ourselves, but how would that work?

I know that I have a lot of half-finished projects, none of which I'm proud of recently, and so it would be an overwhelming task for me..


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> No, beauty exists in the real world every time someone hears something they find beautiful.


And pink unicorns exist any time someone thinks about them. They're both mental constructs, unless you're saying that "beauty" is indeed some external thing.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> Distinction without a difference.


Are you saying you cannot see a distinction, or that there isn't one?

I see a clear distinction, but since the original assertion about this was made by the OP and it was about SanAntone, I don't think I need continue proxy arguing.


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> Are you saying you cannot see a distinction, or that there isn't one?
> 
> I see a clear distinction....


Well enlighten us then.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> And pink unicorns exist any time someone thinks about them. They're both mental constructs, unless you're saying that "beauty" is indeed some external thing.


I am saying that beauty exists in potential in music, waiting for someone to hear the music and react to it, and finding it beautiful.

They experience pleasure, possibly a physical sensation, e.g. spine tingling, goosebumps - in the real world. There is a real experience of beauty caused by the music. And often it is something which is shared, it is not unusual for a group of people to react to the same piece of music by finding it beautiful. This can codify the existence of beauty for those who perceive it.

However, there may also be some people within that same group who do not find the same piece of music beautiful. So there is no distinct, objective, quality in the music: beauty.

Unicorns do not exist in the real world.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> So how do you tell the difference?


Between those who are being provocative and those who are just composing to their own aesthetic standards? I don't need to. I was simply allowing for the possibility of both.



dissident said:


> I don't know how you can call such a stance "absurd" and then say immediately afterward "well I concede that that might happen sometimes".


Because in the instance I had in mind, implied by my post, was the objection to _all _modern music...chiefly because it's modern and not traditional.



dissident said:


> The thing is, if you think this or that work is "ugly" then you're automatically tagged as "anti-modern" (whatever that means). If you don't like Vivaldi that doesn't make you "anti-Baroque".


Is that a thing? No less of a thing, I suppose, than what I've been asserting.



dissident said:


> There's a lot of modern music I didn't like on first hearing but later came to appreciate.


Jolly good. If there was a medal emoji, I'd present it to you.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> I am saying that beauty exists in potential in music, waiting for someone to hear the music and react to it, and finding it beautiful.
> 
> They experience pleasure, possibly a physical sensation, e.g. spine tingling, goosebumps - in the real world. There is a real experience of beauty caused by the music. And often it is something which is shared, it is not unusual for a group of people to react to the same piece of music by finding it beautiful. This can codify the existence of beauty for those who perceive it.
> 
> However, there may also be some people within that same group who do not find the same piece of music beautiful. So there is no distinct, objective, quality in the music: beauty.
> 
> Unicorns do not exist in the real world.


So "beauty" then is a *thing* or quality that does exist independently of the mind?


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> Well enlighten us then.


I think you can see it (though you didn't answer my question to confirm). But you're just so enamoured of pink unicorns at the moment. :lol:


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> I think you can see it (though you didn't answer my question to confirm). But you're just so enamoured of pink unicorns at the moment. :lol:


No, give an answer and state your view instead sniping. *If* you have an answer, as you always *seem* to do. I'll admit that I don't. I'm just asking. But I can tell a logical inconsistency when I see one.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> No, give an answer and state your view instead sniping. *If* you have an answer, as you always seem to do.


I'm tempted to _command _you to do the same, but I think we've 'sniped' enough, you and I.


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> I'm tempted to _command _you to do the same, but I think we've 'sniped' enough, you and I.


Not a "command", just a request. I can't "command" anyone to do anything.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> So "beauty" then is a *thing* or quality that does exist independently of the mind?


Yes, potentially (this is the third time I've said this); but it does not exist outside of the mind, like a chair.

While sparked by a real object, a piece of music, or a work of art; beauty requires a perceiver to exist in the real world, within a person's being.

The music itself also requires a performer to become real, even if it is someone reading a score and hearing the music in their mind's ear.


----------



## hammeredklavier

If music created 200~300 years ago is so interestingly beautiful for everyone in the world today, why are there so few listening to it on regular basis? Surely there must be other factors why many don't find it very appealingly beautiful aesthetically. (Ie. Maybe the aesthetics is far too different from the modern sensibilities?)


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> Jazz sometimes clears the palette for me, but atonal explorations (in which I 'hear' many resolutions, but they're not as plucky and strong) are always the best remedy (until I'm accosted again).


Well, yes. I can't listen to Sibelius all the time...nor The Beatles either. But I don't think I reach for anything in particular to cleanse my palette, just something different. Today, it was Haydn's 'Bear' Symphony!



Luchesi said:


> Imagine yourself composing something like one of his last works, and then pouring over the details endlessly. Is it draining? Is it invigorating? I think about it. I think it's our birthright to try! (all you need is a lot of experience with music etc.etc., but most people look at me like I'm crazy)


Poring over anything for a long time can send me crazy for sure.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Can we use this as an example to prove the superiority of common practice music? If not, why not?:




Maybe there are lots of people who think this way about Bach, Mozart, Beethoven?:
https://www.npr.org/sections/decept.../148769794/why-i-hate-the-goldberg-variations
"Bach set out to write something less boring than one of the most boring pieces ever written. And he succeeded. If the Handel Variations are Last Year at Marienbad, the Goldbergs are Die Hard." -Pianist Jeremy Denk
https://sequenza21.com/rosner.html
"But in the classical era of music history, even the composers fail to meet my condition." -Composer Arnold Rosner


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Yes, potentially (this is the third time I've said this); but it does not exist outside of the mind, like a chair.


But that's trying to have it both ways. No, "beauty" isn't some physical object like a chair. But "potential" beauty? A stick of dynamite is "potentially" explosive because of what it's made of.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> Can we use this as an example to prove the superiority of common practice music? If not, why not?:


No, but I can use it to prove the superiority of the Goldberg Variations. :lol: And why do you continually refer to that Jeremy Denk article as if it's a condemnation of Bach? The title and attitude are tongue in cheek.


> The Goldbergs are like a friend you have who always does everything right. This friend always answers his emails, keeps a clean house, has a kind word for everyone, behaves properly at concerts, writes thank you cards, grooms himself assiduously, knows how to tie a tie, never eats Burger King at 2 AM, and never ever writes silly blog posts saying he hates pieces he really loves. He's an example to the world. He's smiling at you over drinks, listening as always with benevolent patience, and you realize through your gritted hateful envious teeth that he is certainly not your enemy, and what would it hurt to admit, you wouldn't want to face life without him?


Get it?


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> If music created 200~300 years ago is so interestingly beautiful for everyone in the world today, why are there so few listening to it on regular basis?...


The question to answer is why are there still people listening to 200-300 year old music?


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> But that's trying to have it both ways. No, "beauty" isn't some physical object like a chair. But "potential" beauty? A stick of dynamite is "potentially" explosive because of what it's made of.


Why don't we try this another way: you tell me if you think beauty exists inherently in the music independent of a person's perception.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Why don't we try this another way: you tell me if you think beauty exists inherently in the music independent of a person's perception.


Here's my answer (which I've already given several times):

I.
Don't.
Know.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> Here's my answer (which I've already given several times):
> 
> I.
> Don't.
> Know.


Okay. I think we're done.


----------



## eljr

SanAntone said:


> Okay. I think we're done.


LOL, took you long enough to catch on. :lol:

He had me going for a couple pages too.


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> LOL, took you long enough to catch on. :lol:
> 
> He had me going for a couple pages too.


My aim isn't to keep anybody "going". I'm just trying to follow the logic when I see things that look like statements of a kind of certainty. And so I ask.

I don't know and psssssst....nor does anyone else that participated in this thread.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> My aim isn't to keep anybody "going". I'm just trying to follow the logic when I see things that look like statements of a kind of certainty. And so I ask.
> 
> I don't know and psssssst....nor does anyone else that participated in this thread.


No, we're just spit-balling our ideas - offering opinions for the purpose of promoting discussion. You, OTOH, don't offer your opinion but just dispute with others about theirs - which has a tendency not to produce an entertaining exchange so much as frustration.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> No, we're just spit-balling our ideas - offering opinions for the purpose of promoting discussion. You, OTOH, don't offer your opinion but just dispute with others about theirs - which has a tendency not to produce an entertaining exchange so much as frustration.


Which is my right. I said at the very beginning that since (from what I could tell) neither could be proven, I choose both. No need to be angry that someone has a problem with the consistency of your logic.


----------



## DaveM

What I’ve noticed is that some posters want their point of view to be the last word. Well, others who disagree may not be willing to just accept that so they respond, the other responds and so on. That’s what very active sometimes contentious discussions are about. I don’t think it flies very well, because one party gets frustrated, that a claim is made that they are just giving opinions and the other party is just disputing when the real story is there for all to read that pretty much everyone is giving opinions and everyone is contesting. And it’s not the first time this sorry claim has been used.


----------



## DaveM

Regarding beauty in music: While it’s a given that the endpoint is an individual’s brain, when it comes to CPT era music especially as the music progressed during the 19th century, the structure of the music (melody, harmony etc) provided a formula for the composition of music that was/is likely to be interpreted as beautiful by an awful lot of listeners of that period and the present.


----------



## parlando

hammeredklavier said:


> If music created 200~300 years ago is so interestingly beautiful for everyone in the world today, why are there so few listening to it on regular basis? Surely there must be other factors why many don't find it very appealingly beautiful aesthetically. (Ie. Maybe the aesthetics is far too different from the modern sensibilities?)


Because classical music is an oasis of calm in a crazy world.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Well, yes. I can't listen to Sibelius all the time...nor The Beatles either. But I don't think I reach for anything in particular to cleanse my palette, just something different. Today, it was Haydn's 'Bear' Symphony!
> 
> Poring over anything for a long time can send me crazy for sure.


Oh, it's poring. Thanks. I'm embarrassed, so now I won't make that mistake again.

It's your language, we just use it after all this time.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> If music created 200~300 years ago is so interestingly beautiful for everyone in the world today, why are there so few listening to it on regular basis? Surely there must be other factors why many don't find it very appealingly beautiful aesthetically. (Ie. Maybe the aesthetics is far too different from the modern sensibilities?)


I think the later harmonies and forms were more effective. Is it as simple as that?


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> Regarding beauty in music: While it's a given that the endpoint is an individual's brain, when it comes to CPT era music especially as the music progressed during the 19th century, the structure of the music (melody, harmony etc) provided a formula for the composition of music that was/is likely to be interpreted as beautiful by an awful lot of listeners of that period and the present.


But the scores are also beautiful to a musician, just like a row of sprouts coming up is beautiful to a gardener. While other people might not get either one.
When I was a kid I'd save my money and ride the train down to the Schirmer Building in Manhattan and buy the scores I could afford. I'd bring them home and sit in a chair and look at them for long periods. My mother actually thought that there was something wrong with me.


----------



## 59540

DaveM said:


> What I've noticed is that some posters want their point of view to be the last word. Well, others who disagree may not be willing to just accept that so they respond, the other responds and so on. That's what, very active sometimes contentious, discussions are about. I don't think it flies very well, because one party gets frustrated, that a claim is made that they are just giving opinions and the other party is just disputing when the real story is there for all to read that pretty much everyone is giving opinions and everyone is contesting. And it's not the first time this sorry claim has been used.


-------- Yeah, exactly. ----------


----------



## ChoralLlama

Beauty is a lot like pornography: I'll know it when I see it.


----------



## arpeggio

Dissident is asking questions he already knows the answers to.

Cheap lawyer trick.

This is why I refuse to respond to any of his inquiries.


----------



## janxharris

ChoralLlama said:


> Beauty is a lot like pornography: I'll know it when I see it.


Are you aware that 16 states in the US have declared pornography a health crisis?


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

SanAntone said:


> You're right, I am going to say, "no contradiction." *There is something the person is not grasping if the music sounds ugly to them*. I don't think composers desire to write "ugly music" (that determination is in the mind of someone else).
> 
> A composer might write something harshly dissonant in order to create an effect in a work in which has theme dealing with something devastating, traumatic, or violent. But usually these episodes are contrasted with other gestures not harshly dissonant.
> 
> My basic rule of thumb is to say to myself, "I haven't found the music of this composer enjoyable ..... yet."


This statement is a contradiction if you believe there is no beauty inherently in the music. Because if its not inherently in the music there is nothing for the person to grasp.


----------



## HerbertNorman

SanAntone said:


> You're right, I am going to say, "no contradiction." There is something the person is not grasping if the music sounds ugly to them. I don't think composers desire to write "ugly music" (that determination is in the mind of someone else).
> 
> A composer might write something harshly dissonant in order to create an effect in a work in which has theme dealing with something devastating, traumatic, or violent. But usually these episodes are contrasted with other gestures not harshly dissonant.
> 
> My basic rule of thumb is to say to myself, "I haven't found the music of this composer enjoyable ..... yet."


I have to agree with this! It has occurred to me that there are pieces of music that I just cannot grasp , but reading through this site there are so many people that absolutely adore them...
I am humble ... it must be me that doesn't like them , that isn't able to grasp them,... But does that mean they have no beauty??? Beauty is very subjective , personal , etc...

Example (outside of classical music) : I didn't rate The Who at all at first , untill I saw them performing live and they won me over ... Same thing has happened to me with classical pieces...


----------



## 59540

arpeggio said:


> Dissident is asking questions he already knows the answers to.
> 
> Cheap lawyer trick.


Not when I've plainly stated that I don't know the answers. But if someone apparently thinks he does, then I don't see any "cheap lawyer trick" in trying to follow it to its logical conclusion. If there's anything someone thinks is contradictory or inconsistent the mature thing to do would be to demonstrate that there isn't, or maybe reconsider your position instead of sticking your fingers in your ears with "la lala" before hitting that "report" button.


----------



## mmsbls

The thread is beginning to get a bit personal. The topic is a bit complex being philosophical in nature. That's certainly not a problem. It's not surprising that people disagree, but please try to focus on thread content and not make comments about other members. Please try to engage productively with others.


----------



## DaveM

The concept of beauty in classical music can be seen from different points of view. It can be interpreted/defined strictly or broadly. Broadly speaking, given what I’ve already said about the relatively consistent structure of CPT music particularly through the 19th century, my experience is that, apparently for my brain, beauty is also in the music.

As a boy of 8 years old while muddling around in our basement, I came upon a dusty 78 rpm album of Brahms Violin Concerto with Szigeti. For some reason I put on Record 1 (these things held no more than 12 minutes). I’d never heard anything so beautiful in my life than that opening and thus began my history with classical music. For this brain, the beauty was sitting in that music. I have no explanation for it. Nobody told me to do it. Nobody conditioned me for it. Why me?


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> The concept of beauty in classical music can be seen from different points of view. It can be interpreted/defined strictly or broadly. Broadly speaking, given what I've already said about the relatively consistent structure of CPT music particularly through the 19th century, my experience is that, apparently for my brain, beauty is also in the music.
> 
> As a boy of 8 years old while muddling around in our basement, I came upon a dusty 78 rpm album of Brahms Violin Concerto with Szigeti. For some reason I put on Record 1 (these things held no more than 12 minutes). I'd never heard anything so beautiful in my life than that opening and thus began my history with classical music. For this brain, the beauty was sitting in that music. I have no explanation for it. Nobody told me to do it. Nobody conditioned me for it. Why me?


Yes, I suspect we have to be at the right place in our lives, in the right atmosphere, with some privacy - and our experience level has matured enough. This is probably one of the reasons why so few people latch onto CM early in their lives.

But my experience was just the opposite. I was 8 or 9 when I found a box of dusty old 78s and put on one labeled Beethoven which caught my eye. It was the Seventh Symphony and it was merely a wall of sound to me! unintelligible and so I wondered at the time why would a kid like me spend his meager allowance on something like that?

Later that year or so I became fascinated with melodies - and then Chopin! Mozart and his lyricism came next for me, I remember it pretty clearly.. I concluded that Chopin is the gateway to CM, full of melodies. He sounds more modern than Mozart, which can be off-putting to some know-it-all youngsters like I was.. coming from pop music like I was. I wasn't convinced enough to buy a Chopin or Mozart album yet though. ha ..That came a few years later - it's so helpful, for appreciation, to be learning to play at that time in our lives.


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> The thread is beginning to get a bit personal. The topic is a bit complex being philosophical in nature. That's certainly not a problem. It's not surprising that people disagree, but please try to focus on thread content and not make comments about other members. Please try to engage productively with others.


It's far from personal as far as I can tell. This thread has continued long enough for everyone to show their cards. Those who claim beauty is inherent in music on the whole are the same folks who insist that the music of a certain European cultural tradition of the 18th and 19th century, originating in the authoritative institutions of the Church and the aristocracy and filtering down into the bourgeois, is inherently superior to all other music. They now have a name for it, one that didn't exist when I was a music student: the "Common Practice Period", defined as institutionalized western music from 1650 to 1900, at least according to the omniscient authority Wikipedia. A well-chosen name, with "Common" in the sense of standard or prevalent, i.e., the music most people supposedly want, even today, because it is inherently superior. Just to use the word establishes the proposition.

These folks have to contend with some inconvenient truths, such as the fact that the Common Practice Period ended 121 years ago. Also, the unavoidable fact that the vast majority of people today, including people in Europe and other places dominated by western cultural traditions, do not want or prefer music of the Common Practice Period, but rather prefer music of the post-Common Practice Period, including even a genre like jazz that dates back to shortly after the end of the Common Practice Period and that is already regarded by some people as a "classical" music tradition.

None of that deters these folks. Apparently, we are in a temporary, 121-year period where a few extremist composers, academics and critics, all of whom may be lumped under the term "avant garde", have hijacked western musical culture and forced people to listen to a whole lot of music they didn't want to hear, even though it's ugly.

Meanwhile, out in the real world, the "inherent beauty" view of aesthetics had died out about midway through the common practice period, circa 1750-1800. A series of scientific discoveries and global exploration had brought about an Age of Enlightenment. Aesthetic tastes were recognized as being patterned on cultural traditions that inevitably are, at least in part, unique to a time and place, i.e., temporary and arbitrary.

Then came the accelerated changes of the 20th century, when culture became more globalized and more technologically driven. Some folks here don't want to accept that. Which is fine. Stick with the Well Tempered Clavier, the St. Matthew Passion, the symphonies of Beethoven, Bruckner, Mahler and Sibelius, the Ring Cycle, Richter, Callas, Solti and Karajan. Listen to no opera or symphony recordings after 1970.

But please, spare us the Cartesian doubt, conspiracy theory-based flat earth baloney. Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Varese, Boulez, Stockhausen, Cage, Feldman, Reilly, Glass and others are all long since established as important and permanent parts of our cultural, aesthetic and musical traditions. Evidence of their influence is everywhere and isn't going away. Deal with it.


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> It's far from personal as far as I can tell. This thread has continued long enough for everyone to show their cards. Those who claim beauty is inherent in music on the whole are the same folks who insist that the music of a certain European cultural tradition of the 18th and 19th century, originating in the authoritative institutions of the Church and the aristocracy and filtering down into the bourgeois, is inherently superior to all other music. They now have a name for it, one that didn't exist when I was a music student: the "Common Practice Period", defined as institutionalized western music from 1650 to 1900, at least according to the omniscient authority Wikipedia. A well-chosen name, with "Common" in the sense of standard or prevalent, i.e., the music most people supposedly want, even today, because it is inherently superior. Just to use the word establishes the proposition.
> 
> These folks have to contend with some inconvenient truths, such as the fact that the Common Practice Period ended 121 years ago. Also, the unavoidable fact that the vast majority of people today, including people in Europe and other places dominated by western cultural traditions, do not want or prefer music of the Common Practice Period, but rather prefer music of the post-Common Practice Period, including even a genre like jazz that dates back to shortly after the end of the Common Practice Period and that is already regarded by some people as a "classical" music tradition.
> 
> None of that deters these folks. Apparently, we are in a temporary, 121-year period where a few extremist composers, academics and critics, all of whom may be lumped under the term "avant garde", have hijacked western musical culture and forced people to listen to a whole lot of music they didn't want to hear, even though it's ugly.
> 
> Meanwhile, out in the real world, the "inherent beauty" view of aesthetics had died out about midway through the common practice period, circa 1750-1800. A series of scientific discoveries and global exploration had brought about an Age of Enlightenment. Aesthetic tastes were recognized as being patterned on cultural traditions that inevitably are, at least in part, unique to a time and place, i.e., temporary and arbitrary.
> 
> Then came the accelerated changes of the 20th century, when culture became more globalized and more technologically driven. Some folks here don't want to accept that. Which is fine. Stick with the Well Tempered Clavier, the St. Matthew Passion, the symphonies of Beethoven, Bruckner, Mahler and Sibelius, the Ring Cycle, Richter, Callas, Solti and Karajan. Listen to no opera or symphony recordings after 1970.
> 
> But please, spare us the Cartesian doubt, conspiracy theory-based flat earth baloney. Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Varese, Boulez, Stockhausen, Cage, Feldman, Reilly, Glass and others are all long since established as important and permanent parts of our cultural, aesthetic and musical traditions. Evidence of their influence is everywhere and isn't going away. Deal with it.


Excellent summary of this syndrome which appears in thread after thread.

A thought struck me this morning thinking about this thread: *is beauty really the most, or even an, important consideration for art?*

I think artists, composers, writers, poets, playwrights, etc. are concerned with more than simply beauty - which seems to be a superficial attribute. Reminds me of _Beauty Fades, Dumb is Forever: The Making of a Happy Woman_ by Judge Judy Sheindlin


----------



## mmsbls

fluteman said:


> It's far from personal as far as I can tell. ...


The thread content is not personal. I was referring to some recent posts that were directed at members rather than focusing on content.


----------



## mmsbls

SanAntone said:


> ...A thought struck me this morning thinking about this thread: *is beauty really the most, or even an, important consideration for art?*
> 
> I think artists, composers, writers, poets, playwrights, etc. are concerned with more than simply beauty - which seems to be a superficial attribute. Reminds me of _Beauty Fades, Dumb is Forever: The Making of a Happy Woman_ by Judge Judy Sheindlin


We had a thread awhile ago about beauty in music, and several members said they didn't think the word was useful in describing music. They felt that other aspects of music - development, coherence, use of timbre, and other fetaures - were more relevant to their view of a piece.

I think many (most?) people still are strongly moved by what they perceive as beauty in art and look to beauty as much as anything in a work of art.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> It's far from personal as far as I can tell. This thread has continued long enough for everyone to show their cards. Those who claim beauty is inherent in music on the whole are the same folks who insist that the music of a certain European cultural tradition of the 18th and 19th century, originating in the authoritative institutions of the Church and the aristocracy and filtering down into the bourgeois, is inherently superior to all other music. They now have a name for it, one that didn't exist when I was a music student: the "Common Practice Period", defined as institutionalized western music from 1650 to 1900, at least according to the omniscient authority Wikipedia. A well-chosen name, with "Common" in the sense of standard or prevalent, i.e., the music most people supposedly want, even today, because it is inherently superior. Just to use the word establishes the proposition.
> 
> These folks have to contend with some inconvenient truths, such as the fact that the Common Practice Period ended 121 years ago. Also, the unavoidable fact that the vast majority of people today, including people in Europe and other places dominated by western cultural traditions, do not want or prefer music of the Common Practice Period, but rather prefer music of the post-Common Practice Period, including even a genre like jazz that dates back to shortly after the end of the Common Practice Period and that is already regarded by some people as a "classical" music tradition.
> 
> None of that deters these folks. Apparently, we are in a temporary, 121-year period where a few extremist composers, academics and critics, all of whom may be lumped under the term "avant garde", have hijacked western musical culture and forced people to listen to a whole lot of music they didn't want to hear, even though it's ugly.
> 
> Meanwhile, out in the real world, the "inherent beauty" view of aesthetics had died out about midway through the common practice period, circa 1750-1800. A series of scientific discoveries and global exploration had brought about an Age of Enlightenment. Aesthetic tastes were recognized as being patterned on cultural traditions that inevitably are, at least in part, unique to a time and place, i.e., temporary and arbitrary.
> 
> Then came the accelerated changes of the 20th century, when culture became more globalized and more technologically driven. Some folks here don't want to accept that. Which is fine. Stick with the Well Tempered Clavier, the St. Matthew Passion, the symphonies of Beethoven, Bruckner, Mahler and Sibelius, the Ring Cycle, Richter, Callas, Solti and Karajan. Listen to no opera or symphony recordings after 1970.
> 
> But please, spare us the Cartesian doubt, conspiracy theory-based flat earth baloney. Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Varese, Boulez, Stockhausen, Cage, Feldman, Reilly, Glass and others are all long since established as important and permanent parts of our cultural, aesthetic and musical traditions. Evidence of their influence is everywhere and isn't going away. Deal with it.


That's not how I see it. If I am revering music from just before Bach to about the death of Schumann it's because that's the logical foundation of what can be done with the basic elements of music. For me, all later music comes from that - and it's fascinating to see what the later impressive people did with that foundation! It's helpful for me to see the big picture, up until the modern extremes of atonality and minimalism, electronic explorations, all starting with the simplest of harmonies and forms.
These are not the best words or terms for this quick paragraph, but hopefully you understand what I'm getting at..

I like to see reductions and informative categories, as we strive for in the sciences.


----------



## SanAntone

mmsbls said:


> We had a thread awhile ago about beauty in music, and several members said they didn't think the word was useful in describing music. They felt that other aspects of music - development, coherence, use of timbre, and other fetaures - were more relevant to their view of a piece.
> 
> I think many (most?) people still are strongly moved by what they perceive as beauty in art and look to beauty as much as anything in a work of art.


There would seem to be various understandings of the idea of beauty.

I do think surface beauty is trivial; we understand this immediately when considering people. We look for, are attracted by, more, i.e. under the hood, than a pretty face. I think the same is true for music.

We've all heard it said, "she's beautiful both inside and out." For me what's inside is vastly more important the the surface beauty - I'm speaking of music now.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> There would seem to be various understandings of the idea of beauty.
> 
> I do think surface beauty is trivial; we understand this immediately when considering people. We look for, are attracted by, more, i.e. under the hood, than a pretty face. I think the same is true for music.
> 
> We've all heard it said, "she's beautiful both inside and out." For me what's inside is vastly more important the the surface beauty - I'm speaking of music now.


Yes, as we get 'way up in years we realize that we've seen at all, or at least we pick up those feelings all along the way, about many experiences and subjects. 
In order to retain a youthful outlook we really have to work at it.. And it's all colored with worries about the future for coming generations, and our own future, of course.

When I was younger I never thought I would get that way, but here I am online worrying about future generations.. ha


----------



## 59540

fluteman said:


> But please, spare us the Cartesian doubt, conspiracy theory-based flat earth baloney. Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Varese, Boulez, Stockhausen, Cage, Feldman, Reilly, Glass and others are all long since established as important and permanent parts of our cultural, aesthetic and musical traditions. Evidence of their influence is everywhere and isn't going away. Deal with it.


Please quit misusing the term "Cartesisn doubt" as if it's synonymous with somehow believing in a flat earth or in conspiracy theories. What's the alternative, Wittgensteinian certainty? The only conspiracy theories I've seen on this forum are from those who say "the canon" (including the canonical "moderns") is the result of sociopolitical pressures and goals.


----------



## SanAntone

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> This statement is a contradiction if you believe there is no beauty inherently in the music. Because if its not inherently in the music there is nothing for the person to grasp.


But I have never claimed that beauty was not in the music; all I've ever said was that to the extent beauty is present in music, or art in general, it is in potential. It requires a human appreciator for it to be perceived. I don't think beauty is objective, but something we all subjectively appreciate.

So the idea that beauty is inherently in music is an empty claim, IMO, since without a person to appreciate it, the beauty does not really exist.

And what I find beautiful you may not. I also think beauty is not the most important consideration concerning music or art.


----------



## 59540

DaveM said:


> ...
> As a boy of 8 years old while muddling around in our basement, I came upon a dusty 78 rpm album of Brahms Violin Concerto with Szigeti. For some reason I put on Record 1 (these things held no more than 12 minutes). I'd never heard anything so beautiful in my life than that opening and thus began my history with classical music. For this brain, the beauty was sitting in that music. I have no explanation for it. Nobody told me to do it. Nobody conditioned me for it. Why me?


I had a similar experience with Bach. I absolutely fell in love with his music via a recording of the Musical Offering and I had at that time (in my early teens) next to no knowledge of fugues or canonic forms.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> This thread has continued long enough for everyone to show their cards.


If it has, are you sure you can read those cards correctly?



> Those who claim beauty is inherent in music on the whole are the same folks who insist that the music of a certain European cultural tradition of the 18th and 19th century, originating in the authoritative institutions of the Church and the aristocracy and filtering down into the bourgeois, is inherently superior to all other music.


Are you sure that this is what "those people" "insist"?



> They now have a name for it, one that didn't exist when I was a music student: the "Common Practice Period", defined as institutionalized western music from 1650 to 1900, at least according to the omniscient authority Wikipedia.


Wikipedia didn't invent the term.



> A well-chosen name, with "Common" in the sense of standard or prevalent, i.e., the music most people supposedly want, even today, because it is inherently superior. Just to use the word establishes the proposition.


What proposition? All the term establishes is that Western music was constructed based on certain principles - fundamentally, a certain system of tonal relationships - for a certain period of time. However, even the limits of what we want to call "common practice," and therefore of the supposed "period" that merits the term, are not clear at the edges, especially at the trailing edge.



> These folks have to contend with some inconvenient truths, such as the fact that the Common Practice Period ended 121 years ago.


Setting aside the question of who may be inconvenienced by any truth, it should be noted that the fundamental harmonic relationships of "common practice" are still quite _common_ in Western music and in world music influenced by Western music. The fact that a certain "avant garde" of what we call the "classical" tradition decided over a century ago that common practice tonality was obsolete hasn't, in all this time, made it unappealing to listeners or useless to composers. "Tonic-dominant-subdominant" and the rest remain part of the immense repertoire of musical possibilities that global culture now offers us, and if you pay attention you can hear the familiar tonal system being used every day. Of course you may feel that its continued use is reactionary and unworthy of the consideration of "serious" connoisseurs of classical music.



> Also, the unavoidable fact that the vast majority of people today, including people in Europe and other places dominated by western cultural traditions, do not want or prefer music of the Common Practice Period, but rather prefer music of the post-Common Practice Period, including even a genre like jazz that dates back to shortly after the end of the Common Practice Period and that is already regarded by some people as a "classical" music tradition.
> 
> None of that deters these folks.


Deters whom from what?



> Apparently, we are in a temporary, 121-year period where a few extremist composers, academics and critics, all of whom may be lumped under the term "avant garde", have hijacked western musical culture and forced people to listen to a whole lot of music they didn't want to hear, even though it's ugly.


No one, on any large scale, has hijacked music or forced people to listen to anything (except maybe in TV commercials and over supermarket PA systems). Nonetheless - if we must trot out generalizations concerning who likes what, listens to what and believes what - those "classical" composers who have shared your belief that "common practice" is dead, or should be, have seemingly attracted far fewer listeners than their less radical and dogmatic contemporaries. It seems important to you to point out that "most" people today don't listen to music of the "common practice period." Well, how many people listen to Birtwistle, Ferneyhough and Scelsi?



> Meanwhile, out in the real world, the "inherent beauty" view of aesthetics had died out about midway through the common practice period, circa 1750-1800. A series of scientific discoveries and global exploration had brought about an Age of Enlightenment. Aesthetic tastes were recognized as being patterned on cultural traditions that inevitably are, at least in part, unique to a time and place, i.e., temporary and arbitrary.


There is no single "inherent beauty view of aesthetics" out in the "real world."



> Then came the accelerated changes of the 20th century, when culture became more globalized and more technologically driven. Some folks here don't want to accept that. Which is fine. Stick with the Well Tempered Clavier, the St. Matthew Passion, the symphonies of Beethoven, Bruckner, Mahler and Sibelius, the Ring Cycle, Richter, Callas, Solti and Karajan. Listen to no opera or symphony recordings after 1970.


The scorn is positively withering.



> But please, spare us the Cartesian doubt, conspiracy theory-based flat earth baloney. Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Varese, Boulez, Stockhausen, Cage, Feldman, Reilly, Glass and others are all long since established as important and permanent parts of our cultural, aesthetic and musical traditions. Evidence of their influence is everywhere and isn't going away. Deal with it.


So the diatribe ends by deriding in contemptuous and aggressive terms certain unnamed people who fail to be impressed by the official cultural "establishment" of the year 2021, which, apparently, you represent.

Massive, collective indictments of the supposed views and attitudes of other people - "people who" - don't strike me as a worthwhile contribution to conversations about aesthetics.


----------



## fbjim

I don't think this is particularly complicated once it's stated, and I think this is old ground but there are concrete, inherent aspects to art, music, and anything that one might find beautiful. This does not mean beauty is inherent to these aspects, it means that human beings may or may not ascribe beauty to them based on their tastes, learned sense of cultural aesthetics, experience, and which side of the bed they got up on that morning.


----------



## arpeggio

I am going to repeat a position that many of us have taken many times.

We do not have a problem with members who want to specialize in listening to Western European Concert Music from the 18th and 19th century.

It seems that members who prefer CPT think we are attacking them if we happen to like Boulez as well as Beethoven.


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> Setting aside the question of who may be inconvenienced by any truth, it should be noted that the fundamental harmonic relationships of "common practice" are still quite _common_ in Western music and in world music influenced by Western music. The fact that a certain "avant garde" of what we call the "classical" tradition decided over a century ago that common practice tonality was obsolete hasn't, in all this time, made it unappealing to listeners or useless to composers. "Tonic-dominant-subdominant" and the rest remain part of the immense repertoire of musical possibilities that global culture now offers us, and if you pay attention you can hear the familiar tonal system being used every day.


Of the aspects of western art music reflected in popular and artistic music today, tonality is probably not the first I'd go for. In fact, the explorations of timbre, and noise pioneered by the likes of Cage and Stockhausen, and the primacy of rhythm descending from both minimalism and black music seem far more important to modern popular music, especially that of an artistic bebt, than classical tonality.


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> If it has, are you sure you can read those cards correctly?
> 
> Are you sure that this is what "those people" "insist"?
> 
> Wikipedia didn't invent the term.
> 
> What proposition? All the term establishes is that Western music was constructed based on certain principles - fundamentally, a certain system of tonal relationships - for a certain period of time. However, even the limits of what we want to call "common practice," and therefore of the supposed "period" that merits the term, are not clear at the edges, especially at the trailing edge.
> 
> Setting aside the question of who may be inconvenienced by any truth, it should be noted that the fundamental harmonic relationships of "common practice" are still quite _common_ in Western music and in world music influenced by Western music. The fact that a certain "avant garde" of what we call the "classical" tradition decided over a century ago that common practice tonality was obsolete hasn't, in all this time, made it unappealing to listeners or useless to composers. "Tonic-dominant-subdominant" and the rest remain part of the immense repertoire of musical possibilities that global culture now offers us, and if you pay attention you can hear the familiar tonal system being used every day. Of course you may feel that its continued use is reactionary and unworthy of the consideration of "serious" connoisseurs of classical music.
> 
> Deters whom from what?
> 
> No one, on any large scale, has hijacked music or forced people to listen to anything (except maybe in TV commercials and over supermarket PA systems). Nonetheless - if we must trot out generalizations concerning who likes what, listens to what and believes what - those "classical" composers who have shared your belief that "common practice" is dead, or should be, have seemingly attracted far fewer listeners than their less radical and dogmatic contemporaries. It seems important to you to point out that "most" people today don't listen to music of the "common practice period." Well, how many people listen to Birtwistle, Ferneyhough and Scelsi?
> 
> There is no single "inherent beauty view of aesthetics" out in the "real world."
> 
> The scorn is positively withering.
> 
> So the diatribe ends by deriding in contemptuous and aggressive terms certain unnamed people who fail to be impressed by the official cultural "establishment" of the year 2021, which, apparently, you represent.
> 
> Massive, collective indictments of the supposed views and attitudes of other people - "people who" - don't strike me as a worthwhile contribution to conversations about aesthetics.


Yes, he seemed a little bit off base to me (rickety), which surprised me coming from him. I don't think you were harsh or disrespectful, but it's so difficult to tell what posters will 'feel' about posts (with no other social clues to help them).


----------



## fbjim

arpeggio said:


> I am going to repeat a position that many of us have taken many times.
> 
> We do not have a problem with members who want to specialize in listening to Western European Concert Music from the 18th and 19th century.
> 
> It seems that members who prefer CPT think we are attacking them if we happen to like Boulez as well as Beethoven.


The music is, whatever one thinks of it, part of our heritage now. Modernism is dead, as is romanticism, classicism, and whatever came before.

To an extent the entire debate seems to be if we accept this as part of our heritage, or deny it.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> In fact, the explorations of timbre, and noise pioneered by the likes of Cage and Stockhausen, and the primacy of rhythm descending from both minimalism and black music seem far more important to modern popular music, especially that of an artistic bebt, than classical tonality.


"Primacy of rhythm" exists in dance forms from all over throughout history. The sense of physical movement is one of the great features of the music of one J. S. Bach. A lot of the rest depends on the relative aesthetic appeal and perceptions of "value" derived from the "popular music of today" vs say The Beatles, Motown, big bands and the like.


----------



## Luchesi

fbjim said:


> Of the aspects of western art music reflected in popular and artistic music today, tonality is probably not the first I'd go for. In fact, the explorations of timbre, and noise pioneered by the likes of Cage and Stockhausen, and the primacy of rhythm descending from both minimalism and black music seem far more important to modern popular music, especially that of an artistic bebt, than classical tonality.


We first hear fascinating tonalities in nursery songs and so it comes from very far back in our past. Many folks I know never get past those sweet resolutions, because to them that's what the enjoyment is all about.

And these are fascinating people to me, very intelligent and well educated. My friend who was an engineer/physicist for Lockheed (back then) told me over and over that he was tone deaf and in church he couldn't tell one hymn from another, except for the words. I've always been struck by his account of that because he was so forthright and convinced. How would it be (to live like that)?? 
Who knows if it's true, I can't get into his brain.


----------



## Forster

Did anyone, in the last 30+ pages, set out what they mean by "beauty"? I have an impression that some members might be referring to some holistic abstract entity which we call "Beauty"; while others ( me, for sure) think about a number of different characteristics of music that I find "beautiful".


----------



## fbjim

Forster said:


> Did anyone, in the last 30+ pages, set out what they mean by "beauty"? I have an impression that some members might be referring to some holistic abstract entity which we call "Beauty"; while others ( me, for sure) think about a number of different characteristics of music that I find "beautiful".


Not to complicate things, I took it as a catch-all for aesthetic enjoyment generally.

Of course, more narrowly defined, there are aspects of music beyond a narrow definition of "beauty" one may enjoy but I don't think that matters, since virtually any of these aspects can be substituted for another in this debate.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> "Primacy of rhythm" exists in dance forms from all over throughout history. The sense of physical movement is one of the great features of the music of one J. S. Bach. A lot of the rest depends on the relative aesthetic appeal and perceptions of "value" derived from the "popular music of today" vs say The Beatles, Motown, big bands and the like.


Of the influences of rhythm in popular music since roughly James Brown, classical fugual writing would not make a top ten.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> The music is, whatever one thinks of it, part of our heritage now. Modernism is dead, as is romanticism, classicism, and whatever came before.
> 
> To an extent the entire debate seems to be if we accept this as part of our heritage, or deny it.


Cage and Stockhausen are also dead now. However we were told earlier in the thread that all of these styles and approaches are at the disposal of the modern composer.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> Of the influences of rhythm in popular music since roughly James Brown, classical fugual writing would not make a top ten.


I'm talking about rhythm, not fugal writing.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> Cage and Stockhausen are also dead now. However we were told earlier in the thread that all of these styles and approaches are at the disposal of the modern composer.


They are - the interest in removing aesthetics from their original context and exploring them in new contexts is a significant aspect of postmodern aesthetics.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> They are - the interest in removing aesthetics from their original context and exploring them in new contexts is a significant aspect of postmodern aesthetics.


Composers have been taking from one context and exploring them in new ones throughout the history of music. Influences, in plain English.


----------



## Forster

fbjim said:


> The music is, whatever one thinks of it, part of our heritage now. Modernism is dead, as is romanticism, classicism, and whatever came before.
> 
> To an extent the entire debate seems to be if we accept this as part of our heritage, or deny it.


They may be "dead" insofar as the historical movements labelled by these terms have passed. But if I regularly listen to Beethoven and enjoy his music, this makes me, to some extent, a Romantic.

For composers, things might look different, but for consumers, we can be anything we want, at least in terms of which bits of our musical heritage we make part of our present.


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> They may be "dead" insofar as the historical movements labelled by these terms have passed. But if I regularly listen to Beethoven and enjoy his music, this makes me, to some extent, a Romantic.
> 
> For composers, things might look different, but for consumers, we can be anything we want, at least in terms of which bits of our musical heritage we make part of our present.


Cage and Stockhausen may be dead but their influence, especially that of Cage, is still being felt. I know of a group of composers based in Chicago who have taken the baton from Cage. It's been a few years (~ 2014 or 2015) since I was in correspondence with any of them, and I've forgotten their names - but they exist.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> If it has, are you sure you can read those cards correctly?
> 
> Are you sure that this is what "those people" "insist"?
> 
> Wikipedia didn't invent the term.
> 
> What proposition? All the term establishes is that Western music was constructed based on certain principles - fundamentally, a certain system of tonal relationships - for a certain period of time. However, even the limits of what we want to call "common practice," and therefore of the supposed "period" that merits the term, are not clear at the edges, especially at the trailing edge.
> 
> Setting aside the question of who may be inconvenienced by any truth, it should be noted that the fundamental harmonic relationships of "common practice" are still quite _common_ in Western music and in world music influenced by Western music. The fact that a certain "avant garde" of what we call the "classical" tradition decided over a century ago that common practice tonality was obsolete hasn't, in all this time, made it unappealing to listeners or useless to composers. "Tonic-dominant-subdominant" and the rest remain part of the immense repertoire of musical possibilities that global culture now offers us, and if you pay attention you can hear the familiar tonal system being used every day. Of course you may feel that its continued use is reactionary and unworthy of the consideration of "serious" connoisseurs of classical music.
> 
> Deters whom from what?
> 
> No one, on any large scale, has hijacked music or forced people to listen to anything (except maybe in TV commercials and over supermarket PA systems). Nonetheless - if we must trot out generalizations concerning who likes what, listens to what and believes what - those "classical" composers who have shared your belief that "common practice" is dead, or should be, have seemingly attracted far fewer listeners than their less radical and dogmatic contemporaries. It seems important to you to point out that "most" people today don't listen to music of the "common practice period." Well, how many people listen to Birtwistle, Ferneyhough and Scelsi?
> 
> There is no single "inherent beauty view of aesthetics" out in the "real world."
> 
> The scorn is positively withering.
> 
> So the diatribe ends by deriding in contemptuous and aggressive terms certain unnamed people who fail to be impressed by the official cultural "establishment" of the year 2021, which, apparently, you represent.
> 
> Massive, collective indictments of the supposed views and attitudes of other people - "people who" - don't strike me as a worthwhile contribution to conversations about aesthetics.


And yet, I stand by every word. As for the worthiness of my contribution, I withheld it for a long time after joining this forum, but finally felt it had to be made after reading "thread after thread", as SanAntone puts it, or an unending tsunami, as I might put it, of uncritical, uninformed and/or disingenuous ethnocentric cultural supremacist hooey, all of which is far from a worthwhile contribution to a conversation about aesthetics, music or anything else.

The irony is, none of it is necessary. The survival of the music of Bach and Beethoven in our culture for 200 years or more says all that needs to be said about that. Other musical traditions, many of which appeal to far more people today than that of Bach and Beethoven (I have cited relevant data) will also live on in some way if they continue to fulfill our needs in our ever changing cultural environment. I would note that West African djembe drumming is many centuries older than Bach and Beethoven. Jazz and blues are over a century old, and even punk rock is nearly 50. It is far more worthwhile to examine all musical traditions respectfully and discover the reasons for their lasting appeal rather than dismissing them as inherently inferior.


----------



## 59540

fluteman said:


> "thread after thread", as SanAntone puts it, or an unending tsunami, as I might put it, of uncritical, uninformed and/or disingenuous ethnocentric cultural supremacist hooey,


Where is this tsunami of ethnocentric cultural supremacist hooey?


> Jazz and blues are over a century old, and even punk rock is nearly 50. It is far more worthwhile to examine all musical traditions respectfully and discover the reasons for their lasting appeal rather than dismissing them as inherently inferior.


But this is a classical music forum. I suppose its very existence is evidence of ethnocentric cultural supremacy.

It always boggles my mind how people can come to a classical music forum and be shocked, shocked!! that some there might feel that, e.g., Bach is the greatest composer they know. And then use that to accuse someone of ethnocentrism. I love Bach's music for what it is, not for the skin tone of the composer or where he lived. Not all of existence fits into these neat political patterns superimposed on it.

None of which has anything at all to do with the topic, unless it's a transgression to use Bach's music as an example of "beauty". In which case: Deal with it.


----------



## arpeggio

dissident said:


> Where is this tsunami of ethnocentric cultural supremacist hooey?


Dissident,

You have only been a member since May, 2021.

We have been reading these "tsunami's" for over ten years.

Every so often a new member comes along and proclaims I have not seen any "tsunami's" and then we go through the thousands of post to find examples.

I will mention a few.

Many years ago we had a member whose handle was Harpsichord Concerto. He claimed that his major objective in joining TC was to attack contemporary music. And he spent three years doing so.

We also use to have a member who claimed that his sole purpose of being a member of TC was to discourage people new to classical from listening to contemporary music.

Another former member who caused all sorts of trouble was Art Music.

I do not dare mention any current members.


----------



## 59540

arpeggio said:


> Dissident,
> 
> You have only been a member since May, 2021.
> 
> We have been reading these "tsunami's" for over ten years.
> 
> Every so often a new member comes along and proclaims I have not seen any "tsunami's" and then we go through the thousands of post to find examples.
> 
> I will mention a few.
> 
> Many years ago we had a member whose handle was Harpsichord Concerto. He claimed that his major objective in joining TC was to attack contemporary music. And he spent three years doing so.
> 
> We also use to have a member who claimed that his sole purpose of being a member of TC was to discourage people new to classical from listening to contemporary music.
> 
> Another former member who caused all sorts of trouble was Art Music.
> 
> I do not dare mention any current members.


Well if someone is intentionally trying to stir up ***** by attacking *all* modern music or all of whatever, then that is indeed bad. And from what I can tell about this site most people like that are usually banned. But then you can't take one or two examples of someone being an actual troll and then broaden that into some sort of "ethnocentric tsunami". Many years ago was many years ago. I look through the threads that have been active over the past several months and I see no evidence that modern music fans have been victimized, and nothing proclaiming the superiority of "European culture". There was actually a pretty interesting one about jazz that didn't get particularly contentious. The problem with a lot of modern music advocates is that they cannot tolerate anyone criticizing the music that they love. And I am not going to get into that sort of "debate". Like this one it goes nowhere until it comes to rest on politics or something.

Another problem is with people who take *everything* in a personal way. If you disagree with them on aesthetic matters or philosophy overall, or you think that the just-so position they're advocating has holes in it, then you're garbage and you should be banned. Hit that report button and get mod backup. It's as if it's a personal insult.


----------



## fluteman

arpeggio said:


> Dissident,
> 
> You have only been a member since May, 2021.
> 
> We have been reading these "tsunami's" for over ten years.
> 
> Every so often a new member comes along and proclaims I have not seen any "tsunami's" and then we go through the thousands of post to find examples.
> 
> I will mention a few.
> 
> Many years ago we had a member whose handle was Harpsichord Concerto. He claimed that his major objective in joining TC was to attack contemporary music. And he spent three years doing so.
> 
> We also use to have a member who claimed that his sole purpose of being a member of TC was to discourage people new to classical from listening to contemporary music.
> 
> Another former member who caused all sorts of trouble was Art Music.
> 
> I do not dare mention any current members.


I actually preferred the openly cultural supremacist posters to those who hide behind pompous, disingenuous, self-righteous hooey. But like you, I'm not naming anyone, and I'm certainly not searching for old and possibly deleted posts.

What I could easily do is build a plausible theory that music of the CPT period is inherently inferior to the music of today. It would go something like: During the long passed CPT period, powerful institutions of church and aristocracy used their authority over aesthetic norms to impose a style of music excessively dependent on elaborate rules that served to enforce rigid and consistent orders and hierarchies. (The Russian orthodox church actually banned secular music at one point.)

The idea was to impose a sense of unquestioning, serene and peaceful acceptance of the prevailing rigid, hierarchical political, social and economic order. After the control over European society of these traditional institutions loosened, music and art generally gradually became freer, more natural, and better. Modern despots, especially Hitler and Stalin, attempted to reimpose the old, rigid aesthetic rules for their own purposes (Hitler made a famous speech denouncing modern art that I've quoted here several times), but ultimately were unsuccessful.

I could propose a theory like that, but I won't. I mean, who am I, Millionrainbows? All of these pro- and anti-modern music (or art) theories are so much claptrap that justifiably gets threads closed by the moderators. As I've already said, better to respectfully examine all music that's had a significant cultural impact over time, without attempting to impose or justify unprovable theories.


----------



## SanAntone

IMO a lot of great music was written during the CP period, as has been posted from between roughly 1650-1900. Many masterpieces came out of that tradition, which is really a number of different stylistic traditions. One cannot embrace Classical music, IMO, without an appreciation of Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Liszt, Wagner, Brahms, and Mahler.

The music of these composers, as well as, all of the names I left out whom worked contemporaneously with those giants defines Classical music for many people. And I would agree with them. These composers and that period produced a lot of great music. Classical music.

However, there have also been a number of great composers who've written their share of great works since 1900. The 20th century produced an explosion of stylistic diversity which has continued into the 21st century. Yes, some of these styles appear to have little in common with CP styles. But, I see a direct connection to the CP tradition.

I love Classical music. From before 1650, right up to the present. While I can admit that much of the music written since 1900 is not for everyone, shoot, some of it is not for a lot of people, but that is no reason to advocate against it. Sure, I wish more people were interested in newer music, and do I wish there wasn't a tiny anti-modern claque on TC - yes! 

But I don't lose any sleep over it. Their loss, IMO.


----------



## EdwardBast

SanAntone said:


> However, there have also been a number of great composers who've written their share of great works since 1900. The 20th century produced an explosion of stylistic diversity which has continued into the 21st century. Yes, some of these styles appear to have little in common with CP styles. But, I see a direct connection to the CP tradition.


Much as I try to ignore them, I seem to remember that polls on TC suggest that the 20thc is at or near the top of the list in popularity. Or am I misremembering?


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> I love Classical music. From before 1650, right up to the present. While I can admit that much of the music written since 1900 is not for everyone, shoot, some of it is not for a lot of people, but that is no reason to advocate against it. Sure, I wish more people were interested in newer music, and do I wish there wasn't a tiny anti-modern claque on TC - yes!
> 
> But I don't lose any sleep over it. Their loss, IMO.


The thing is, there's a lot of CP music I don't like. I'll take traditional "roots" jazz over Saint-Saëns or Berlioz any day (sorry, Saint-Saëns and Berlioz fans).



fluteman said:


> What I could easily do is build a plausible theory that music of the CPT period is inherently inferior to the music of today. It would go something like: During the long passed CPT period, powerful institutions of church and aristocracy used their authority over aesthetic norms to impose a style of music excessively dependent on elaborate rules that served to enforce rigid and consistent orders and hierarchies. (The Russian orthodox church actually banned secular music at one point.)
> 
> The idea was to impose a sense of unquestioning, serene and peaceful acceptance of the prevailing rigid, hierarchical political, social and economic order. After the control over European society of these traditional institutions loosened, music and art generally gradually became freer, more natural, and better. Modern despots, especially Hitler and Stalin, attempted to reimpose the old, rigid aesthetic rules for their own purposes (Hitler made a famous speech denouncing modern art that I've quoted here several times), but ultimately were unsuccessful.


That seems to be pretty much orthodox musicology for a lot of people these days, and I've seen views like that expressed or quoted. Go for it.


----------



## EdwardBast

dissident said:


> The thing is, there's a lot of CP music I don't like. I'll take traditional "roots" jazz over Saint-Saëns or Berlioz any day (sorry, Saint-Saëns and Berlioz fans).


So? Is this relevant to a classical forum? I like King Crimson better than Bruckner or Boulez. That isn't relevant either.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> IMO a lot of great music was written during the CP period, as has been posted from between roughly 1650-1900. Many masterpieces came out of that tradition, which is really a number of different stylistic traditions. One cannot embrace Classical music, IMO, without an appreciation of Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Liszt, Wagner, Brahms, and Mahler.
> 
> The music of these composers, as well as, all of the names I left out whom worked contemporaneously with those giants defines Classical music for many people. And I would agree with them. These composers and that period produced a lot of great music. Classical music.
> 
> However, there have also been a number of great composers who've written their share of great works since 1900. The 20th century produced an explosion of stylistic diversity which has continued into the 21st century. Yes, some of these styles appear to have little in common with CP styles. But, I see a direct connection to the CP tradition.
> 
> I love Classical music. From before 1650, right up to the present. While I can admit that much of the music written since 1900 is not for everyone, shoot, some of it is not for a lot of people, but that is no reason to advocate against it. Sure, I wish more people were interested in newer music, and do I wish there wasn't a tiny anti-modern claque on TC - yes!
> 
> But I don't lose any sleep over it. Their loss, IMO.


When I had a chamber music group that regularly played in public, sometimes for pay but usually not, the occasional "avant garde" contemporary pieces we did often attracted the most interest. And I mean from random people on the street (literally -- we played street fairs), not snobby, beret-wearing, cappuccino sipping modern intellectuals. We found that the audience for live chamber music is often looking for something out of the ordinary, not pop, or even classical, standards that they could listen to any time with no help from us. Something to consider for those of you who get up on stage and play or sing.


----------



## SanAntone

EdwardBast said:


> Much as I try to ignore them, I seem to remember that polls on TC suggest that the 20thc is at or near the top of the list in popularity. Or am I misremembering?


As I wrote, there was a _huge_ diversity in styles during the 20th century, some of which consistently draw the ire of a few Classical music fans (there is also a conservative group of composers during the first half of the 20th century that is very popular).


----------



## 59540

EdwardBast said:


> So? Is this relevant to a classical forum? I like King Crimson better than Bruckner or Boulez. That isn't relevant either.


No it isn't, which is my point above. This is a *classical music forum*. But apparently, unless you acknowledge such, and concede explicitly that there is music of value outside the classical genre, it's taken as evidence of "ethnocentrism".


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> It's far from personal as far as I can tell. This thread has continued long enough for everyone to show their cards. Those who claim beauty is inherent in music on the whole are the same folks who insist that the music of a certain European cultural tradition of the 18th and 19th century, originating in the authoritative institutions of the Church and the aristocracy and filtering down into the bourgeois, is inherently superior to all other music.


How much more divisive can a post be. It starts off with:_ 'It's far from personal as far as I can tell_' and yet, we have 'these folks' and 'those/the same folks' all bundled into one group such as in the above statement which has virtually nothing to support it. In this thread there have been so many different viewpoints of the beauty in music and, far more than not, the premise of 'beauty is inherent in music' has been heavily nuanced and a premise that CPT music is thus inherently superior would be, by any measure, a minority view.



> *They* now have a name for it, one that didn't exist when I was a music student: the "Common Practice Period", defined as institutionalized western music from 1650 to 1900, at least according to the omniscient authority Wikipedia. A well-chosen name, with "Common" in the sense of standard or prevalent, i.e., the music most people supposedly want, even today, because it is inherently superior. Just to use the word establishes the proposition.


'They' must be, again, 'these folks'. The conspiracy theory continues where the word 'Common' is somehow connected with 'inherently superior'. Does anybody who hears the word 'common' immediately conjure up a thought of 'inherently superior'?



> These folks have to contend with some inconvenient truths, such as the fact that the Common Practice Period ended 121 years ago. Also, the unavoidable fact that *the vast majority of people today*, including people in Europe and other places dominated by western cultural traditions, do not want or prefer music of the Common Practice Period, but rather prefer music of the post-Common Practice Period, including even a genre like jazz that dates back to shortly after the end of the Common Practice Period and that is already regarded by some people as a "classical" music tradition.


This is bizarre and a fallacy. And what does jazz have to do with it other than to desperately beef up the 'post-Common Practice Period' numbers. Well, on that basis, I think maybe I'll just add a lot of film music and orchestrated popular ballads to beef up the numbers of CPT-like music in the 20th and 21st centuries.



> *None of that deters these folks*. Apparently, we are in a temporary, 121-year period where a few extremist composers, academics and critics, all of whom may be lumped under the term "avant garde", have hijacked western musical culture and forced people to listen to a whole lot of music they didn't want to hear, even though it's ugly.


Yes, there's nothing that 'these folks' won't do. A pox on them all for questioning the premise that enjoying music that removes melody, harmony and structure is just a question of a little effort.



> But please, spare us the Cartesian doubt, conspiracy theory-based flat earth baloney. Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Varese, Boulez, Stockhausen, Cage, Feldman, Reilly, Glass and others are all long since established as important and permanent parts of our cultural, aesthetic and musical traditions. Evidence of their influence is everywhere and isn't going away. Deal with it.


When an argument may be judged as thin, add a little gravitas with a big word like 'Cartesian'. Descartes is always a good go-to guy.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> I actually preferred the openly cultural supremacist posters to those who hide behind pompous, disingenuous, self-righteous hooey. But like you, I'm not naming anyone, and I'm certainly not searching for old and possibly deleted posts.
> 
> What I could easily do is build a plausible theory that music of the CPT period is inherently inferior to the music of today. It would go something like: During the long passed CPT period, powerful institutions of church and aristocracy used their authority over aesthetic norms to impose a style of music excessively dependent on elaborate rules that served to enforce rigid and consistent orders and hierarchies. (The Russian orthodox church actually banned secular music at one point.)
> 
> The idea was to impose a sense of unquestioning, serene and peaceful acceptance of the prevailing rigid, hierarchical political, social and economic order. After the control over European society of these traditional institutions loosened, music and art generally gradually became freer, more natural, and better. Modern despots, especially Hitler and Stalin, attempted to reimpose the old, rigid aesthetic rules for their own purposes (Hitler made a famous speech denouncing modern art that I've quoted here several times), but ultimately were unsuccessful.
> 
> I could propose a theory like that, but I won't. I mean, who am I, Millionrainbows? All of these pro- and anti-modern music (or art) theories are so much claptrap that justifiably gets threads closed by the moderators. As I've already said, better to respectfully examine all music that's had a significant cultural impact over time, without attempting to impose or justify unprovable theories.


Hmm. A theory is carefully described and labeled 'plausible' and then not proposed. For what purpose?


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> The irony is, none of it is necessary. The survival of the music of Bach and Beethoven in our culture for 200 years or more says all that needs to be said about that. Other musical traditions, many of which appeal to far more people today than that of Bach and Beethoven (I have cited relevant data) will also live on in some way if they continue to fulfill our needs in our ever changing cultural environment. I would note that West African djembe drumming is many centuries older than Bach and Beethoven. Jazz and blues are over a century old, and even punk rock is nearly 50. It is far more worthwhile to examine all musical traditions respectfully and discover the reasons for their lasting appeal rather than dismissing them as inherently inferior.


I'm sorry, but you're no different, in my view. You keep saying that the "Viennese Classicists" (the First School) were/are inherently superior to all their contemporaries in their time, (not just in this thread, but in other threads as well). I'm not necessarily saying it's wrong to hold that view, but why do you accuse others for "thinking that Bach and Beethoven are inherently superior to non-Western music traditions", while at the same time you do a similar thing, (with the Viennese Classicists VS their contemporaries) yourself?



fluteman said:


> Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Varese, Boulez, Stockhausen, Cage, Feldman, Reilly, Glass and others are all long since established as important and permanent parts of our cultural, aesthetic and musical traditions. Evidence of their influence is everywhere and isn't going away. Deal with it.


Ok.. but in the common practice, Hummel's influence was immense. _Deal with it._


----------



## DaveM

In a post above, there is the statement, '_I wish there wasn't a tiny anti-modern claque on TC.'_ I raise the question, if it is tiny, why the long posts by others with a level of venom inferring that not only is it not so tiny, but is rather a group large enough to be turning the forum upside down.

I agree that the so-called 'claque' is tiny. In my experience, the few who post purposely anti-modern/contemporary music with little or no diplomacy are often young and fairly new to classical music. I am well known for preferring CPT music, but I have qualified that by saying I have developed a respect for the music of Schoenberg and serial music in general. I don't search much of it out, but I see the continuum from music that preceded it particularly given music that sometimes bordered on atonal in the late 19th century. I've often noticed others with my CM taste mentioning their enjoyment of some modern/contemporary works. I don't go looking for trouble by bashing music after the 19th century. Why would I. It serves no purpose.

Personally, these days and for some time, I don't see frequent attacks on contemporary music with the only motive being to diminish and marginalize it. What I do see is a small, but very vocal group that wants to perpetuate dissension on the subject of anti-modernists and I wish it would stop. It's time to move on.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> I would note that West African djembe drumming is many centuries older than Bach and Beethoven.


Are you a practitioner of West African djembe drumming, or did you grow up in the West African culture where that sort of drumming is widely practiced? Do you know it as much Hong Nan-pa did Korean traditional music? Why did you choose that particularly as one of your examples? Did you just do it arbitrarily for the sake of your argument?

"Hong Nan Pa said that Korean traditional music is primitive music because it lacks harmony."
(""홍난파 그 사람이 '전통예술은 화음이 없으니까 원시음악'이라고 했어요.")
http://sangsig.blogspot.com/2011/10/blog-post_10.html
"Hong Nan-pa (April 10, 1897 or 98 - August 30, 1941) was a Korean composer, violinist, conductor, music critic and educator. He is best known as the composer of Bongseonhwa (봉선화, literally Garden Balsam) written in 1919. It is generally considered as the first true Korean original song composed in Western style. It was widely sung during the period. Hong also contributed to developing Korean culture during the period with his diverse cultural activities."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Nan-pa


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> Are you a practitioner of West African djembe drumming, or did you grow up in the West African culture where that sort of drumming is widely practiced? Do you know it as much Hong Nan-pa did Korean traditional music? Why did you choose that particularly as one of your examples? Did you just do it arbitrarily for the sake of your argument?
> 
> "Hong Nan Pa said that Korean traditional music is primitive music because it lacks harmony."
> (""홍난파 그 사람이 '전통예술은 화음이 없으니까 원시음악'이라고 했어요.")
> http://sangsig.blogspot.com/2011/10/blog-post_10.html
> "Hong Nan-pa (April 10, 1897 or 98 - August 30, 1941) was a Korean composer, violinist, conductor, music critic and educator. He is best known as the composer of Bongseonhwa (봉선화, literally Garden Balsam) written in 1919. It is generally considered as the first true Korean original song composed in Western style. It was widely sung during the period. Hong also contributed to developing Korean culture during the period with his diverse cultural activities."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Nan-pa


I have no interest in musicians from non-Western cultures writing in a Western style, especially western Classical music. Just as I would have no interest in a Western Classical composer trying to write Korean traditional music.

The quote you selected by this man is an embarrassment, IMO.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> Are you a practitioner of West African djembe drumming, or did you grow up in the West African culture where that sort of drumming is widely practiced? Do you know it as much Hong Nan-pa did Korean traditional music? Why did you choose that particularly as one of your examples? Did you just do it arbitrarily for the sake of your argument?
> 
> "Hong Nan Pa said that Korean traditional music is primitive music because it lacks harmony."
> (""홍난파 그 사람이 '전통예술은 화음이 없으니까 원시음악'이라고 했어요.")
> http://sangsig.blogspot.com/2011/10/blog-post_10.html
> "Hong Nan-pa (April 10, 1897 or 98 - August 30, 1941) was a Korean composer, violinist, conductor, music critic and educator. He is best known as the composer of Bongseonhwa (봉선화, literally Garden Balsam) written in 1919. It is generally considered as the first true Korean original song composed in Western style. It was widely sung during the period. Hong also contributed to developing Korean culture during the period with his diverse cultural activities."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Nan-pa


Just for giggles, here's the Theme from the South Korean film Tae Guk Gi composed by a Korean composer. It could be mistaken for an American or European movie theme. I rather like it.


----------



## fbjim

Young classical listeners being the most hostile to contemporary and 20th century works is the complete opposite of my personal experience.


----------



## mmsbls

Some people who are modern music enthusiasts complain about those who come to discussions and disparage modern music. Others complain about modern music enthusiasts being too defensive and bashing anti-modernists. To some extent, both have a point. Modern music enthusiasts do sometimes react a bit too strongly to criticism of the music they enjoy, and those complaining about the modern music enthusiasts likely do not understand the extent and inappropriateness of modern music bashing over the years. 

Blatant, inappropriate criticisms of modern music used to be more common on TC, but there were often profoundly rude and provocative statements disparaging modern music. Think of being at a party and discussing Impressionist paintings when someone pokes their head into your groups and says, "Impressionist paintings are awful, terrible, ugly, eye pain, nonsensical." I'm guessing a very high poercentage of people would consider that remarkably rude, insensitive, and blatantly inappropriate. That's the kind of comment that modern music enthusiasts saw all too frequently, and moderators eventually considered such comments to be trolling. Those comments are less common now but still exist and act to provoke some who love modern music. I understand the history of modern music bashing so I have sympathy for those who are sick of it, especially on a classical music forum. 

So maybe both groups could take a breath and not lash out at the "other side" quite so much. If you feel a post is a violation of our rules, report it but try not to engage unless in a constructive manner.


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> Well if someone is intentionally trying to stir up ***** by attacking *all* modern music or all of whatever, then that is indeed bad. And from what I can tell about this site most people like that are usually banned.


It's hard to know if someone is intentionally trying to be provocative, but attacking all modern music on a classical music site is generally a bit problematic. Actually those people are rarely banned not because we consider their posts acceptable, but because being banned generally requires many violations over a relatively long period.



dissident said:


> But then you can't take one or two examples of someone being an actual troll and then broaden that into some sort of "ethnocentric tsunami".


That's true, and I don't know what an ethnocentric tsunami is.



dissident said:


> Many years ago was many years ago. I look through the threads that have been active over the past several months and I see no evidence that modern music fans have been victimized, and nothing proclaiming the superiority of "European culture".


I'm not sure what you mean by fans being victimized. You have asked for examples of inapporpriate bashing of modern music, and there was a recent long thread that had a rather remarkably provocative set of disparaging comments that would never be used toward CPT or other music. Not ever. You posted often in that thread close in time to many of the comments. I don't believe they had anything to do with European culture.



dissident said:


> There was actually a pretty interesting one about jazz that didn't get particularly contentious. The problem with a lot of modern music advocates is that they cannot tolerate anyone criticizing the music that they love. And I am not going to get into that sort of "debate". Like this one it goes nowhere until it comes to rest on politics or something.


Generally criticizing music takes the form of explaining why it is inferior or problematic. I think few people wish to tolerate comments such as:



> I hate modern composers. Their works mostly are pretentious, vacuous, lacking ideas and harmony. Why does no one speak out. I hope their works get destroyed into oblivion. Please stop composing junks pretending to be classical. Enough all.





dissident said:


> Another problem is with people who take *everything* in a personal way. If you disagree with them on aesthetic matters or philosophy overall, or you think that the just-so position they're advocating has holes in it, then you're garbage and you should be banned. Hit that report button and get mod backup. It's as if it's a personal insult.


People use the report button vastly less often than you seem to imagine. I'm not sure I've ever heard from someone who thinks another should be banned for disagreeing with them or for proposing poor arguments.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> Some people who are modern music enthusiasts complain about those who come to discussions and disparage modern music. Others complain about modern music enthusiasts being too defensive and bashing anti-modernists. To some extent, both have a point. Modern music enthusiasts do sometimes react a bit too strongly to criticism of the music they enjoy, and those complaining about the modern music enthusiasts likely do not understand the extent and inappropriateness of modern music bashing over the years.
> 
> Blatant, inappropriate criticisms of modern music used to be more common on TC, but there were often profoundly rude and provocative statements disparaging modern music. Think of being at a party and discussing Impressionist paintings when someone pokes their head into your groups and says, "Impressionist paintings are awful, terrible, ugly, eye pain, nonsensical." I'm guessing a very high poercentage of people would consider that remarkably rude, insensitive, and blatantly inappropriate. That's the kind of comment that modern music enthusiasts saw all too frequently, and moderators eventually considered such comments to be trolling. Those comments are less common now but still exist and act to provoke some who love modern music. I understand the history of modern music bashing so I have sympathy for those who are sick of it, especially on a classical music forum.
> 
> So maybe both groups could take a breath and not lash out at the "other side" quite so much. If you feel a post is a violation of our rules, report it but try not to engage unless in a constructive manner.


I don't understand some of the perspective above. If the 'inappropriate criticisms used to be more common' which means they aren't now, why is it necessary to remind those of us who aren't part of that period how awful it was. IMO, it only provides a justification for those posting incendiary diatribes as if there is an ongoing daily assault on modern music on TC.

I'm sure you're aware of the long post I responded to above that was about as provoking and divisive as anything I've seen in recent times. Is that not trolling? I've only reported a post once in my 6 years. It's not in my nature to do it. But if you're saying that something might be done about posts like that if reported, then maybe I'll consider it more in the future. I'm tired of those of us who prefer CPT music being used a scapegoats by those who are living in the past and taking everything as a personal insult. That behavior is no different than what you described that occurred in the past.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> And yet, I stand by every word. As for the worthiness of my contribution, I withheld it for a long time after joining this forum, but finally felt it had to be made after reading "thread after thread", as SanAntone puts it, or an unending tsunami, as I might put it, of uncritical, uninformed and/or disingenuous ethnocentric cultural supremacist hooey, all of which is far from a worthwhile contribution to a conversation about aesthetics, music or anything else.
> 
> The irony is, none of it is necessary. The survival of the music of Bach and Beethoven in our culture for 200 years or more says all that needs to be said about that. Other musical traditions, many of which appeal to far more people today than that of Bach and Beethoven (I have cited relevant data) will also live on in some way if they continue to fulfill our needs in our ever changing cultural environment. I would note that West African djembe drumming is many centuries older than Bach and Beethoven. Jazz and blues are over a century old, and even punk rock is nearly 50. It is far more worthwhile to examine all musical traditions respectfully and discover the reasons for their lasting appeal rather than dismissing them as inherently inferior.


There will always be people who are, as you put it, uncritical, uninformed and/or disingenuous in the ideas they espouse. And there will always be people whose musical tastes and judgments don't extend much beyond what they encounter in their own cultural traditions. "Tsunami" is hardly an apt metaphor for such common, and widely dispersed rather than catastrophic, human traits and behaviors. Should we encounter these, the only constructive approach to them I can think of - if we care to approach them at all, which we're perfectly justified in not doing (my own preferred attitude) - is to suggest other ways of thinking, give reasons for them, and leave others to make of those ways and reasons what they can or will.

I must say, in addition, that I don't find a bit of "cultural ethnocentrism" necessarily a bad thing when it's held with thoughtful conviction born of experience. Not everyone will, or needs to, discover the delights of West African djembe drumming or punk rock, but people shouldn't be faulted if, when they do encounter these forms of music, they find themselves unable to concede that the practitioners of them have produced works as rich, complex and expressive as a concerto of Bach, a quartet of Beethoven, an opera of Wagner or a ballet of Prokofiev. I don't doubt that, similarly, there are musicians and music-lovers in India who are deeply appreciative of the extraordinary richness of their own musical tradition, and are as sure as many Westerners that their own music possesses depths and subtleties not encountered elsewhere (including in the music of the West). I consider it a facile and suspect egalitarianism that leads people to deny that some forms of art offer artists a greater range of possibilities than others, and when works that astonish humanity with their splendors arise out of our own culture we needn't be "uncritical, uninformed and/or disingenuous" to speak with conviction on the magnitude - and even the superiority - of what's been given us.

Not everyone who thinks or argues that Western classical music is something truly extraordinary and special in the world is closed to the virtues of other arts from other times and places. But if we find them - or imagine them - closed, we can always direct them toward things that might expand their horizons.


----------



## arpeggio

fluteman said:


> ...or an unending tsunami, as I might put it, of uncritical, uninformed and/or disingenuous ethnocentric cultural supremacist hooey, all of which is far from a worthwhile contribution to a conversation about aesthetics, music or anything else.


Is it really necessary to say that Fluteman was trying to be colorful and silly 

Give me a break.

I have to remember this the next time someone accuses me of overeating.


----------



## Sid James

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> When you hear a beautiful piece of music, is the beauty in the music itself or is it in the listeners brain?
> 
> Give a short explanation of why you voted either way.


In the listener's brain, since responding to music isn't a simple case of stimulus-response, and it includes instances where the listener doesn't comprehend exactly what he's hearing but still responds to it in some way. This ties into the concept of the sublime, which was an important factor in music from the late 18th century to the mid 20th century. The sublime can be seen as a disruptor of beauty in the arts. Edmund Burke put it like this:

_"...sublime objects are vast in their dimensions, beautiful ones comparatively small: beauty should be smooth and polished; the great, rugged and negligent...the great in many cases loves the right line; and when it deviates, it often makes a strong impression...the great ought to be dark and gloomy: beauty should be light and delicate; the great ought to be solid and even massive. They are indeed ideas of a very different nature, one being founded on pain, the other on pleasure."_

The sublime emerges out of the Enlightenment, where contrast between darkness and light became an increasing preoccupation for composers like Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven. Romanticism took it further, with the increasing scale of works and themes including the overwhelming power of nature and the macabre. It can be argued that modernism increasingly dwelt upon the psychological aspects of the sublime (the work of Freud had impact here).

Inquiries into the sublime didn't stop in the mid 20th century. This quote by Xenakis speaks to the sublime, his music often gives a sense of man in a vast landscape:

_"...the listener must be gripped and - whether he likes it or not - drawn into the path of the sounds, without special training being necessary. The sensual shock must be just as forceful as when one hears a clap of thunder or looks into a bottomless abyss."_

I think that the sense of being challenged and disoriented by music has had a major role in the development of core repertoire (c. 1750-1950). Music gradually moving away from being tied to church and court functions could only aid this process. Audiences came to expect experiences beyond what can be called simple beauty.

I think that this disruption of beauty meant composers could explore more areas of the human condition, including ones that where confronting and even ugly. I discussed aspects of this here:
https://www.talkclassical.com/71884-horrible-wonderful-2.html#post2119836


----------



## hammeredklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> But the fact is that most people in the world encounter (or have demand for) this sort of musical aesthetics
> 
> 
> 
> through contents like
> 
> 
> 
> (18:30)
> I think no other kind of music creates the feeling "something dreadful is happening / going to happen" better, in the context of a modern horror/grotesque show. No matter how you want to categorize this sort of music (ie. ugly or beautiful), it's something indispensable for modern culture.


I would say the only solution to the problem is: Contemporary Music Subforum


----------



## 59540

arpeggio said:


> Is it really necessary to say that Fluteman was trying to be colorful and silly
> 
> Give me a break.
> 
> I have to remember this the next time someone accuses me of overeating.


So fluteman was being "colorful and silly" but yet you remember with revulsion other "colorfulness and silliness" from years ago. I'll have to remember that the next time you take offense. Or better yet, maybe *you* should remember that. "Come on now, can't you take a _joke_??"


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

SanAntone said:


> But I have never claimed that beauty was not in the music; all I've ever said was that to the extent beauty is present in music, or art in general, it is in potential. It requires a human appreciator for it to be perceived. I don't think beauty is objective, but something we all subjectively appreciate.
> 
> So the idea that beauty is inherently in music is an empty claim, IMO, since without a person to appreciate it, the beauty does not really exist.
> 
> And what I find beautiful you may not. I also think beauty is not the most important consideration concerning music or art.


So the human perceiver makes the beauty exist?


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by fans being victimized.


That daily, page after page ethnocentric tsunami we're told goes on.


> You have asked for examples of inapporpriate bashing of modern music, and there was a recent long thread that had a rather remarkably provocative set of disparaging comments that would never be used toward CPT or other music. Not ever. You posted often in that thread close in time to many of the comments. I don't believe they had anything to do with European culture.


An isolated comment here or there is not some sort of daily avalanche of anti-modern music.



> Generally criticizing music takes the form of explaining why it is inferior or problematic. I think few people wish to tolerate comments such as:


Unless it's a personal attack, I'll tolerate whatever criticism. I'll even tolerate a personal attack since it's a sign that the "attacker" really has no other argument. If it's a flimsy, ridiculous argument it'll self-destruct. Someone can say whatever they want about Bach or Beethoven. Their work speaks for itself without my defense and without my getting angry and indignant at someone who doesn't like them, or even despises them. I don't care.



> People use the report button vastly less often than you seem to imagine. I'm not sure I've ever heard from someone who thinks another should be banned for disagreeing with them or for proposing poor arguments.


I mention that because that's generally the reason given in the members' area for handing out infractions, suspensions and bans. All those reports and pm complaints to the moderators.


mmsbls said:


> ...
> The general membership may see a banned member's posts, but they don't see the PMs and reported posts by other members complaining about the behavior. You seem relatively unaffected by other members' behavior, but we hear from many who are decidedly not unaffected and who express serious displeasure with specific posts and general behavior. ....


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> Some people who are modern music enthusiasts complain about those who come to discussions and disparage modern music. Others complain about modern music enthusiasts being too defensive and bashing anti-modernists. To some extent, both have a point. Modern music enthusiasts do sometimes react a bit too strongly to criticism of the music they enjoy, and those complaining about the modern music enthusiasts likely do not understand the extent and inappropriateness of modern music bashing over the years.
> 
> Blatant, inappropriate criticisms of modern music used to be more common on TC, but there were often profoundly rude and provocative statements disparaging modern music. Think of being at a party and discussing Impressionist paintings when someone pokes their head into your groups and says, "Impressionist paintings are awful, terrible, ugly, eye pain, nonsensical." I'm guessing a very high poercentage of people would consider that remarkably rude, insensitive, and blatantly inappropriate. That's the kind of comment that modern music enthusiasts saw all too frequently, and moderators eventually considered such comments to be trolling. Those comments are less common now but still exist and act to provoke some who love modern music. I understand the history of modern music bashing so I have sympathy for those who are sick of it, especially on a classical music forum.
> 
> So maybe both groups could take a breath and not lash out at the "other side" quite so much. If you feel a post is a violation of our rules, report it but try not to engage unless in a constructive manner.


We all have our own unique aesthetic tastes and can sometimes be passionate about them. That's fine. I happen to cast my net rather wide when it comes to music and visual art. So I have to expect that many will denigrate some of the things that interest me. Also fine. In fact, growing up on an all Bach, Beethoven and Brahms diet, it was especially frustrating when peers who knew nothing about that music would ceaselessly ridicule it and my interest in it. So I am especially sensitive to the feelings of those who are fiercely loyal to that particular musical tradition.

But I have no patience for those who, either through ignorance or intellectual dishonestly (and I've seen both), embrace a sometimes subtle but unmistakable form of white, European, aristocratic cultural supremacy or imperialism, with clear political and social undertones. One poster whom I will name (Zhdanov), likened those who failed to acknowledge the superiority of this particular cultural tradition to "monkeys". There are others here far more subtle and polite about it than Zhdanov, but eventually their position becomes just as clear.

A word I have now used two or three times in this thread is "respect". It is important to have respect for cultural traditions other than those one has grown up with, is most familiar with, or otherwise happens to favor. I have had education and training in conventional western music theory, including ear training, sight singing and solfege, which I consider especially important. (Not that there aren't many here who are better at all that than I am.)

But it would never occur to me to use any of that as a weapon to attack non-western or post-19th century musical traditions that use different approaches, including those not based on traditional western harmony. I understand that there is nothing inherently superior about my favorite music. I would never say that the fact that Bach and Beethoven are identified as favorites in polls (What polls, exactly? Certainly not those of the general public) "must mean something."

No, they do not necessarily mean anything, other than that some people like the music of Bach and Beethoven, and that a consensus has developed over time among those who ascribe to a certain cultural tradition of its worth. To insist otherwise, with no basis (and no basis ever emerges, despite the endless jabbering) is wrong.


----------



## DaveM

arpeggio said:


> Is it really necessary to say that Fluteman was trying to be colorful and silly
> 
> Give me a break.
> 
> I have to remember this the next time someone accuses me of overeating.


Why do we need to give you a break? For misrepresenting Fluteman's post?


----------



## 59540

fluteman said:


> But I have no patience for those who, either through ignorance or intellectual dishonestly (and I've seen both), embrace a sometimes subtle but unmistakable form of white, European, aristocratic cultural supremacy or imperialism, with clear political and social undertones.


And I have no patience with those who in their dogmatic black-and-white hyper-politicized view of reality have to try to create "devils" by ascribing to others ethnic and racial views that aren't there. It's a self-serving false dichotomy: "you either share my attitude, or you're ignorant or intellectually dishonest and embrace a subtle but unmistakable form of European supremacy and imperialism".

Where's the joke in this one, arpeggio?


----------



## Luchesi

Many long posts to read and I've gotten behind..

What's always been interesting to me about music is that any average child from any culture can learn to deeply appreciate Western CM. 

It's probably true that any average child from any culture can appreciate the high art of any culture. They will be naturally inspired and LIMITED by it. As with language. 
For me, high art is the attempt to reflect aspects of reality and psychology using the metaphors of each cultures' artistic toolkit (which come universally from the poetry of Earth).

What does this tell us about the enduring achievement of anyone's favorite art? IMO, nothing at all. If you want to look into it you can merely deduce a lot about the receivers (fans and audiences).


----------



## mmsbls

fluteman said:


> ...But I have no patience for those who, either through ignorance or intellectual dishonestly (and I've seen both), embrace a sometimes subtle but unmistakable form of white, European, aristocratic cultural supremacy or imperialism, with clear political and social undertones. One poster whom I will name (Zhdanov), likened those who failed to acknowledge the superiority of this particular cultural tradition to "monkeys". There are others here far more subtle and polite about it than Zhdanov, but eventually their position becomes just as clear....


I understand your view that some on TC have indeed blatantly embraced white, European, aristocratic cultural supremacy. I agree that is wrong, and I think most here would agree as well. I think it's probably wise to be a bit cautious in asigning those values to others who do not post as blatantly. You may feel you have good reasons to believe that some of them are truly pushing such values, but I know it's very easy to post comments that can be misunderstood. It happens all the time on forums. I think it's easy to believe that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the pinnacle of musical excellence without in any way believing that popular music, African music, and Asian music are fundamentally inferior.


----------



## mmsbls

Can we please get back to the topic of the location of beauty in music? There are too many negative personal comments.


----------



## fbjim

Luchesi said:


> What does this tell us about the enduring achievement of anyone's favorite art? IMO, nothing at all. If you want to look into it you can merely deduce a lot about the receivers (fans and audiences).


This is precisely the case.

I do not buy into the idea (a very old one) that art leads to a universal beauty or truth. But it does lead to an understanding of what the listeners and artists in that culture believed to be beautiful and true, and that is valuable.


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> ...I think it's easy to believe that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the pinnacle of musical excellence without in any way believing that popular music, African music, and Asian music are fundamentally inferior.


Well, no, mmsbls. According to the dogma, if you believe that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are the "pinnacle of musical excellence" then you are de facto saying that those other forms are fundamentally inferior. It's the belief in "musical excellence" and "pinnacles" that's the transgression.

I don't think these other forms of music are "inferior" as much as "impossible to compare".


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> I don't think these other forms of music are "inferior" as much as "impossible to compare".


Yes. The subtext of this goes back to an older set of debates on whether there were objective measures of artistic worth which could "prove" the superiority of classical music over popular music.

As for the racial element, the examples of "popular music" given as examples were, more often than not, black music, or woman artists.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> Yes. The subtext of this goes back to an older set of debates on whether there were objective measures of artistic worth which could "prove" the superiority of classical music over popular music.
> 
> As for the racial element, the examples of "popular music" given as examples were, more often than not, black music, or woman artists.


But it doesn't necessarily follow that if you adore Bach but find jazz uninteresting that you are subtly but unmistakably embracing ethnocentric European superiority.

I don't have much more to say on the subject, and this one's probably destined for lockdown anyway.


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> I think it's easy to believe that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the pinnacle of musical excellence without in any way believing that popular music, African music, and Asian music are fundamentally inferior.


I would be interested to see how this isn't a contradiction.


----------



## DaveM

Okay back to beauty in music. I came on TC because I find beauty everywhere in CPT music. I know nothing about ‘white, European, aristocratic cultural supremacy’ as a thing here lately or the fact that it is anywhere near prevalent on TC enough, in general, to make it the subject of repeated posts which are only derailing this thread. 

Since this is a forum dedicated to classical music, I don’t feel the slightest obligation to spend time on some kind of PC mission to acknowledge all the other music forms around the world and carry some kind of guilt for the belief system that some kind of miracle occurred during the 300 years of the CPT during which time beauty in some form was everywhere. 

Furthermore, it has spread around the world to cultures having music that is far different. No other ‘native’ music in other countries has spread likewise. It’s just a fact and doesn’t infer ‘superiority’, but rather music that can apparently be interpreted as beautiful in the brains of those in many disparate cultures.


----------



## mmsbls

janxharris said:


> I would be interested to see how this isn't a contradiction.


One could believe that other forms of music are essentially at the same level as classical music but believe that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the greatest composers of all. Basically, the average level of, say, popular music is the same as the average level of classical, but no composers are as good as those three. Unless you believe that every composer is identical in ability or output, some must be higher than others. One could view the highest as Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart.

One could also only listen to classical and believe that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the greatest classical music composers without having a view about other forms of music. It would be natural to say, "Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the greatest" rather than "I have not listened much to other forms of music and my present comments do not reflect any comparisons to other forms of music, but I do want to express my view of the greatest composers I'm aware of..."


----------



## hammeredklavier

mmsbls said:


> I think it's easy to believe that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the pinnacle of musical excellence without in any way believing that popular music, African music, and Asian music are fundamentally inferior.


I too, don't consider the idea "sacrilegious". I weep to the slow movements of Mozart's 33rd, 34th, 41st, but I accept that there are 99% of people out there who would consider me as a geek or a freak, saying "Wow......(lost for words)...... do you also keep a powdered wig in your closet?" (I think MR did once). 






















To answer Dissident's question ("why are there still people listening to 200-300 year old music?"), call me crazy, but I think there is always 1% of the population born into wrong eras. Maybe we're part of them, predisposed to resonate with the aesthetic values of bygone eras. 
The idea that we have to force everyone to accept that aesthetic values like the following (for instance) are objectively superior feels a bit "disturbingly dogmatic" to me, deep down. Rather I find it a bit embarrassing to tell people outside of my family in real life that I listen to classical music.




 "For modern listeners, one of the hardest things to grasp about the Classical style is its unabashed reliance on predictability. Before Beethoven at least, Classical composers simply didn't put much of a premium on innovation for its own sake. Unlike artists today, they weren't usually out to shock, or provoke, or to challenge their audiences. Their aim was to create music that was easily accessible and which honored what they thought of as the rules of good taste and propriety. This led to a heavy reliance on the conventional, and, thus, on the predictable. And one of the most predictable aspects of the style is its use of cadences. Simply put, if you know the classical style, it's often possible to anticipate when a cadence is coming."

What I truly feel about topics like this is that; the aesthetic goals for artistic beauty of classical music and contemporary music are way too different that the only way to satisfy everyone I believe is "separation"; just so that people don't judge contemporary music by the standards of classical music, and vice-versa.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> I too, don't consider the idea "sacrilegious". I weep to the slow movements of Mozart's 33rd, 34th, 41st, but I accept that there are 99% of people out there who would consider me as a geek or a freak, saying "Wow......(lost for words)...... do you also keep a powdered wig in your closet?" (I think MR did once).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To answer Dissident's question ("why are there still people listening to 200-300 year old music?"), call me crazy, but I think there is always 1% of the population born into wrong eras. Maybe we're part of them, predisposed to resonate with the aesthetic values of bygone eras.
> The idea that we have to force everyone to accept that aesthetic values like the following (for instance) are objectively superior feels a bit "disturbingly dogmatic" to me, deep down. Rather I find it a bit embarrassing to tell people outside of my family in real life that I listen to classical music.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "For modern listeners, one of the hardest things to grasp about the Classical style is its unabashed reliance on predictability. Before Beethoven at least, Classical composers simply didn't put much of a premium on innovation for its own sake. Unlike artists today, they weren't usually out to shock, or provoke, or to challenge their audiences. Their aim was to create music that was easily accessible and which honored what they thought of as the rules of good taste and propriety. This led to a heavy reliance on the conventional, and, thus, on the predictable. And one of the most predictable aspects of the style is its use of cadences. Simply put, if you know the classical style, it's often possible to anticipate when a cadence is coming."
> 
> What I truly feel about topics like this is that; the aesthetic goals for artistic beauty of classical music and contemporary music are way too different that the only way to satisfy everyone I believe is "segregation"; just so that people don't judge contemporary music by the standards of classical music, and vice-versa.


Or we use the honest intentions of the creators instead of audiences' preferences (in any time period).


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> One could believe that other forms of music are essentially at the same level as classical music but believe that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the greatest composers of all. Basically, the average level of, say, popular music is the same as the average level of classical, but no composers are as good as those three. Unless you believe that every composer is identical in ability or output, some must be higher than others. One could view the highest as Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart.
> 
> One could also only listen to classical and believe that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the greatest classical music composers without having a view about other forms of music. It would be natural to say, "Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the greatest" rather than "I have not listened much to other forms of music and my present comments do not reflect any comparisons to other forms of music, but I do want to express my view of the greatest composers I'm aware of..."


I'd like to see an unbiased poster (like you) list the findings arrived at in this thread. If they're still at opposites, that's alright with me.


----------



## SanAntone

mmsbls said:


> One could believe that other forms of music are essentially at the same level as classical music but believe that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the greatest composers of all. Basically, the average level of, say, popular music is the same as the average level of classical, but no composers are as good as those three. Unless you believe that every composer is identical in ability or output, some must be higher than others. One could view the highest as Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart.
> 
> One could also only listen to classical and believe that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the greatest classical music composers without having a view about other forms of music. It would be natural to say, "Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the greatest" rather than "I have not listened much to other forms of music and my present comments do not reflect any comparisons to other forms of music, but I do want to express my view of the greatest composers I'm aware of..."


This is an example of a kind of post I see often on TC, i.e. filled with hypotheticals. I vastly prefer and find it more meaningful when people simply describe their own opinion, first hand observations, and experiences. Speculating about what "one could believe ..." does not establish any kind of real experience. It is just speculation.

I don't mean to pick on you, I generally agree with your contributions.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> It's hard to know if someone is intentionally trying to be provocative, but attacking all modern music on a classical music site is generally a bit problematic. Actually those people are rarely banned not because we consider their posts acceptable, but because being banned generally requires many violations over a relatively long period.
> 
> That's true, and I don't know what an ethnocentric tsunami is.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by fans being victimized. You have asked for examples of inapporpriate bashing of modern music, and there was a recent long thread that had a rather remarkably provocative set of disparaging comments that would never be used toward CPT or other music. Not ever. You posted often in that thread close in time to many of the comments. I don't believe they had anything to do with European culture.
> 
> Generally criticizing music takes the form of explaining why it is inferior or problematic. I think few people wish to tolerate comments such as:
> 
> *People use the report button vastly less often than you seem to imagine. I'm not sure I've ever heard from someone who thinks another should be banned for disagreeing with them or for proposing poor arguments.*


This is a mis-impression that can result because most of what mods think about or respond to is hidden. And I don't think anything can be done about that..


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> I understand your view that some on TC have indeed blatantly embraced white, European, aristocratic cultural supremacy. I agree that is wrong, and I think most here would agree as well. I think it's probably wise to be a bit cautious in asigning those values to others who do not post as blatantly. You may feel you have good reasons to believe that some of them are truly pushing such values, but I know it's very easy to post comments that can be misunderstood. It happens all the time on forums. I think it's easy to believe that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the pinnacle of musical excellence without in any way believing that popular music, African music, and Asian music are fundamentally inferior.


OK. As far as Asian or African musical traditions, those are seldom discussed here at all. But the influence of non-western traditions is one of the main things that distinguishes 20th and 21st century western music from earlier western music, together with the impact of modern technology. If we're discussing exactly what makes music aesthetically pleasing, or moving, or inspiring, (or however one chooses to define "beauty"), these are the kind of things that make it impossible to discuss the concept outside of a cultural context. Unless one assumes that a certain, limited cultural context from a certain time and place is all that really matters.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> OK. As far as Asian or African musical traditions, those are seldom discussed here at all. But the influence of non-western traditions is one of the main things that distinguishes 20th and 21st century western music from earlier western music, together with the impact of modern technology. If we're discussing exactly what makes music aesthetically pleasing, or moving, or inspiring, (or however one chooses to define "beauty"), these are the kind of things that make it impossible to discuss the concept outside of a cultural context. Unless one assumes that a certain, limited cultural context from a certain time and place is all that really matters.


When I was young I came upon the idea that all music in all cultures flowered from the same basic musical elements and therefore all that mattered was the development, the intentions, the mind-expanding attributes and the craftsmanship of each style. The idea inspired me.


----------



## Forster

janxharris said:


> I would be interested to see how this isn't a contradiction.


It is a contradiction, IMO. If one form of music is the pinnacle, everything else must be inferior.


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> It is a contradiction, IMO. If one form of music is the pinnacle, everything else must be inferior.


If you think that McIntosh apples are the "pinnacle" of apples, does that make all other fruits inferior?

When someone says that Bach, Beethoven, and I forgot the third, are the greatest composers of Western European Classical musical tradition, it has no bearing on the traditional music of India, or Africa, or China, or Jazz, or Blues, or Rock, or Pop ...

No contradiction.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> When I was young I came upon the idea that all music in all cultures flowered from the same basic musical elements and therefore all that mattered was the development, the intentions, the mind-expanding attributes and the craftsmanship of each style. The idea inspired me.


When I was young I came upon the idea that all music in all cultures did not flower from the same basic musical elements, and that the same was true for art generally. The idea inspired me. In particular, it inspired me to be respectful of the artistic achievements of other cultures, even ancient ones.


----------



## EdwardBast

DaveM said:


> Since this is a forum dedicated to classical music, I don't feel the slightest obligation to spend time on some kind of PC mission to acknowledge all the other music forms around the world and carry some kind of guilt for the belief system that some kind of miracle occurred during the 300 years of the CPT during which time beauty in some form was everywhere.


Neither do I.



DaveM said:


> Furthermore, it has spread around the world to cultures having music that is far different. *No other 'native' music in other countries has spread likewise.* It's just a fact and doesn't infer 'superiority', but rather music that can apparently be interpreted as beautiful in the brains of those in many disparate cultures.


This must be a joke. American popular music has spread further and faster to every "corner of the globe."


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> I too, don't consider the idea "sacrilegious". I weep to the slow movements of Mozart's 33rd, 34th, 41st, but I accept that there are 99% of people out there who would consider me as a geek or a freak, saying "Wow......(lost for words)...... do you also keep a powdered wig in your closet?" (I think MR did once).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To answer Dissident's question ("why are there still people listening to 200-300 year old music?"), call me crazy, but I think there is always 1% of the population born into wrong eras. Maybe we're part of them, predisposed to resonate with the aesthetic values of bygone eras.
> The idea that we have to force everyone to accept that aesthetic values like the following (for instance) are objectively superior feels a bit "disturbingly dogmatic" to me, deep down. Rather I find it a bit embarrassing to tell people outside of my family in real life that I listen to classical music.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "For modern listeners, one of the hardest things to grasp about the Classical style is its unabashed reliance on predictability. Before Beethoven at least, Classical composers simply didn't put much of a premium on innovation for its own sake. Unlike artists today, they weren't usually out to shock, or provoke, or to challenge their audiences. Their aim was to create music that was easily accessible and which honored what they thought of as the rules of good taste and propriety. This led to a heavy reliance on the conventional, and, thus, on the predictable. And one of the most predictable aspects of the style is its use of cadences. Simply put, if you know the classical style, it's often possible to anticipate when a cadence is coming."
> 
> What I truly feel about topics like this is that; the aesthetic goals for artistic beauty of classical music and contemporary music are way too different that the only way to satisfy everyone I believe is "separation"; just so that people don't judge contemporary music by the standards of classical music, and vice-versa.


Well I don't see this as a dichotomy between just the classical and contemporary era...but what is of great interest (to me and I'm sure to many of us) is why some find the predictability you describe beautiful, yet others don't. Essentially you are describing a major facet of that era - harmonic homogeny...and, yes, it certainly does aid accessibility. Present an audience with a novel chord progression and you will almost certainly lose some of them.

You tie good taste and propriety with the conventional, but that does not necessarily follow.


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> One could believe that other forms of music are essentially at the same level as classical music but believe that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the greatest composers of all. Basically, the average level of, say, popular music is the same as the average level of classical, but no composers are as good as those three. Unless you believe that every composer is identical in ability or output, some must be higher than others. One could view the highest as Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart.
> 
> One could also only listen to classical and believe that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the greatest classical music composers without having a view about other forms of music. It would be natural to say, "Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the greatest" rather than "I have not listened much to other forms of music and my present comments do not reflect any comparisons to other forms of music, but I do want to express my view of the greatest composers I'm aware of..."


Your fist paragraph still looks contradictory.


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> You tie good taste and propriety with the conventional, but that does not necessarily follow.


The quoted portion is from 



, btw


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> One could believe that other forms of music are essentially at the same level as classical music ...


How? How do you assign various musical traditions or genres, whether modern or old, western or from other cultures, a "level"? What is being measured?


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> If you think that McIntosh apples are the "pinnacle" of apples, does that make all other fruits inferior?
> 
> When someone says that Bach, Beethoven, and I forgot the third, are the greatest composers of Western European Classical musical tradition, it has no bearing on the traditional music of India, or Africa, or China, or Jazz, or Blues, or Rock, or Pop ...
> 
> No contradiction.


The post spoke about "the pinnacle of musical excellence", not the "pinnacle of CM excellence". All fruits were being included!


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> Neither do I.
> This must be a joke. American popular music has spread further and faster to every "corner of the globe."


Okay, point taken. Not sure why the joke label is necessary. I was assuming a comparison of western classical music with the long-standing cultural music of other cultures.


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> The post spoke about "the pinnacle of musical excellence", not the "pinnacle of CM excellence". All fruits were being included!


Then the original poster was confused since there is no basis of comparison between Western Classical music and other non-Western traditions, or even non-Classical traditions such as Jazz and Blues (and their children, Rock, R&B and most popular music) which are outgrowths of non-Western traditions.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> Then the original poster was confused since there is no basis of comparison between Western Classical music and other non-Western traditions, or even non-Classical traditions such as Jazz and Blues (and their children, Rock, R&B and most popular music) which are outgrowths of non-Western traditions.


Confused or not, janxharris was right to observe the contradiction.


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> Confused or not, janxharris was right to observe the contradiction.


And I dispute any alleged contradiction. When there is no basis for comparison between one genre others, no composer(s) from that genre can be the pinnacle.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> And I dispute any alleged contradiction. When there is no basis for comparison between one genre others, no composer(s) from that genre can be the pinnacle.


But mmsbls then went on to say,



> One could believe that other forms of music are essentially at the same level as classical music but believe that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the greatest composers of all


No "pinnacle" this time, but still a top three over all other musics.

Mmsbls may not think this himself, but if "one" were to believe this, it would be contradictory.


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> But mmsbls then went on to say,
> 
> No "pinnacle" this time, but still a top three over all other musics.
> 
> Mmsbls may not think this himself, but if "one" were to believe this, it would be contradictory.


The belief is based on a misconception, but since it is hypothetical it is pointless to debate.

One would have to prove a basis of comparison without relying on attributes which are important in Classical music but which other genres do not prioritize, which if used would bias the comparison in favor of Classical music. I do not think there are enough independent attributes to form a meaningful basis of comparison.

All you are left with is someone's subjective opinion. Which doesn't prove anything.


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> But mmsbls then went on to say,
> 
> No "pinnacle" this time, but still a top three over all other musics.
> 
> Mmsbls may not think this himself, but if "one" were to believe this, it would be contradictory.


The levels of the various "musics":
19th century western classical music: 81
18th century western classical music: 79
Indonesian gamelan music: 80
1960s surf rock: 82 in the shade.
Dubstep: 80 80 8-8-8-8-80
Hard bop jazz: 79 16444555444433344444 79 79. 79.
Musique concrète: 80.371462
Minimalism: 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 ...
Wagner: 80 [four and a half hours later] A sword, serving as a 
metaphor for 80
Cage:


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> Cage:


4.33...................................................


----------



## parlando

You guys! Round and round and round:


----------



## Sid James

Without constant renewal classical music would have become the equivalent of a mausoleum ages ago. I think its easy to overlook that renewal aspect and focus on the incitement of fear that change can bring. If classical music where limited to the three B's and the like, it would really be dead. During the course of the 20th century, classical music was enriched by so many things outside of it, musical and otherwise. The form in which it exists now would hardly be recognisable to Brahms, let alone Bach. I don't see anything wrong with that.

I've got a friend who likes pepper with everything. Its his personal preference, but I wouldn't go for it since the strong pepper taste kills off all subtlety of the dish. Debates of this kind on talkclassical are similar in a weird way. They're sidelined by the sorts of fears which in reality have passed because we're no longer living in the 19th century. 

Battles over who is genuinely continuing the legacy of the three B's and who is desecrating it no longer really matters to most people. The grand narrative view hasn't been current for a long time now (started fading in the 1950's). Here at TC though, it is current and it inevitably finds its way into everything even slightly controversial. Like my friend's peppering of every dish.


----------



## EdwardBast

DaveM said:


> Okay, point taken. Not sure why the joke label is necessary. I was assuming a comparison of western classical music with the long-standing cultural music of other cultures.


Apologies. Nevertheless, what I mentioned is precisely the long-standing cultural music of the country we both call home.  That's why it struck me as funny it didn't come to mind.


----------



## mmsbls

I think there has been confusion over my statement about Bach et. al. and inferior music. I originally said:



mmsbls said:


> I think it's easy to believe that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the pinnacle of musical excellence without in any way believing that popular music, African music, and Asian music are fundamentally inferior.


The context of the thread was whether people believe that classical music is superior to other forms so my statement was shortcut for "...without in any way believing that popular music, African music, and Asian music are fundamentally inferior to classical music."

I wrote the following to clarify:



mmsbls said:


> One could believe that other forms of music are essentially at the same level as classical music but believe that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the greatest composers of all. Basically, the average level of, say, popular music is the same as the average level of classical, but no composers are as good as those three. Unless you believe that every composer is identical in ability or output, some must be higher than others. One could view the highest as Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart.


1) Hypotheticals. My original statement was about a hypothetical person so my following statements had to be hypothetical as well.

2) Comparing musical forms. fluteman is correct that it's difficult to compare diverse traditions. More specifically, one would have trouble developing metrics that others would accept so comparisons might be fruitless. That's true but not the issue. Anyone can compare things which are vastly different. For example, I prefer reading books to country music, prefer dogs to hiking, and vastly prefer watching basketball to eating olives. What I can't do is objectively justify my preferences, and they may, in fact, be meaningless to others. The issue is not whether someone could objectively or in any sense properly compare classical music to other forms but if someone did, would they be guilty of fostering white, European, aristocratic cultural supremacy.

3) Contradiction. My statement was, "One could believe that other forms of music are essentially at the same level as classical music but believe that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the greatest composers of all." I will give a numerical example showing that one could view Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart as superior to all other composers but also view classical music not to be superior to other forms. For mathetical simplicity I will assume each form is evaluated for 6 composers, but obviously one would have to include many others. Imagine that Da'Shaun evaluates composers for 3 traditions - classical, pop, Indian and the values are:

Classical: Bach - 90 Beethoven - 90 Mozart - 91, composer A - 70, composer B - 65, composer C - 50
Pop: Composers D, E, F, G, H, I = 80, 80, 80, 75, 71, 70
Indian: Composers J, K, L, M, N, O = 85, 85, 75, 71, 70, 70

The average of all three is 76. Da'Shaun would consider each form to be on the same level. No form is superior to another. But Da'Shaun would consider Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart to be the greatest. As I said, unless one considers all compoers to be identical in greatness, some will be greater, and possibly one or a few will be the greatest.

I assume some did not think I meant such a comparison, but I did. Something similar to this numerical example is exactly what I had in mind with my statement. You may feel that is not how people compare musical forms, but my statement is consistent with the example and not a contradiction. Hopefully that gives people a better sense of what I meant.


----------



## 59540

Sid James said:


> Without constant renewal classical music would have become the equivalent of a mausoleum ages ago. I think its easy to overlook that renewal aspect and focus on the incitement of fear that change can bring. If classical music where limited to the three B's and the like, it would really be dead. ...


I would agree with the "renewal" aspect, but "mausoleum"? I don't know. How many recordings of music by Bach were released over the past year? Beethoven? Mozart? Brahms? How many recordings of Bach's keyboard music alone do you think might be released over the next year? I don't know the answer, but it seems like there's a new recording of the Goldberg Variations every month. That doesn't seem like "dead" music to me.


----------



## Sid James

Of course, ongoing practice of classical including new interpretations, are important. However, my point was that a large part of keeping classical alive also involves subverting tradition. Many musicians grounded in the bedrock of classical tradition like Bach (or even Schoenberg, for that matter) have no interest in addressing it to the extent that musicians of the past did. Their interests and influences may well lie in what's going on outside of classical. Different types of music nourish eachother.


----------



## 59540

Sid James said:


> Of course, ongoing practice of classical including new interpretations, are important. However, my point was that a large part of keeping classical alive also involves subverting tradition. ...


I think if subversion is the goal then you're going to be forever playing to supper club-sized audiences. That's negative, not affirmative...i.e., that's "death". I think the goal should be synthesizing influences to find an individual voice, which what the great composers of the past did.


----------



## DaveM

I also agree that ‘renewal’ has had its benefits, but if classical music had come to a dead stop in 1925-1950, it would have survived indefinitely. Since, to this day, the sale of recordings and public performances heavily depend on CPT era music, there’s no reason to believe that classical music would not have survived indefinitely. 

It is easy to forget that while classical music is down the list of music genres these days, in the 1930s, 40s, 50s and into the 60s it was much farther up the list. It was in movies and on TV. And as I’ve mentioned before, the Hollywood Tower Records had a Classical Records Annex store until the 90s across the street. Not jazz, not country, not r&b: Classical. There were also a number of Classical record stores in the LA area, some of them, specialty stores. In the 1980s, I recall buying a number of rare opera LP albums at one of these stores fearing that once CDs took over, those operas would never be available again.

But back to the present, classical music with an emphasis on CPT music, is having its own resurgence in China and Japan.


----------



## parlando

Well observed. True in the US with multiple Asian performers, and on New York City area FM radio stations. Is something wrong here, or something very right?


----------



## 59540

parlando said:


> Well observed. True in the US with multiple Asian performers, and on New York City area FM radio stations. Is something wrong here, or something very right?


I think we're in sort of a golden age as far as having an abundance of great musicians from all over the planet is concerned, so I think it's very right. And while I'm not the biggest HIP fan, there's no doubt that that movement has been a shot in the arm for classical music as a whole. I guess the problem most musicians are going to be facing is making a living with the changing technology.


----------



## Sid James

dissident said:


> I think if subversion is the goal then you're going to be forever playing to supper club-sized audiences. That's negative, not affirmative...i.e., that's "death". I think the goal should be synthesizing influences to find an individual voice, which what the great composers of the past did.


I said its a large part of, not the only thing, keeping classical alive. Its not even new, the sublime severely disrupted notions of beauty over 200 years ago. I tried to explain that in relation to the core repertoire (1750-1950) earlier:

https://www.talkclassical.com/72824-where-beauty-music-41.html#post2160384

Post-1950's is a new ball game so to speak, but the core repertoire has remained intact even if basically stagnant, and its been supplemented by things like film music, alongside the music scene becoming increasingly diverse and specialised.

Small audiences aren't a problem, as long as they help establish and sustain careers of musicians and ensembles. Most popular musicians these days have a fair gap between each album or big tour, say five years. Some bands don't even last that long.

If, for example, a contemporary composer or music ensemble maintains an output at a similar rate, over the space of decades they will build up a substantial body of work. Perhaps things haven't changed much, musicians have always put their music out into the marketplace, made connections with listeners, other musicians and the world beyond music.

A lot of the pressure to be great that we had in the past - Beethoven's shadow and all that - has been replaced by a more easygoing, anything goes ethos. I believe that this not only presents challenges, but also a lot of opportunities.


----------



## 59540

Sid James said:


> Post-1950's is a new ball game so to speak, but the core repertoire has remained intact even if basically stagnant, and its been supplemented by things like film music, alongside the music scene becoming increasingly diverse and specialised.


The core repertoire is "stagnant" because the composers who created it are dead. The music is still very much alive every time it's performed. By that reasoning every work becomes "stagnant" when it's played more than once. 


> If, for example, a contemporary composer or music ensemble maintains an output at a similar rate, over the space of decades they will build up a substantial body of work.


But the odds are that more people are going to want to hear that "stagnant" core repertoire. Contemporary music doesn't show any signs of crowding it out. That's not a judgement as to the "quality" of contemporary music. 


> Small audiences aren't a problem, as long as they help establish and sustain careers of musicians and ensembles.


And if they do so, that's terrific.


----------



## Sid James

dissident said:


> The core repertoire is "stagnant" because the composers who created it are dead. The music is still very much alive every time it's performed. By that reasoning every work becomes "stagnant" when it's played more than once.


I meant stagnant in the sense that its not being added to at the rate it was before.



> But the odds are that more people are going to want to hear that "stagnant" core repertoire.


That's why its still core repertoire, but at the same time it can't survive on its own. Other items are being added to the menu, like film music as I mentioned.



> Contemporary music doesn't show any signs of crowding it out. That's not a judgement as to the "quality" of contemporary music.


It hasn't sought to crowd it out, and in any case core repertoire is moving at a glacial rate as it is. New music is most effectively catered for by specialised ensembles. Even mainstream chamber groups (e.g. string quartets, chamber orchestras) have a better track record of commissioning new music compared to orchestras and opera companies because of lower costs. Smaller groups have a better chance of affording to have an ongoing relationship with composers, they may also try to attract them with artist in residence programs and the like.


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> I think there has been confusion over my statement about Bach et. al. and inferior music. I originally said:
> 
> The context of the thread was whether people believe that classical music is superior to other forms so my statement was shortcut for "...without in any way believing that popular music, African music, and Asian music are fundamentally inferior to classical music."
> 
> I wrote the following to clarify:
> 
> 1) Hypotheticals. My original statement was about a hypothetical person so my following statements had to be hypothetical as well.
> 
> 2) Comparing musical forms. fluteman is correct that it's difficult to compare diverse traditions. More specifically, one would have trouble developing metrics that others would accept so comparisons might be fruitless. That's true but not the issue. Anyone can compare things which are vastly different. For example, I prefer reading books to country music, prefer dogs to hiking, and vastly prefer watching basketball to eating olives. What I can't do is objectively justify my preferences, and they may, in fact, be meaningless to others. The issue is not whether someone could objectively or in any sense properly compare classical music to other forms but if someone did, would they be guilty of fostering white, European, aristocratic cultural supremacy.
> 
> 3) Contradiction. My statement was, "One could believe that other forms of music are essentially at the same level as classical music but believe that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the greatest composers of all." I will give a numerical example showing that one could view Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart as superior to all other composers but also view classical music not to be superior to other forms. For mathetical simplicity I will assume each form is evaluated for 6 composers, but obviously one would have to include many others. Imagine that Da'Shaun evaluates composers for 3 traditions - classical, pop, Indian and the values are:
> 
> Classical: Bach - 90 Beethoven - 90 Mozart - 91, composer A - 70, composer B - 65, composer C - 50
> Pop: Composers D, E, F, G, H, I = 80, 80, 80, 75, 71, 70
> Indian: Composers J, K, L, M, N, O = 85, 85, 75, 71, 70, 70
> 
> The average of all three is 76. Da'Shaun would consider each form to be on the same level. No form is superior to another. But Da'Shaun would consider Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart to be the greatest. As I said, unless one considers all compoers to be identical in greatness, some will be greater, and possibly one or a few will be the greatest.
> 
> I assume some did not think I meant such a comparison, but I did. Something similar to this numerical example is exactly what I had in mind with my statement. You may feel that is not how people compare musical forms, but my statement is consistent with the example and not a contradiction. Hopefully that gives people a better sense of what I meant.


Okay - so not a contradiction if we look at average scores for each music style, but a contradiction, nonetheless, in that LVB, WAM and JSB are considered superior... by....Da'Shaun?? (never heard of this (author?) before).


----------



## 59540

Sid James said:


> That's why its still core repertoire, but at the same time it can't survive on its own. [


It has survived on its own to this point. Will it always? Who knows. But contemporary music isn't what's keeping the core repertoire around.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Sid James said:


> Other items are being added to the menu, like film music as I mentioned.


An occasional Glassian atonal medley can make things more dramatic:


----------



## fluteman

janxharris said:


> Okay - so not a contradiction if we look at average scores for each music style, but a contradiction, nonetheless, in that LVB, WAM and JSB are considered superior... by....Da'Shaun?? (never heard of this (author?) before).


Also, notice that though Da'Shaun's favorite composers are Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, overall he prefers pop and Indian music to classical. He would really mess up a lot of Bulldog's games.


----------



## SanAntone

mmsbls said:


> I think there has been confusion over my statement about Bach et. al. and inferior music. I originally said:
> 
> The context of the thread was whether people believe that classical music is superior to other forms so my statement was shortcut for "...without in any way believing that popular music, African music, and Asian music are fundamentally inferior to classical music."
> 
> I wrote the following to clarify:
> 
> 1) Hypotheticals. My original statement was about a hypothetical person so my following statements had to be hypothetical as well.
> 
> 2) Comparing musical forms. fluteman is correct that it's difficult to compare diverse traditions. More specifically, one would have trouble developing metrics that others would accept so comparisons might be fruitless. That's true but not the issue. Anyone can compare things which are vastly different. For example, I prefer reading books to country music, prefer dogs to hiking, and vastly prefer watching basketball to eating olives. What I can't do is objectively justify my preferences, and they may, in fact, be meaningless to others. The issue is not whether someone could objectively or in any sense properly compare classical music to other forms but if someone did, would they be guilty of fostering white, European, aristocratic cultural supremacy.
> 
> 3) Contradiction. My statement was, "One could believe that other forms of music are essentially at the same level as classical music but believe that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the greatest composers of all." I will give a numerical example showing that one could view Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart as superior to all other composers but also view classical music not to be superior to other forms. For mathetical simplicity I will assume each form is evaluated for 6 composers, but obviously one would have to include many others. Imagine that Da'Shaun evaluates composers for 3 traditions - classical, pop, Indian and the values are:
> 
> Classical: Bach - 90 Beethoven - 90 Mozart - 91, composer A - 70, composer B - 65, composer C - 50
> Pop: Composers D, E, F, G, H, I = 80, 80, 80, 75, 71, 70
> Indian: Composers J, K, L, M, N, O = 85, 85, 75, 71, 70, 70
> 
> The average of all three is 76. Da'Shaun would consider each form to be on the same level. No form is superior to another. But Da'Shaun would consider Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart to be the greatest. As I said, unless one considers all compoers to be identical in greatness, some will be greater, and possibly one or a few will be the greatest.
> 
> I assume some did not think I meant such a comparison, but I did. Something similar to this numerical example is exactly what I had in mind with my statement. You may feel that is not how people compare musical forms, but my statement is consistent with the example and not a contradiction. Hopefully that gives people a better sense of what I meant.


Very funny. You went to great lengths to describe how someone can have personal preferences. Who cares what Da'Shaun (whoever that is) prefers?


----------



## janxharris

fluteman said:


> Also, notice that though Da'Shaun's favorite composers are Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, overall he prefers pop and Indian music to classical. He would really mess up a lot of Bulldog's games.


But the average for all 3 styles is 76...


----------



## mmsbls

janxharris said:


> Okay - so not a contradiction if we look at average scores for each music style,


How else would anyone possibly evaluate styles? I realize that people would not "do the math", but people would generally assess styles in total not just by one or two people. I often believe that one player in a sport is the best, but I don't necessarily believe their team is the best.



janxharris said:


> but a contradiction, nonetheless, in that LVB, WAM and JSB are considered superior... by....Da'Shaun?? (never heard of this (author?) before).


Da'Shaun is just a name I gave to a random person to illustrate my point. My point was simply that someone could have preferences or believe certain insividuals superior without actually believing that white, European, aristocratic culture is suprerior to other cultures. Do you think that unless someone believes that _every_ composer of _every_ form of music is _absolutely identical_ in ability, output, and overall greatness, that person must believe in cultural superiority?


----------



## mmsbls

SanAntone said:


> Very funny. You went to great lengths to describe how someone can have personal preferences. Who cares what Da'Shaun (whoever that is) prefers?


I think you are missing the point of the last several posts. I _assumed_ people have preferences and tried to show that someone can have preferences and still not be a cultural supremacist. The whole discussion came from a simple suggestion about posts on TC.


----------



## SanAntone

mmsbls said:


> I think you are missing the point of the last several posts. I _assumed_ people have preferences and tried to show that someone can have preferences and still not be a cultural supremacist. The whole discussion came from a simple suggestion about posts on TC.


Oh, I thought the discussion was also about whether it was contradictory to hold that kind of opinion, which you apparently overlooked in the last series of posts.


----------



## SanAntone

What's interesting is that these discussions seem to have increased the number of "in the music" votes.


----------



## fbjim

I think the whole "average versus peak" thing is kind of besides the point- anyone can have preferences and dislike certain genres or artists. The issue happens when these are ascribed to some sort of inherent, objectively quantifiable aspect of the music itself- separate from cultural or personal preferences on what the purpose or form of music should be. 

CPT music having unusually sophisticated use of tonality, for instance, is objectively true (or close enough)- but defining use of tonality as an objective criterion of quality is simply begging the question.


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> Da'Shaun is just a name I gave to a random person to illustrate my point. My point was simply that someone could have preferences or believe certain insividuals superior without actually believing that white, European, aristocratic culture is suprerior to other cultures. Do you think that unless someone believes that _every_ composer of _every_ form of music is _absolutely identical_ in ability, output, and overall greatness, that person must believe in cultural superiority?


Oh, I see your point - apologies for losing the context (ie re cultural superiority).


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> I think the whole "average versus peak" thing is kind of besides the point- anyone can have preferences and dislike certain genres or artists. The issue happens when these are ascribed to some sort of inherent, objectively quantifiable aspect of the music itself- separate from cultural or personal preferences on what the purpose or form of music should be.
> 
> CPT music having unusually sophisticated use of tonality, for instance, is objectively true (or close enough)- but defining use of tonality as an objective criterion of quality is simply begging the question.


I think the question to be answered is why there are so many personal preferences in agreement, i.e. a "consensus". Why do so many see beauty in the same thing. And then it comes back to the (imo unanswerable) original question. Just stating that everyone has a personal preference is also begging the question. Well, yeah.


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> I think you are missing the point of the last several posts. I _assumed_ people have preferences and tried to show that someone can have preferences and still not be a cultural supremacist. The whole discussion came from a simple suggestion about posts on TC.


But it is not a very relevant point for this thread. The problem is not people's preferences, but when people start to insist that their preference for one cultural tradition over another is justified or validated by some inherent quality of superiority. Note the posters who hypothesize that the child who unfortunately is born into some third-world culture will come to appreciate the superiority of Beethoven if only he or she is properly educated.

You need to follow your own advice, mmsbls, and focus more on the thread topic!


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> I think the question to be answered is why there are so many personal preferences in agreement, i.e. a "consensus". Why do so many see beauty in the same thing. And then it comes back to the (imo unanswerable) original question. Just stating that everyone has a personal preference is also begging the question. Well, yeah.


specifically, begging the question is the formulation of "classical music is the highest form of music because it has the most sophisticated use of tonality" where "sophisticated use of tonality" is assumed to be the objective criterion of how good music is (this is an example, i'm not saying anyone here is actually saying that)

the bit about personal preferences is simply stating that "Beethoven is the greatest music ever" is not inherently a statement of cultural/racial/genre superiority, since for many people, be they classical, rock, jazz, or rap listeners, the greatest music ever is the music they love the most.


----------



## janxharris

dissident said:


> I think the question to be answered is why there are so many personal preferences in agreement, i.e. a "consensus". Why do so many see beauty in the same thing.


Because composers like WAM and LVB have been the most successful at impressing the largest number of people. Others composers _*may*_ have written equally great works (or even greater) - but, for whatever reason, less people have connected with them.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> specifically, begging the question is the formulation of "classical music is the highest form of music because it has the most sophisticated use of tonality" where "sophisticated use of tonality" is assumed to be the objective criterion of how good music is (this is an example, i'm not saying anyone here is actually saying that)
> ...


The problem with that statement isn't that it really begs the question but rather that it's vague and too general. "Classical music" meaning what, Bach or Barber? "Sophisticated use of tonality" isn't defined either.


----------



## fluteman

janxharris said:


> Because composers like WAM and LVB have been the most successful at impressing the largest number of people.


Not if you include the 2.8 billion or so people who happen to live in China and India. Maybe they aren't being educated properly?


----------



## 59540

janxharris said:


> Because composers like WAM and LVB have been the most successful at impressing the largest number of people. ...


Now that's an example of begging the question.


----------



## fbjim

fbjim said:


> the bit about personal preferences is simply stating that "Beethoven is the greatest music ever" is not inherently a statement of cultural/racial/genre superiority, since for many people, be they classical, rock, jazz, or rap listeners, the greatest music ever is the music they love the most.


to expand on this, the point is that we don't have objective criteria for "beauty" or "greatness" or whatever, in the same way that we can relatively make an objective analysis on, say, how well a work conforms to rules of tonality, or how rhythmically complex a work is, etc.

In my list of five great composers, I listed two composers which I don't particularly care for (Bach and Stravinsky) because I tend to interpret being a "great composer" as being a composer of significant historical import. But I guarantee not everyone used the same criteria I did, and that's sort of the point - how can we say beauty, or greatness, or etc are "in the music" when it not only depends on our subjective reaction to the work, but also our personal conceptualization on what "beauty" actually is?


----------



## 59540

fluteman said:


> Not if you include the 2.8 billion or so people who happen to live in China and India. Maybe they aren't being educated properly?


Maybe not. That applies to the US as well. I thought that's why there's always a call for more music education in schools.


----------



## janxharris

fluteman said:


> Not if you include the 2.8 billion or so people who happen to live in China and India. Maybe they aren't being educated properly?


i'm sure you are correct - I guess I was assuming the context of western classical music....


----------



## SanAntone

janxharris said:


> Because composers like WAM and LVB have been the most successful at impressing the largest number of people. Others composers _*may*_ have written equally great works (or even greater) - but, for whatever reason, less people have connected with them.


Of course it is an illusion that "large numbers" of people consider LvB and WAM the greatest composers. Large numbers of what people? Probably those from Western countries. However, large numbers of people in "the third world" (a disgusting term, IMO) probably hold different "composers" in equally high esteem.


----------



## janxharris

dissident said:


> Now that's an example of begging the question.


If you are saying that I have not addressed which works are the greatest - then yes....it's an unknowable.


----------



## janxharris

SanAntone said:


> Of course it is an illusion that "large numbers" of people consider LvB and WAM the greatest composers. Large numbers of what people? Probably those from Western countries. However, large numbers of people in "the third world" (a disgusting term, IMO) probably hold different "composers" in equally high esteem.


Accepted - I was limiting the context to western classical. My point would work for any context but might well have composers other than the two I cited as the most popular.


----------



## fbjim

a fun contrast to the 5 composer list, by the way, is this one.

5 Greatest Non-classical Musicians (Read the First Post Please!)

I wish people had actually discussed their choices more (and that the list was a bit more narrowly focused - I personally just went with popular music), but it's pretty clear that there was a general lack of agreement on how to define greatness in this one- you see lists specifically about virtuoso skills, and ones like mine which focused narrowly on historical import of western pop music artists.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Of course it is an illusion that "large numbers" of people consider LvB and WAM the greatest composers. Large numbers of what people? Probably those from Western countries. However, large numbers of people in "the third world" (a disgusting term, IMO) probably hold different "composers" in equally high esteem.


But at the same time the Bach Collegium Japan is considered "legit" in a way that European gamelan groups aren't. Nor really would a klezmer group composed of Irish Catholics. Western music performed by Yuja Wang or Yo-Yo Ma is as legit as any other; Delta blues performed by a white guy wouldn't be.


----------



## fbjim

SanAntone said:


> Of course it is an illusion that "large numbers" of people consider LvB and WAM the greatest composers. Large numbers of what people? Probably those from Western countries. However, large numbers of people in "the third world" (a disgusting term, IMO) probably hold different "composers" in equally high esteem.


for the purposes of good faith i think it's healthy to generally just take it as implied that we're discussing the relatively self-selected group of classical music listeners, and possibly more specifically the even more self-selected group of TalkClassical posters (which has its own preferences beyond a general audience)


----------



## 59540

janxharris said:


> If you are saying that I have not addressed which works are the greatest - then yes....it's an unknowable.


No I'm saying you're merely restating the question. "Why do so many people find beauty in the works of the Big 3?" "That's because a lot of people find beauty in the works of the Big 3."


----------



## hammeredklavier

But why isn't there a Bach or a Beethoven from the Renaissance period? Was it a low point of music? Were the composers simply inept? I personally find that there's not much variety of texture, mood, dynamics within a movement of a Palestrina mass, giving the impression that the music isn't really going anywhere at any point of it. I still think the stuff is great for creating atmospheres in contents such as 



 (this one is a Tallis piece, I believe). But if someone says to me "just cause you're not into the Renaissance idiom, it doesn't mean Palestrina was not great at working within his idiom", I wouldn't be able to (come up with an argument to) refute that. The same logic applies to general classical music; like Simon Moon, if you don't care for the sounds of classical music, which you perceive as "pedantic", you just wouldn't care for the difference between JSBach and DeepBach.


----------



## DaveM

(Repeating myself) Restricting the discussion to the CPT period: Through the 18th and 19th centuries, a structure and general set of guidelines developed which gave a good indication as to what parameters attracted listeners, academia and benefactors. One of those parameters was melody. 

Thus, it is not a stretch that the brains of the general CPT audience, more than not, found beauty in a number of the same works of the composers of the time. In a sense, there developed early on a blueprint for composing beautiful works. In that case, it could be said that there was objective evidence of beauty in those works, keeping in mind that we are talking about the target-rich environment of listeners who were drawn to that music.


----------



## fbjim

hammeredklavier said:


> The same logic applies to general classical music; like Simon Moon, if you don't care for the sounds of classical music, which you perceive as "pedantic", you just wouldn't care for the difference between JSBach and deepBach.


I can't speak for Simon but to an extent this is true. Generally one consequence from me having no affinity for a style of music is when it all roughly sounds the same to me. I'm sure that for a jazz buff, me saying that I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between bebop and free jazz sounds just as ridiculous as when someone tells me, say, that dubstep and trance sounds like the same thing (or, more relevantly, that say, Schoenberg sounds just like Webern to them)


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> Thus, it is not a stretch that the brains of the general CPT audience, more than not, found beauty in a number of the same works of the composers of the time. In a sense, there developed early on a blueprint for composing beautiful works. In that case, it could be said that there was objective evidence of beauty in those works, keeping in mind that we are talking about the target-rich environment of listeners who were drawn to that music.


yes, and this, of course, reflects that while there are certain objective criteria which one might point to as being beautiful, the selection of those criteria is not objective. very few listeners today, i would wager, would point out "adherence to classical rules of tonality and counterpoint" as the prime criterion for what makes music beautiful.


----------



## janxharris

dissident said:


> No I'm saying you're merely restating the question. "Why do so many people find beauty in the works of the Big 3?" "That's because a lot of people find beauty in the works of the Big 3."


Not really - I accept that their compositions have been so well crafted that many, even a majority, connect with them. It's a great achievement - but we can't then infer that such works are *necessarily* superior to less popular composers.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> ...very few listeners today, i would wager, would point out "adherence to classical rules of tonality and counterpoint" as the prime criterion for what makes music beautiful.


Which wouldn't in itself negate the idea of the "beauty" of the "classical rules". Maybe they don't know them, just as I didn't have a full understanding of fugal structure when I fell in love with Bach's music. You don't have to know advanced mathematics to recognize a "beautiful building", although the geometry involved could be described.


----------



## 59540

janxharris said:


> Not really - I accept that their compositions have been so well crafted that many, even a majority, connect with them. It's a great achievement - but we can't then infer that such works are necessarily superior to less popular composers.


Yes really, it's still begging the question. What do you mean "so well crafted"? You're implying that these are more "well crafted" than those.


----------



## mmsbls

SanAntone said:


> Oh, I thought the discussion was also about whether it was contradictory to hold that kind of opinion, which you apparently overlooked in the last series of posts.


The original discussion started with a comment on cultural supremacy. Because of confusion, the discussion turned to a question about contradictory statements. Every post I made since then focused mostly or in part on the issue of contradiction so I don't know what you mean by overlooking it.


----------



## mmsbls

janxharris said:


> Oh, I see your point - apologies for losing the context (ie re cultural superiority).


Unfortunately, threads sometimes have many components and it's easy to get lost in the discussion. I think many of us sometimes lose track of exactly what's being discussed.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> Which wouldn't in itself negate the idea of the "beauty" of the "classical rules". Maybe they don't know them, just as I didn't have a full understanding of fugal structure when I fell in love with Bach's music. You don't have to know advanced mathematics to recognize a "beautiful building", although the geometry involved could be described.


interestingly, while western societies tend to go with architectural ideals descended from Greek classicism, Asian cultures frequently prefer a different "ideal" ratio, which is why "important" or sacred buildings in places like Japan tend to be squarer in proportions than they are in say, Greek or Roman temples.

which just goes to show how much of this is culturally learned.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> interestingly, while western societies tend to go with architectural ideals descended from Greek classicism, Asian cultures frequently prefer a different "ideal" ratio, which is why "important" or sacred buildings in places like Japan tend to be squarer in proportions than they are in say, Greek or Roman temples.
> 
> which just goes to show how much of this is culturally learned.


That's fine, but irrelevant. Interestingly, you can find plenty of Western architecture all over, and plenty of Asian-inspired architecture all over.


----------



## mmsbls

fluteman said:


> But it is not a very relevant point for this thread. The problem is not people's preferences, but when people start to insist that their preference for one cultural tradition over another is justified or validated by some inherent quality of superiority. Note the posters who hypothesize that the child who unfortunately is born into some third-world culture will come to appreciate the superiority of Beethoven if only he or she is properly educated.


I sort of agree with this. Your point is also not relevant to the thread - where is beauty in music?. But threads can morph and veer, and that's not necessarily a problem. Sometimes the diversions can be rather interesting. I will say that the particular diversion that arose from my initial comment (which responded to your statement) was not useful to the thread.


----------



## janxharris

dissident said:


> Yes really, it's still begging the question. What do you mean "so well crafted"? You're implying that these are more "well crafted" than those.


I don't agree (unless I am misconstruing your meaning). You appear to imply that popularity (with longevity) means therefore greatest composition?

Well crafted means music that manages to connect and have meaning (with longevity) for a significant number of people. Of course, that's not necessarily straight forward - such a following can take a long time.


----------



## 59540

fluteman said:


> Note the posters who hypothesize that the child who unfortunately is born into some third-world culture will come to appreciate the superiority of Beethoven if only he or she is properly educated.


Why not just directly quote all these "posters"? Nobody said anything about the "superiority" of Beethoven.


----------



## 59540

janxharris said:


> I don't agree (unless I am misconstruing your meaning). You appear to imply that popularity (with longevity) means therefore greatest composition?
> 
> Well crafted means music that manages to connect and have meaning (with longevity) for a significant number of people. Of course, that's not necessarily straight forward - such a following can take a long time.


But that's *still* merely restating the question. The question is *why* it manages to connect and have meaning for a significant number of people, not whether or not it does.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> yes, and this, of course, reflects that while there are certain objective criteria which one might point to as being beautiful, the selection of those criteria is not objective..


For CPT music I don't think you can make that blanket statement.


----------



## mmsbls

fbjim said:


> yes, and this, of course, reflects that while there are certain objective criteria which one might point to as being beautiful, the selection of those criteria is not objective. very few listeners today, i would wager, would point out "adherence to classical rules of tonality and counterpoint" as the prime criterion for what makes music beautiful.


Yes. One can point to objective criteria for beauty, but as you say the selection of those criteria is not objective. Further, even if two people selected the identical criteria (metrics) for beauty, they could weight them differently. Is melody twice as important as counterpoint? Are they to be considered equally? How much does rhythm matter? Certain music seems dominated by rhythm with little melody. Would people who love that music not care much at all about melody?

One reason I view beauty as found in the brain is that both the selection of metrics and the weighting of those metrics occurs only in the brain.


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> Yes. One can point to objective criteria for beauty, but as you say the selection of those criteria is not objective. Further, even if two people selected the identical criteria (metrics) for beauty, they could weight them differently. Is melody twice as important as counterpoint? Are they to be considered equally? How much does rhythm matter? Certain music seems dominated by rhythm with little melody. Would people who love that music not care much at all about melody?
> 
> One reason I view beauty as found in the brain is that both the selection of metrics and the weighting of those metrics occurs only in the brain.


So are there objective reasons why the music of Bach is favored by more people than that of Telemann?


----------



## fbjim

mmsbls said:


> Yes. One can point to objective criteria for beauty, but as you say the selection of those criteria is not objective. Further, even if two people selected the identical criteria (metrics) for beauty, they could weight them differently. Is melody twice as important as counterpoint? Are they to be considered equally? How much does rhythm matter? Certain music seems dominated by rhythm with little melody. Would people who love that music not care much at all about melody?
> 
> One reason I view beauty as found in the brain is that both the selection of metrics and the weighting of those metrics occurs only in the brain.


and really- if someone wanted to argue that fundamentally all these aspects reside in the music itself, and the listener decides from which angle they want to approach that beauty from, I wouldn't be opposed to that. i do think, however, this is contrary to the idea of a universal, objective beauty separate from personal preference or socially learned aesthetic norms.


----------



## arpeggio

dissident said:


> So are there objective reasons why the music of Bach is favored by more people than that of Telemann?


I don't know and I don't care.


----------



## janxharris

dissident said:


> But that's *still* merely restating the question. The question is *why* it manages to connect and have meaning for a significant number of people, not whether or not it does.


Since a composition may connect and have meaning for one person and yet have no connection or meaning for another, then I don't see that we can ascribe too much to the notes themselves - music is, after all, essentially completely abstract. No amount of analysis of form, motivic development etc will prove greatness...though certainly many compositions that are successful have such elements.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> Of course it is an illusion that "large numbers" of people consider LvB and WAM the greatest composers. Large numbers of what people? Probably those from Western countries. However, large numbers of people in "the third world" (a disgusting term, IMO) probably hold different "composers" in equally high esteem.


I was using the term "third world" ironically, of course. Funny how commonly-used terminology can have so many connotations.


----------



## arpeggio

mmsbls said:


> Unfortunately, threads sometimes have many components and it's easy to get lost in the discussion. I think many of us sometimes lose track of exactly what's being discussed.


I really do not understand what half of the people are saying or what they are trying to prove in this thread 

I will concede that the music of Brahms is more beautiful than the music of Elliott Carter. So what?

My favorite composer is Mahler. Why? I do not know. I do not need to be psychoanalyzed to determined why.


----------



## janxharris

arpeggio said:


> I really do not understand what half of the people are saying or what they are trying to prove in this thread
> 
> I will concede that the music of Brahms is more beautiful than the music of Elliott Carter. So what?
> 
> My favorite composer is Mahler. Why? I do not know. I do not need to be psychoanalyzed to determined why.


As I understand it, some here feel there are objective reasons why certain composers or compositions are superior to others. I personally don't see such a position as tenable.


----------



## 59540

janxharris said:


> Since a composition may connect and have meaning for one person and yet have no connection or meaning for another, then I don't see that we can ascribe too much to the notes themselves - music is, after all, essentially completely abstract. No amount of analysis of form, motivic development etc will prove greatness...though certainly many compositions that are successful have such elements.


So, like me, you really don't know.


arpeggio said:


> I don't know and I don't care.


Which is why you've been hanging out in the thread. That, and the comedy stylings of "certain posters", maybe.


----------



## janxharris

dissident said:


> So, like me, you really don't know.


I know what works for me, but that won't necessarily work for others. I just can't see that we can ascribe objectively to an art form that is abstract.


----------



## DaveM

janxharris said:


> As I understand it, some here feel there are objective reasons why certain composers or compositions are superior to others. I personally don't see such a position as tenable.


Hmm. Based on experience on this subject in past threads, this thread is now good to go for another 50 pages!


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> I sort of agree with this. Your point is also not relevant to the thread - where is beauty in music?. But threads can morph and veer, and that's not necessarily a problem. Sometimes the diversions can be rather interesting. I will say that the particular diversion that arose from my initial comment (which responded to your statement) was not useful to the thread.


Respectfully, my point is central to this thread. Establishing aesthetic worth or "beauty" is inherent in the work of art itself, independent of cultural and environmental context, is the first key step in establishing a particular musical tradition, such as the "Common Practice Tradition" (assigning such a term may well be the second step) as exemplified by Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, is inherently superior to musical traditions of other cultures, places and times.

One can see an opposing point of view in the "cultural hegemony" theorists. Here's one such enthusiastic blogger:

http://http://www.ethanhein.com/wp/2016/final-paper-draft-for-learning-of-culture/

In jest, I made such a "cultural hegemony" argument earlier in this thread. But I also pointed out that I equally reject pro- and anti-modern, or pro- and anti-CPT theories as so much claptrap. We need to stop searching for and touting these bogus theories of aesthetics.


----------



## fbjim

fluteman said:


> Respectfully, my point is central to this thread. Establishing aesthetic worth or "beauty" is inherent in the work of art itself, independent of cultural and environmental context, is the first key step in establishing a particular musical tradition, such as the "Common Practice Tradition" (assigning such a term may well be the second step) as exemplified by Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, is inherently superior to musical traditions of other cultures, places and times.


I don't mean to imply anyone here is making that argument but yes, this was frequently the subtext in the past of too many debates on the objective worth of art. Not specifically just here, but elsewhere.


----------



## arpeggio

The reason I follow certain threads is because there are many knowledgeable members who make some interesting points and I like to press the like button. Most of the time they do a better job of expressing my feelings than I do. 

Three of my favorite contributors are 'fluteman', "SanAntone' and 'mmsbls'.


----------



## fluteman

arpeggio said:


> The reason I follow certain threads is because there are many knowledgeable members who make some interesting points and I like to press the like button. Most of the time they do a better job of expressing my feelings than I do.
> 
> Three of my favorite contributors are 'fluteman', "SanAntone' and 'mmsbls'.


But you are a bassoonist, the key, hard to find, member of the woodwind quintet, which is far more important than anything I, for one, have ever posted.


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> So are there objective reasons why the music of Bach is favored by more people than that of Telemann?


I'm not sure what you mean because I think your comment doesn't follow from my comment. I was agreeing that there could be specific objective metrics for beauty but not an _overall_ objective determination of beauty.

There _may_ be (again, may be) objective reasons that Bach's music is favored more than Telemann's music that have nothing to do with beauty. Those reasons could include exposure to the music, people's tendency to follow the crowd, and other things that are not realted to beauty. There could also be reasons having to do with objective aspects of the music.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> When I was young I came upon the idea that all music in all cultures did not flower from the same basic musical elements, and that the same was true for art generally. The idea inspired me. In particular, it inspired me to be respectful of the artistic achievements of other cultures, even ancient ones.


I didn't realize that there are different basic elements of music. That may be why I don't understand the conclusion that entertainment music and art music are of equal value for good students.

I don't know what these different elements could be, but you might not have anything specific in mind, just an overall admiration for other cultures. To me, that has been as irrelevant as polls and preferences, but I'm slowly coming around to the good egalitarian feelings.


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> ...There could also be reasons having to do with objective aspects of the music.


Yes, that's what I was asking about.


----------



## 59540

DaveM said:


> Hmm. Based on experience on this subject in past threads, this thread is now good to go for another 50 pages!


If it doesn't get locked first. :lol:


----------



## DaveM

arpeggio said:


> The reason I follow certain threads is because there are many knowledgeable members who make some interesting points and I like to press the like button. Most of the time they do a better job of expressing my feelings than I do.
> 
> Three of my favorite contributors are 'fluteman', "SanAntone' and 'mmsbls'.


I never would have thought!


----------



## SanAntone

arpeggio said:


> The reason I follow certain threads is because there are many knowledgeable members who make some interesting points and I like to press the like button. Most of the time they do a better job of expressing my feelings than I do.
> 
> Three of my favorite contributors are 'fluteman', "SanAntone' and 'mmsbls'.


Some of my favorite people have been bassoonists.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> Some of my favorite people have been bassoonists.


Heck148, mbhaub. But fluteman is obviously a flautist, as the name suggests.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> Some of my favorite people have been bassoonists.


Yes, because basoonists have such trouble with their reeds I can forget that many of the pianos I play are slightly out of tune (or the treble hasn't been stretched).:lol:


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> (Repeating myself) Restricting the discussion to the CPT period: Through the 18th and 19th centuries, a structure and general set of guidelines developed which gave a good indication as to what parameters attracted listeners, academia and benefactors. One of those parameters was melody.
> 
> Thus, it is not a stretch that the brains of the general CPT audience, more than not, found beauty in a number of the same works of the composers of the time. In a sense, there developed early on a blueprint for composing beautiful works. In that case, it could be said that there was objective evidence of beauty in those works, keeping in mind that we are talking about the target-rich environment of listeners who were drawn to that music.


I generally agree with your comments, but the conclusions are not necessarily clear.

First, to quibble somewhat, I would change one sentence to, "there was objective evidence of attributes of those works that creates a sense of beauty in people's brains." I don't think that matters for your point, but it could matter to others on the thread.

You are making a probabilistic point. Music with certain attributes found in CPT music generally leads to a sense of beauty in the brains of the CPT audience. In one sense that's not surprising given the selection of a CPT audience. One could similarly say that there is objective evidence that car chases and sex scenes creates a sense of enjoyment of American movie audiences. For whatever reason, many people love those parts of movies, writers and directors purposely include such scenes in their movies, and the public flocks to them because they enjoy them. All of that would be objectively true. But what would one conclude? I think most people believe that car chases and sex scenes are not inherently enjoyable in the sense that all or even almost all people brought up in _any_ environment would appreciate them.

Human brains are immensely complicated and their response to external stimuli, such as music, can vary enormously depending on their genetic endowment and environmental upbringing. I don't know the answer to two relevant questions. What percentage of people brought up in environments found throughout the world would find much CPT music beautiful? What percentage of people brought up in environments similar to those who enjoy classical music (any genre or era) would find CPT music beautiful? I believe the former would be significantly lower than the latter.


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> Yes, that's what I was asking about.


I would assume there are some objective attributes of the music that contribute to people favoring Bach more than Telemann.


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> I would assume there are some objective attributes of the music that contribute to people favoring Bach more than Telemann.


What would you think some of those might be? In your opinion, assuming you more or less favor Bach over Telemann.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> I didn't realize that there are different basic elements of music.


Well, at least you realize it now. You can find an articulate explanation as to why this is so in Leonard B. Meyer's Style and Music: Theory, History and Ideology, in which he notes that "Rules [of a musical style] are intracultural, not universal." Thanks to TC member Strange Magic for alerting me to this writer.

As for your comment about the relative "value" of "entertainment" and "art" music, the terms themselves imply a value judgment, don't they? The former often intended for temporary and superficial aesthetic enjoyment, the latter aiming for something more aesthetically profound and lasting?


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> What would you think some of those might be? In your opinion, assuming you more or less favor Bach over Telemann.


I certainly don't know. I don't think anyone knows although some neuroscientists who study music's interaction with the brain might have some clues.

I'm don't think I understand the point you are making. Suppose we identified 3 objective attributes that caused more people who listen to Baroque music to favor Bach over Telemann, what would that tell us?


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> I certainly don't know. I don't think anyone knows although some neuroscientists who study music's interaction with the brain might have some clues.
> 
> I'm don't think I understand the point you are making. Suppose we identified 3 objective attributes that caused more people who listen to Baroque music to favor Bach over Telemann, what would that tell us?


It was your point, not mine.


----------



## parlando

My point in posting that horrid little link to Taco demolishing Irving Berlin's Putting on the Ritz was to express my conviction that comments on this thread, however refined, are circling around and around the central matter that beauty, even that of Taco's flashy extravaganza, is a matter of nature vs nurture. Nature, in that the personal central nervous system and its sense organs (ear hairs), structure our perception of goodness or clash-- with the proviso that "rough" music can be fun (see Taco); and nurture, in that so much is learned. My wife thinks WAM is the paragon, paragon of paragons; I can roll with Janacek for starters, and rebetiko for enders. It's all in the individual: my vote. 

PS. You haven't heard JSBach's organ pieces unless you are in a choir standing next to a large windy pipe organ with an ace organist and you feel the entire brick and mortar structure shake. Toccata regatta kaboooomm. I mean in a big establishment Distict of Columbia church.


----------



## eljr

mmsbls said:


> I would assume there are some objective attributes of the music that contribute to people favoring Bach more than Telemann.


Of course their are. The challenge is in identifying the particulars inside the brain.

Maybe it is better expressed, Bach's music more often than Telemann's, for most, creates a heightened positive response within the brain.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> I generally agree with your comments, but the conclusions are not necessarily clear.
> 
> First, to quibble somewhat, I would change one sentence to, "*there was objective evidence of attributes of those works that creates a sense of beauty in people's brains*." I don't think that matters for your point, but it could matter to others on the thread.
> 
> You are making a probabilistic point. Music with certain attributes found in CPT music generally leads to a sense of beauty in the brains of the CPT audience. In one sense that's not surprising given the selection of a CPT audience. One could similarly say that there is objective evidence that car chases and sex scenes creates a sense of enjoyment of American movie audiences. For whatever reason, many people love those parts of movies, writers and directors purposely include such scenes in their movies, and the public flocks to them because they enjoy them. All of that would be objectively true. But what would one conclude? I think most people believe that car chases and sex scenes are not inherently enjoyable in the sense that all or even almost all people brought up in _any_ environment would appreciate them.
> 
> Human brains are immensely complicated and their response to external stimuli, such as music, can vary enormously depending on their genetic endowment and environmental upbringing. I don't know the answer to two relevant questions. What percentage of people brought up in environments found throughout the world would find much CPT music beautiful? What percentage of people brought up in environments similar to those who enjoy classical music (any genre or era) would find CPT music beautiful? I believe the former would be significantly lower than the latter.


I'm okay with your suggestion (bolded). But I'm not a fan of the 'car chases and sex scenes' analogy'. I think my point about music that had characteristics that developed over 250+ years and which resulted, because of quasi-objective elements, in often predictably beautiful music to the various listeners of the day is just a little more profound.

As for your last paragraph, one can go far into the weeds on this subjectivity/objectivity subject which a lot of posters here seem to want to do IMO to an extreme. Yes, the endpoint of the interpretation of beauty lies in the brain, but over the many years of the CPT, there developed some objectively successful elements of CPT music in resulting in an interpretation of beauty in many human brains. I think that's rather significant and don't find it necessary to go very far beyond that.


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> It was your point, not mine.


No, I don't understand _your_ point. What point are you trying to make with your last several posts? What are you trying to learn? I feel like I'm guessing what you're asking so we're not really making progress.


----------



## mmsbls

eljr said:


> Of course their are. The challenge is in identifying the particulars inside the brain.
> 
> Maybe it is better expressed, Bach's music more often than Telemann's, for most, creates a heightened positive response within the brain.


Yes, I agree there are, but I just don't think anyone has a good idea of exactly what they are.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> I'm okay with your suggestion (bolded). But I'm not a fan of the 'car chases and sex scenes' analogy'. I think my point about music that had characteristics that developed over 250+ years and which resulted, because of quasi-objective elements, in often predictably beautiful music to the various listeners of the day is just a little more profound.


Yes much more profound. The writers and directors made a few guesses based on feedback, but composers worked for centuries developing the CPT music.



DaveM said:


> As for your last paragraph, one can go far into the weeds on this subjectivity/objectivity subject which a lot of posters here seem to want to do IMO to an extreme. Yes, the endpoint of the interpretation of beauty lies in the brain, but over the many years of the CPT, there developed some objectively successful elements of CPT music in resulting in an interpretation of beauty in many human brains. I think that's rather significant and don't find it necessary to go very far beyond that.


I think it's enormously significant. I'm a scientists who always wants to know everything about reality so I'm stuck with thinking about things I'm hopelessly ignorant about.


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> No, I don't understand _your_ point. What point are you trying to make with your last several posts? What are you trying to learn? I feel like I'm guessing what you're asking so we're not really making progress.


You talked about possible objective reasons someone might have for preferring one composer over another, even if they are objective reasons only for that one individual. Assuming that you do prefer Bach's music over Telemann's, what are some of those objective reasons for you?


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> No I'm saying you're merely restating the question. "Why do so many people find beauty in the works of the Big 3?" "That's because a lot of people find beauty in the works of the Big 3."


I'm more inclined to agree with janxharris on this. With Mozart, for instance, the admiration is not universal (at least not as universal as you might think); there are tons of online discussions saying that he is overrated. https://forums.abrsm.org/index.php?showtopic=16967&page=25
https://www.youngcomposers.com/t33722/top-5-most-overrated-underrated-composers/
https://www.quora.com/Is-Mozart-overrated
You could argue "it's because they don't fully know / haven't understood Mozart". But the same could be said about Mahler, Wagner, Bruckner, for instance. (It just means that the admiration around them is not really that universal. And even on TC, how many people have "the big 3" in the top 3 of their composer lists?) I guess what you're trying to say is that the richness of Bach's use of harmony is what gives him an edge over his contemporaries in "greatness" and popularity today (like how you did in other threads). But there are cases where composer A isn't more admired/popular than composer B (who was contemporary to him in terms of timeline and musical idiom), due to a wide variety of factors, even though A obviously has greater richness of harmony. In the past, there was a member (who is no longer active on the forum) who seemed to have what I perceived as "double standards" on the issue in threads like this regarding certain composers, so I went a bit too far in "bugging" him with the topic.


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> You talked about possible objective reasons someone might have for preferring one composer over another, even if they are objective reasons only for that one individual. Assuming that you do prefer Bach's music over Telemann's, what are some of those objective reasons for you?


You asked that already, and I answered you. I"ll move on.


----------



## RogerWaters

fluteman said:


> You can find an articulate explanation as to why this is so in Leonard B. Meyer's Style and Music: Theory, History and Ideology, in which he notes that "Rules [of a musical style] are intracultural, not universal." ?


The rules of knowledge making are not universal either: different cultures have different criteria for 'knowledge', but that doesn't make them all equal in penetrating to the nature of reality.

Similarly with music, different cultures have different rules, but the functional harmony of western tonality has reached across the globe in a way that many (most?) other musical systems have not.

If you played a nice 1,4, 5, 1 chord progression to a bushman in remote PNG, do you _really_ think he wouldn't find it pleasing immediately or after a small amount of coaxing?

Now, none of this is to say Common practice music is objectively 'best'.


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> You asked that already, and I answered you. I"ll move on.


I must've missed it. I asked and then you asked what my point is.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> Well, at least you realize it now. You can find an articulate explanation as to why this is so in Leonard B. Meyer's Style and Music: Theory, History and Ideology, in which he notes that "Rules [of a musical style] are intracultural, not universal." Thanks to TC member Strange Magic for alerting me to this writer.
> 
> As for your comment about the relative "value" of "entertainment" and "art" music, the terms themselves imply a value judgment, don't they?* The former often intended for temporary and superficial aesthetic enjoyment, the latter aiming for something more aesthetically profound and lasting?*


You don't think about these


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> Yes, I agree there are, but I just don't think anyone has a good idea of exactly what they are.


I think evolutionary psychology is a harder science than Jungian psychology.


----------



## fluteman

RogerWaters said:


> The rules of knowledge making are not universal either: different cultures have different criteria for 'knowledge', but that doesn't make them all equal in penetrating to the nature of reality.
> 
> Similarly with music, different cultures have different rules, but the functional harmony of western tonality has reached across the globe in a way that many (most?) other musical systems have not.
> 
> If you played a nice 1,4, 5, 1 chord progression to a bushman in remote PNG, do you _really_ think he wouldn't find it pleasing immediately or after a small amount of coaxing?
> 
> Now, none of this is to say Common practice music is objectively 'best'.


I'd say, most likely not. From a purely numerical standpoint, there are over 3.5 billion people in the Middle East, India, China, Korea and Japan, vastly more than in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand combined. Those billions of people have long, sophisticated, highly developed cultural traditions, including very different tradition of tonality, scales and intervals, and of instruments, performance practices, and classical and folk music behind them. Their scales and intervals, and sounds in general, usually sound out of tune, dissonant, jarring and unnatural to most westerners, even today in our multicultural world. There is no reason to assume the same would not be true of them listening to Beethoven.

It is true that in the 20th and 21st centuries, non-western cultures have absorbed a lot of western cultural influences, including musical ones. But the influence has gone in the other direction, too. The American popular music that has become popular almost worldwide is heavily influenced by African musical traditions. Ragtime, swing, jazz, blues, gospel, soul, rhythm and blues, hip hop and of course, rock 'n' roll, are all heavily West African influenced. J-pop and now K-pop are major influences in the west.

One major development I see in a lot of western music in the 20th and 21st centuries is, even where the conventional diatonic scale and tonic, subdominant, dominant harmonic progressions remain in use, there is often less emphasis on these harmonic progressions than there was in pre-20th century western music, and other aspects, such as rhythm, timbre, texture, dynamics and various structural elements, play a greater role. Even before the 20th century, harmonic progressions only gradually attained the dominant importance they had reached by the late 19th century over the course of several centuries. So a medieval or early renaissance European might be as flummoxed by your circle of fifths harmonic progressions as your African bushman, especially if you used equal temperament, which I think would sound especially odd and dissonant to them.


----------



## Luchesi

parlando said:


> My point in posting that horrid little link to Taco demolishing Irving Berlin's Putting on the Ritz was to express my conviction that comments on this thread, however refined, are circling around and around the central matter that beauty, even that of Taco's flashy extravaganza, is a matter of nature vs nurture. Nature, in that the personal central nervous system and its sense organs (ear hairs), structure our perception of goodness or clash-- with the proviso that "rough" music can be fun (see Taco); and nurture, in that so much is learned. My wife thinks WAM is the paragon, paragon of paragons; I can roll with Janacek for starters, and rebetiko for enders. It's all in the individual: my vote.
> 
> PS. You haven't heard JSBach's organ pieces unless you are in a choir standing next to a large windy pipe organ with an ace organist and you feel the entire brick and mortar structure shake. Toccata regatta kaboooomm. I mean in a big establishment Distict of Columbia church.


People have their own preferences. Posters keep saying that, as if someone could take away their preferences.


----------



## SanAntone

RogerWaters said:


> If you played a nice 1,4, 5, 1 chord progression to a bushman in remote PNG, do you _really_ think he wouldn't find it pleasing immediately or after a small amount of coaxing?


I don't know. But from what I do know about West African music, their music is more about rhythm: poly-metric and syncopated pulse, and drones. There is not much emphasis on harmony; melodies are generally monophonic.

The primary entry of Western music to Africa was through missionaries, and hymn singing by school children sounds much like shape-note singing of rural America. A I-IV-V-I chord progression would probably remind them of that experience.

Of course with global telecommunications and the Internet, there has been a break down in unique regional characteristics. Something which I regret.

I grew up in North Louisiana and there used to be different accents in East/Central/West/South Texas, North/South Louisiana, North/South Mississippi, North/South Alabama, North/South Georgia. Because of TV and public schools the speech has pretty much planed out.

I prefer to appreciate and celebrate the indigenous music instead of trying to find influence from Western Classical music.


----------



## Luchesi

Proponents will argue that the masses (in any culture) will want what they grew up, what they're used to, what they've come to identify with. That's evident from human nature, no matter what the subject.


----------



## mmsbls

Luchesi said:


> I think evolutionary psychology is a harder science than Jungian psychology.


I agree even if Jungian psychology is not a science. I also think most answers will come from neuroscience, but maybe evolutionary psychologists could help.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> I agree even if Jungian psychology is not a science. I also think most answers will come from neuroscience, but maybe evolutionary psychologists could help.


IDK. Reliably interpreting electro-chemical 'traces' on such a small scale seems to be very difficult to me. But some such future methods and techniques are far beyond my imagination. ...Such a future will be surprising, that's an understatement. And then there are always the dangers (in the far distant future).


----------



## Forster

Dare I suggest that there might be some mileage in considering one element of music that is often used to exemplify 'beauty' and seeing how it does or doesn't apply?

Take 'melody'. Do we find melody beautiful because of something inherent in it, or is our reaction to melody entirely personal, depending on how our brain is wired and how it is has been exposed over time to various musical experiences?

[Surely we could come to blows over that one? ]


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> Dare I suggest that there might be some mileage in considering one element of music that is often used to exemplify 'beauty' and seeing how it does or doesn't apply?
> 
> Take 'melody'. Do we find melody beautiful because of something inherent in it, or is our reaction to melody entirely personal, depending on how our brain is wired and how it is has been exposed over time to various musical experiences?
> 
> [Surely we could come to blows over that one? ]


Regarding the CPT era, I've been talking about this above. Given the structure of the music and the parameters therein that developed during that period and the resulting music that attracted the listeners, academia and benefactors of the time, melodies in particular were created with objective characteristics that were found to be beautiful by countless brains.

This doesn't change the fact that our brains are the final determinant of what is beautiful.


----------



## mikeh375

Forster said:


> Dare I suggest that there might be some mileage in considering one element of music that is often used to exemplify 'beauty' and seeing how it does or doesn't apply?
> 
> Take 'melody'. Do we find melody beautiful because of something inherent in it, or is our reaction to melody entirely personal, depending on how our brain is wired and how it is has been exposed over time to various musical experiences?
> 
> [Surely we could come to blows over that one? ]


That'd be tricky and too subjective imo. 
Tricky because generally speaking, a melodies efficacy is also dependant on the other elements in music, harmony, rhythm, dynamics and instrumentation. One can study a melodies structure, its rise and fall, motivic development and climactic points and find out how the music manipulates itself. From this, one could draw some well known (at least to composers that is) conclusions. However CP era technique for example, is obviously not the only way to write music. As you know, much music after the CP era was/ is composed with a different technical/aesthetic paradigm entirely and no more so than when it comes to melodic construction. The general principles so obvious in CP music are less so in the 20th and 21stC yet the new ways are also I believe, capable of beauty however you may define it.

So although some general principles of construction in melody that _may_ lead to a feeling of beauty in the listener are possible - although tricky imo without an harmonic analysis too - would it add much to the philosophical debate given the inevitable cultural and technical subjectivity inherent in a) creating a melody and b), the listening to that melody by different cultural ears and their preferences, from lay listener through to experienced?


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> melodies in particular were created with objective characteristics that were found to be beautiful by countless brains.


Thanks. Can you give an example of the objective characterisitcs?



mikeh375 said:


> a melodies efficacy is also dependant on the other elements in music, harmony, rhythm, dynamics and instrumentation. One can study a melodies structure, its rise and fall, motivic development and climactic points and find out how the music manipulates itself.


So, before being able to explain whether 'melody' is a distinct feature of what might be deemed beautiful, one would have to narrow down what counts as a melody in the first place, especially when considering something more complex than Three Blind Mice played on a penny whistle!

Are we saying that it's simply too difficult, or that it's the wrong kind of "objective characteristic" (to use DaveM's phrase)?
Or that since the brain is the final arbiter, there is no merit in trying to distil some essence of melodic beauty inherent in the music?


----------



## mikeh375

Forster said:


> ....................
> 
> .....So, before being able to explain whether 'melody' is a distinct feature of what might be deemed beautiful, one would have to narrow down what counts as a melody in the first place, especially when considering something more complex than Three Blind Mice played on a penny whistle!
> 
> Are we saying that it's simply too difficult, or that it's the wrong kind of "objective characteristic" (to use DaveM's phrase)?
> Or that since the brain is the final arbiter, there is no merit in trying to distil some essence of melodic beauty inherent in the music?


I think that we can safely regard melody as a distinct and recognisable element, one easily defined technically and musically. I would make a distinction between melody and theme but perhaps that's complicating what is obvious here.

As to objective characteristics, one could glean use of some technical traits assuming a quite loose definition of the word objective, when analysing beautiful melodies. I say loosely objective because composers also use techniques preferrentially and subjectively and their approach has been influenced culturally and educationally. Their eventual creative decisions (what we hear), will also be based on what they alone might perceive as beautiful rather than an expected notion of beauty. Perhaps 'searching for recognisable commonalities in melodic writing' is a less contentious term.

Consider something like a crescendo in a melody that sequentially repeats a motif and reaches its most intense moment on the highest note of the melody. Aided by a slight accelerando and then pause on the top note, manipulations like this could be considered an obvious (and often successful) ploy to engender beauty. Or maybe a series of suspensions and/or retardations in a string piece which ramp up the expression and potential beauty in a line (Mahler 5 Adagio, Albonini Adagio, Barber Adagio, Rach 2nd symph, slow mvt). All of that and much more in the way of writing and scoring a melody may be useful to know about, but without knowledge of the manipulation of functional harmony, especially how it aids, abets and influences melody, any conclusions regarding beauty and melody will only be half of the story imo. Also using any of the techniques known to be readily musically expressive certainly does not guarantee beauty. It's also true that beauty can be perceived in a melody that uses none of the recognised CPT "buttons"..

Still, some of these technical procedures and others do tend to be operative in varying degrees in Western pieces considered beautiful, so yes perhaps some "objectivity" or better, commonality of approach, can be gleaned but its certainly not a foolproof way of helping to define beauty as such. I should add that I'm talking about CPT here and as I said earlier, procedures in CPT are not the only way to write music and are not the only source of beauty imo.

I can't answer your last about where beauty resides as I'm not sure, although I lean to it being in the brain...but I'm not sure because sometimes music mysteriously dictates itself ....but I'm not sure.

..as an aside has anyone mentioned a correlation between sadness and beauty in music?


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> Dare I suggest that there might be some mileage in considering one element of music that is often used to exemplify 'beauty' and seeing how it does or doesn't apply?
> 
> Take 'melody'. Do we find melody beautiful because of something inherent in it, or is our reaction to melody entirely personal, depending on how our brain is wired and how it is has been exposed over time to various musical experiences?
> 
> [Surely we could come to blows over that one? ]


Looking at the development of the western musical tradition, it seems like melody long predated harmony (a point many others here have made). So one could argue melody is more "fundamental" than harmony. But looking at non-western cultures such as those of West Africa, rhythm seems to be the primary element. The Indian raga seems similar in function to western melody, but with different structural concepts, more centered on repetition and drone than on melodic or harmonic progression. Perhaps that is more fundamental.

By now you've probably noticed my take on this, and that is there is no point in trying to formulate such theories of art or aesthetics. I've cited some sources that discuss this articulately and in some detail. I suppose that's all I can contribute here.

In general, I see systems of musical rules as making use of contrasts such as those between order and disorder, symmetry and irregularity, patterns and randomness, progress towards resolutions or away from them or stasis, all using contrasts of pitch, dynamics, rhythm, duration, timbre and texture of sound. These sounds inevitably evoke sounds we hear naturally in our environment, so that relationship can be exploited in many ways. That seems to bring "nature" into the equation, but of course, our sound environment is dramatically different, not only in different societies and among individuals, but in different eras. Industrialization and technology have greatly changed our typical daily sound environment.


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> By now you've probably noticed my take on this, and that is there is no point in trying to formulate such theories of art or aesthetics. I've cited some sources that discuss this articulately and in some detail. I suppose that's all I can contribute here.


Yep...we're pretty sure it's an elephant, but there's no harm in considering other possibilities, if only to see if there's more we can learn about elephants.

Or, to put it another way, I'm pretty sure I know what I think (and not just in answer to the thread question, which has been more or less answered by some of us several times over) but that doesn't mean there's no interesting by-product from discussing things in smaller pieces.


----------



## eljr

mmsbls said:


> Yes, I agree there are, but I just don't think anyone has a good idea of exactly what they are.


We do know, in macro, what parts of the brain respond to what we call beautiful music and unpleasant music.


----------



## eljr

Luchesi said:


> I think evolutionary psychology is a harder science than Jungian psychology.


Possibly but of far more value.


----------



## SanAntone

eljr said:


> We do know, in macro, what parts of the brain respond to what we call beautiful music and unpleasant music.


What is called beautiful will be different depending on whether the person being measured is American, Chinese, West African, White South African, Indonesian, Maori, Native American, French, Ethiopian, Arabic, Russian, etc.

Brain chemistry is a red herring, IMO.


----------



## eljr

DaveM said:


> our brains are the final determinant of what is beautiful.


That 37 posters of 81 do not agree would make for an interesting discussion in and of itself.


----------



## eljr

Forster said:


> Thanks. Can you give an example of the objective characterisitcs?
> 
> So, before being able to explain whether 'melody' is a distinct feature of what might be deemed beautiful, one would have to narrow down what counts as a melody in the first place, especially when considering something more complex than Three Blind Mice played on a penny whistle!
> 
> Are we saying that it's simply too difficult, or that it's the wrong kind of "objective characteristic" (to use DaveM's phrase)?
> Or that since the brain is the final arbiter, there is no merit in trying to distil some essence of melodic beauty inherent in the music?


The sound of a rainforest at night or waterfall can be beautiful.


----------



## Forster

eljr said:


> The sound of a rainforest at night or waterfall can be beautiful.


And this links to melody...how?


----------



## eljr

SanAntone said:


> What is called beautiful will be different depending on whether the person being measured is American, Chinese, West African, White South African, Indonesian, Maori, Native American, French, Ethiopian, Arabic, Russian, etc.


Exactly, the beauty is in the brain. Well done!


----------



## eljr

Forster said:


> And this links to melody...how?


I was trying to show the conversation should be broader, about sound, not just music.


----------



## DaveM

eljr said:


> That 37 posters of 81 do not agree would make for an interesting discussion in and of itself.


I'm not sure how far the discussion could go since the real question is why 37 of the 81 are rejecting the scientific fact that any one of our senses sense nothing without interpretation by the brain.


----------



## Forster

eljr said:


> I was trying to show the conversation should be broader, about sound, not just music.


That's as maybe, but you might have made this point separately from my post about melody.


----------



## mmsbls

SanAntone said:


> What is called beautiful will be different depending on whether the person being measured is American, Chinese, West African, White South African, Indonesian, Maori, Native American, French, Ethiopian, Arabic, Russian, etc.


In general, yes.



SanAntone said:


> Brain chemistry is a red herring, IMO.


But brain electrochemistry is everything. Without it we don't sense anything, feel anything, experience anything, or understand anything. Music would be unhearable, unknowable, and incapable of affecting us. The difference between Americans, Chinese, French, and others is all in the brain electrochemistry.

Given that everyone's brain electrochemistry is unique but also structured quite similarly, we see varied responses but not random ones.


----------



## SanAntone

mmsbls said:


> But brain electrochemistry is everything. Without it we don't sense anything, feel anything, experience anything, or understand anything. Music would be unhearable, unknowable, and incapable of affecting us. The difference between Americans, Chinese, French, and others is all in the brain electrochemistry.


No, the way our brain electrochemistry works is identical no matter our ethnic origin. What is different is our culture, and which is why people from different cultures will have different standards of beauty.

Analyzing brain chemical responses is a tool that shows brain activity - it is not an objective criteria for identifying beauty. I will only show that the test subject is recognizing what s/he believes to be beautiful. But we don't need to study brain chemistry to find that out.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> No, the way our brain electrochemistry works is identical no matter our ethnic origin. What is different is our culture, and which is why people from different cultures will have different standards of beauty.
> 
> Analyzing brain chemical responses is a tool that shows brain activity - it is not an objective criteria for identifying beauty. I will only show that the test subject is recognizing what s/he believes to be beautiful. But we don't need to study brain chemistry to find that out.


The way I look at it is, we each have different "data banks" in our brains due to living in different environments and having different experiences. So we perceive and behave differently -- often similarly, but not identically. You can analyze that from a neuroscientific standpoint, I assume. But whatever neuroscience tells us, I very much doubt it will ever be possible to predict human perception and behavior fully, due to the random and ever-changing nature of our environment.

But even in the absence of a comprehensive, universal theory predicting human perception and behavior, we can observe in a rational way how certain relatively widespread environmental phenomena and stimuli impact human perception and behavior in broad terms. If we isolate a certain culture -- e.g., aristocratic or wealthy well-educated Europeans of the 18th century, I think we can learn a lot about their lives from their music and art, and vice versa.

Once you remove cultural / environmental context, I think you are wandering in a wilderness. Neuroscience alone isn't going to explain or predict our aesthetic values.


----------



## eljr

fluteman said:


> I very much doubt it will ever be possible to predict human perception and behavior fully, due to the random and ever-changing nature of our environment.


Not that sociaty will survive long enough to get there but I think it very possible to predict behaviors. We do it already, just not to the degree you speak to.



> Once you remove cultural / environmental context, I think you are wandering in a wilderness. Neuroscience alone isn't going to explain or predict our aesthetic values.


I agree it is not going to but the information is there to be had. Our aesthetic values are no different than anything else about us, it is a simply a blend of nature, nurture.


----------



## eljr

SanAntone said:


> No, the way our brain electrochemistry works is identical no matter our ethnic origin. What is different is...


...the input.

Yes, our culture is a subset of the input.


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> Regarding the CPT era, I've been talking about this above. Given the structure of the music and the parameters therein that developed during that period and the resulting music that attracted the listeners, academia and benefactors of the time, melodies in particular were created with objective characteristics that were found to be beautiful by countless brains.
> 
> This doesn't change the fact that our brains are the final determinant of what is beautiful.


Yes. Melodies entertain us because of the suspensions and the resolutions, the anticipations and the short feelings of satisfaction, the notes that the composer chooses. They're right in the note and interval relationships in (over) the over-all supporting harmony (in that key) - from physics. It's mostly unconscious and it's obviously difficult to put in the words (at least by me, heh).

added:
Is it akin to a survival activity? Predicting, getting it wrong, getting it right, anticipation, being surprised (safely), satisfaction..


----------



## SanAntone

In my way of thinking, aesthetic concepts are an overlay from our native culture. We have been imprinted to perceive something (a phrase of music, a woman's face) as beautiful because of how our culture has attached value to specific attributes. This does not mean that we cannot appreciate those things that a foreign culture identifies as beautiful once we understand the hierarchy of attributes of that culture. 

But it is a mistake to apply the standards from one culture to judge the stimuli of another culture.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> In my way of thinking, aesthetic concepts are an overlay from our native culture. We have been imprinted to perceive something (a phrase of music, a woman's face) as beautiful because of how our culture has attached value to specific attributes. This does not mean that we cannot appreciate those things that a foreign culture identifies as beautiful once we understand the hierarchy of attributes of that culture. ...


What is a "hierarchy of attributes"? All of that sounds a little uncomfortably deterministic to me. But that's just me. Strictly speaking, my "culture" isn't "Bach" any more than it is Zhang Yimou. My "culture" is pop, country and western, jazz, US hymnody and so forth. I didn't grow up listening to Lutheran chorales. Imagining that members of non-western societies are themselves immersed in their own traditional artistic cultures is as unrealistic and romanticized as thinking that all Italians listen to Palestrina and Monteverdi. I would bet that Masaaki Suzuki loves the music of Bach for pretty much the same reasons I do.


----------



## Ethereality

I haven't been reading any of this thread, and am surprised it even took off. Such a very weak and already resolved topic, when there are much more interesting topics with little response.

How do you listen to classical music
107yo French pianist explains the essence of classical music
The Official Favorite Short Musical Moments™ Thread
A New Version of Top 10 Composers


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> What is a "hierarchy of attributes"? All of that sounds a little uncomfortably deterministic to me. But that's just me. Strictly speaking, my "culture" isn't "Bach" any more than it is Zhang Yimou. My "culture" is pop, country and western, jazz, US hymnody and so forth. ...


Good point. SanAntone and fluteman seem to forget that East Asian traditional music, for instance, is not even popular in East Asia, much less popular than Western classical music or jazz is in the countries, China, Japan, South Korea


----------



## parlando

parlando said:


> You guys! Round and round and round:


 FWIW, my Taco link.


----------



## mmsbls

SanAntone said:


> No, the way our brain electrochemistry works is identical no matter our ethnic origin. What is different is our culture, and which is why people from different cultures will have different standards of beauty.


If you are saying elactrochemistry is the same everywhere in the universe, I agree. But brains vary widely due to the enormously complex differences in neural structure, connectivity, and synaptic strengths. Cultures differ, yes, but I suspect there is more variation within cultures than between them. People's sense of beauty is determined by their unique genetic endowment and their unique environmental inputs. Some of their environment is shared (e.g. culture, family upbringing, school), but most differs from everyone else's. It is one's non-shared experiences that determine much of one's variation in desires, behaviors, and their reactions to music.

I think it's possible that fluteman's believe that "neuroscience alone isn't going to explain or predict our aesthetic values" could be true. I think it's possible that a long time from now we might have that capability, but I'm not sure it would be very helpful in that there would be other ways to estimate what we might want to know.


----------



## eljr

Ethereality said:


> I haven't been reading any of this thread, and am surprised it even took off. Such a very weak and already resolved topic, when there are much more interesting topics with little response.
> 
> How do you listen to classical music
> 107yo French pianist explains the essence of classical music
> The Official Favorite Short Musical Moments™ Thread
> A New Version of Top 10 Composers


I can't imagine a subject more interesting than neuropsychology, even classical music. That it is being diverted into metaphysics is concerning and does lessen the discussion. If that is the part you refer to, then I agree.


----------



## DaveM

A 2008 Study from MIT:

'_People from different cultures use their brains differently to solve the same visual perceptual tasks, researchers report in the first brain imaging study of its kind. Psychological research has established that American culture, which values the individual, emphasizes the independence of objects from their contexts, while East Asian societies emphasize the collective and the contextual interdependence of objects.* Behavioral studies have shown that these cultural differences can influence memory and even perception.'*_


----------



## 59540

DaveM said:


> Psychological research has established that American culture,


I don't think there's any such thing as an "American culture". There are several different cultures under the same umbrella. The same probably holds true for China.


----------



## parlando

Ethereality said:


> I haven't been reading any of this thread, and am surprised it even took off. Such a very weak and already resolved topic, when there are much more interesting topics with little response.
> 
> How do you listen to classical music
> 107yo French pianist explains the essence of classical music
> The Official Favorite Short Musical Moments™ Thread
> A New Version of Top 10 Composers


I must largely concur, hence my gentle sniping. For a while I will be looking at the Official Favorite Short Musical Moments.


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> I don't think there's any such thing as an "American culture". There are several different cultures under the same umbrella.


If they are under the same umbrella, what is that parent culture?


----------



## SanAntone

eljr said:


> If they are under the same umbrella, what is that parent culture?


Western culture.


----------



## Ethereality

eljr said:


> I can't imagine a subject more interesting than neuropsychology, even classical music. That it is being diverted into metaphysics is concerning and does lessen the discussion. If that is the part you refer to, then I agree.


Proofs for resolving this topic aren't neuropsychological though, they're simply empirical. Hence it's strange anyone would bring psychology into this discussion. It would be akin to arguing "People don't need to sleep at night, it's just a cultural phenomenon. You have to prove sleep is real psychologically." 

I'm not getting any more into this discussion. But if you want to start a music psychology thread, I'm all ears!


----------



## eljr

Ethereality said:


> Proofs for resolving this topic aren't neuropsychological though, they're simply empirical. Hence it's strange anyone would bring psychology into this discussion. It would be akin to arguing "People don't need to sleep at night, it's just a cultural phenomenon. You have to prove sleep is real psychologically."
> 
> I'm not getting any more into this discussion. But if you want to start a music psychology thread, I'm all ears!


How could one empirically defend the position of those that claim music contains beauty without commiting logical fallacies?

So the conversation cannot be other than through the neurosciences.

But yes, I swore this thread off once already, I should not have reentered.


----------



## eljr

SanAntone said:


> Western culture.


of western origins but are we Western culture? Are we not a *Culture of the United States*. European American, Asian American, African American, Latin American, Native American all coming together with Western culture?


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Western culture.


Which "Western culture"? It's no more monolithic than "Eastern culture". I think it's all too sprawling to generalize about in that way.


----------



## DaveM

dissident said:


> I don't think there's any such thing as an "American culture". There are several different cultures under the same umbrella. The same probably holds true for China.


You'll have to take that up with the researchers. I'm just the messenger.


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> of western origins but are we Western culture? Are we not a *Culture of the United States*. European American, Asian American, African American, Latin American, Native American all coming together with Western culture?


See what I mean? :lol: Not to mention regional cultures.


> So the conversation cannot be other than through the neurosciences.


Well since neuroscientific knowledge is so relatively sparse and tentative at the moment, there's not much to talk about.


----------



## eljr

> See what I mean? Not to mention regional cultures.


No I don't. I showed your statement incorrect. We most certainly have an American culture. You denied this.



> I don't think there's any such thing as an "American culture".





dissident said:


> Well since *neuroscientific knowledge is so relatively sparse and tentative at the moment*, there's not much to talk about.


I am speechless.

Peace brother, I wish you well.


----------



## RogerWaters

SanAntone said:


> What is called beautiful will be different depending on whether the person being measured is American, Chinese, West African, White South African, Indonesian, Maori, Native American, French, Ethiopian, Arabic, Russian, etc.


I simply don't buy this degree of relativism. Your argument relies too much on the arbitrary fact of social isolation. It doesn't explain why Chinese people, for example, have flocked to Western Classical music and the plastic pop music that simplifies the theory of the former when geographical boundaries have been taken out as a factor.

It is unfair to say that Europeans did not 'discover' (via functional tonality) a highly causally-specific way of titillating the music centres of the brain (if you want to put it that way), _qua_ member of the species homo sapiens.


----------



## fluteman

RogerWaters said:


> I simply don't buy this degree of relativism. Your argument relies too much on the arbitrary fact of social isolation. It doesn't explain why Chinese people, for example, have flocked to Western Classical music and the plastic pop music that simplifies the theory of the former when geographical boundaries have been taken out as a factor.
> 
> It is unfair to say that Europeans did not 'discover' (via functional tonality) a highly causally-specific way of titillating the music centres of the brain (if you want to put it that way), _qua_ member of the species homo sapiens.


Why did American people, and ultimately westerners generally, beginning circa 1900 or even earlier, flock to musical traditions originally brought to them by slaves from West Africa?

I'd say it's because those West African traditions brought aesthetic elements to western music that it had previously lacked, and that many Europeans and Americans found highly appealing. American popular music before it absorbed West African influences is now largely forgotten, with Stephen Foster being perhaps the only major exception. American popular music after absorbing its West African influences has long dominated the popular music scene in much of the world.

Why is pop music from Japan and Korea having such a major influence on European and American pop music today?

I see no evidence anywhere supporting your proposition.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> Why is pop music from Japan and Korea having such a major influence on European and American pop music today?


Kpop is popular worldwide (Jpop isn't) and it uses Western harmony. What traditional Korean elements are there in BTS's songs, other than the fact that the lyrics are Korean?


----------



## 59540

fluteman said:


> .
> Why did American people, and ultimately westerners generally, beginning circa 1900 or even earlier, flock to musical traditions originally brought to them by slaves from West Africa?


Those traditions aren't purely "West African". Jazz (like rock) is an amalgam of various influences, not exclusively African ones. The same could be said of "European" music as well. This reduction of certain music exclusively to certain ethnic or national groups is silly.


----------



## fbjim

for the record there are actually very simple explanations why the country which for a large part of the 20th century had enormous control on recorded and broadcasted music (and still has enormous control over popular film) was able to successfully export their cultural products all over the world

the exportation of korean and japanese culture is also by no small part due to government arts funding by their respective countries. nations have realized the value of cultural exportation and are explicitly funding it.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> Those traditions aren't purely "West African". Jazz (like rock) is an amalgam of various influences, not exclusively African ones. The same could be said of "European" music as well. This reduction of certain music exclusively to certain ethnic or national groups is silly.


American popular music is an amalgamation but it is an amalgamation resulting from the US, you know, "importing" an enormous population of Africans for a large part of its existence, which was a pretty historically consequential event. nobody has said popular music is exclusively black, but when the cultural products explicitly result from a large forced immigration, and when the pioneers of said products tended to be black, it should be obvious why the African (and Caribbean) influences of popular culture have significant historical interest.


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> for the record there are actually very simple explanations why the country which for a large part of the 20th century had enormous control on recorded and broadcasted music (and still has enormous control over popular film) was able to successfully export their cultural products all over the world
> 
> the exportation of korean and japanese culture is also by no small part due to government arts funding by their respective countries. nations have realized the value of cultural exportation and are explicitly funding it.


All true. And the movie industry has been expanding internationally for many years, though the biggest budget movies seem to remain the province of American companies, as much as some of those companies may be foreign owned or controlled (i.e., Sony Pictures Entertainment). Economics has had a lot to do with international exports of culture, including music.

What isn't true is that Western, pre-20th century "common practice" music is somehow inherently superior to musical traditions of all other cultures, and that the Chinese and other non-westerners must realize and acknowledge this if they haven't already. What I tried to illustrate in my previous post is that as soon as technology made access to music from around the world cheap and easy in the early 20th century, the pre-20th century "common practice" traditions in Europe and North America began to be modified or replaced by non-western traditions.

It turned out that despite the global economic domination of the US and Europe that had already taken hold by the end of the 19th century, the western, pre-20th century "common practice" musical tradition was not strong or compelling enough to resist major modifications once non-western musical traditions became readily available.


----------



## fbjim

also it should be made clear that it is not at all impossible to gain understanding of the aesthetics of works from different cultures- i mean this should be fairly obvious just by personal experience. the fact that we can deliberately attempt to learn an appreciation of say, Indian music is in fact very good evidence that these aesthetics are culturally learned, and that there isn't like, some DNA thing which makes Indian people susceptible to drone noises or something.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> ...
> the exportation of korean and japanese culture is also by no small part due to government arts funding by their respective countries. nations have realized the value of cultural exportation and are explicitly funding it.


I don't see any large-scale exportation of Korean and Japanese culture. There has to be an interest in and "market" it for it first.


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> also it should be made clear that it is not at all impossible to gain understanding of the aesthetics of works from different cultures- i mean this should be fairly obvious just by personal experience. the fact that we can deliberately attempt to learn an appreciation of say, Indian music is in fact very good evidence that these aesthetics are culturally learned, and that there isn't like, some DNA thing which makes Indian people susceptible to drone noises or something.


Exactly. In fact, there are distinct musical traditions in the various regions of India, just as there are other distinct cultural differences. No doubt it would take a lifetime of study for a westerner to begin to appreciate all of that, much less Indian dance, visual art, and literature.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> also it should be made clear that it is not at all impossible to gain understanding of the aesthetics of works from different cultures- i mean this should be fairly obvious just by personal experience. the fact that we can deliberately attempt to learn an appreciation of say, Indian music is in fact very good evidence that these aesthetics are culturally learned, and that there isn't like, some DNA thing which makes Indian people susceptible to drone noises or something.


But the flip side is that's also evidence that there's something there to be appreciated. Otherwise I suppose we could learn to appreciate the artistic value in a slice of processed cheese.


----------



## fbjim

one might actually need some knowledge of American cuisine to know that the value of American cheese is that it's very easy to melt on burgers and grilled cheese sandwiches. A Frenchman attempting to evaluate it in the way a French food critic evaluates cheese would of course find little value in it unless the cultural context is shifted, in the same way that the context of what is beautiful or engaging changes when attempting to look at music beyond classical.


----------



## Kreisler jr

dissident said:


> I don't see any large-scale exportation of Korean and Japanese culture. There has to be an interest in and "market" it for it first.


I think that this is mainly a niche interest among some Western teenaged to 30ish nerdy kids. I don't think I knew anyone roughly my age (born in the 1970s) who was into Japanese anime (maybe via video games in the 1990s but it was very niche) or J-pop or whatever.


----------



## eljr

fbjim said:


> one might actually need some knowledge of American cuisine to know that the value of American cheese is that it's very easy to melt on burgers and grilled cheese sandwiches. A Frenchman attempting to evaluate it in the way a French food critic evaluates cheese would of course find little value in it unless the cultural context is shifted, in the same way that the context of what is beautiful or engaging changes when attempting to look at music beyond classical.


What an excellent post!


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> I don't see any large-scale exportation of Korean and Japanese culture. There has to be an interest in and "market" it for it first.


You've never come across Hello Kitty then.


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> one might actually need some knowledge of American cuisine to know that the value of American cheese is that it's very easy to melt on burgers and grilled cheese sandwiches. A Frenchman attempting to evaluate it in the way a French food critic evaluates cheese would of course find little value in it unless the cultural context is shifted, in the same way that the context of what is beautiful or engaging changes when attempting to look at music beyond classical.


The French are legendary for disliking American diary products. Conversely, when I first visited France long ago, two things that tasted strange to me were bottled mineral water and chicken. Of course, eventually French mineral water became fashionable in the US, so I have to assume many Americans learned to like the distinctive taste of many brands. As for chicken, eventually "free range" chicken became more widely available in the US (more free range in some cases than in others, apparently, but still), allegedly fed a more natural and varied diet, and lo and behold, the flavor was closer to the French standard.

Taste in food is profoundly cultural, though in that area, I think if one is hungry or thirsty enough, nature overwhelms nurture.


----------



## eljr

fluteman said:


> As for chicken, eventually "free range" chicken became more widely available in the US (more free range in some cases than in others, apparently, but still), allegedly fed a more natural and varied diet, and lo and behold, the flavor was closer to the French standard.


Yeah but it's still chicken.


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> You've never come across Hello Kitty then.


What was the role played by government arts funding in that case? Stuff like that became popular because, well, there was a market for it. That's not quite the same as koto playing and the like.


fbjim said:


> one might actually need some knowledge of American cuisine to know that the value of American cheese is that it's very easy to melt on burgers and grilled cheese sandwiches. A Frenchman attempting to evaluate it in the way a French food critic evaluates cheese would of course find little value in it unless the cultural context is shifted, in the same way that the context of what is beautiful or engaging changes when attempting to look at music beyond classical.


But it still ain't art. Anyway, even the most discerning haute cuisine fan will most likely know very well what processed cheese *is*, and still have nothing but disdain for it.


----------



## ido66667

eljr said:


> Although it is a heavy lift, I have offered corroboration for my statements if you choose to invest the time.
> 
> Long ago I coined a phrase that is often quoted, I think it applies here. You may have an opinion in the absence of fact, not in conflict with it.
> 
> Peace


But can you see consistent response to the same piece in all individuals regardless of culture, uprising, etc? That would prove musical beauty is indeed hardwired into our brain.

And yet, from experience, I know many people that find zero pleasure from Bach, Beethoven, or any other classical composer. And even here, many of us cannot agree wether a piece is beautiful or not. So unless people are lying about their experiences out of sheer spite and everyone secretly enjoys the Goldberg Variations, we are forced to admit that music isn't hardwired into the brain.

If I have to take a guess, the research you cite probably says that people respond to music they find beautiful in a similar way, not that all people respond to certain music similarly. In general, in an internet discussion, one should always cite clear quotes from a source to prove a point, rather than throwing a link and calling it quits. Most readers don't have the time to check if your sources actually say what you say they did, or you simply misinterpreted them.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> What was the role played by government arts funding in that case? Stuff like that became popular because, well, there was a market for it.


Sorry - I missed the reference to government arts funding in the post you were responding to. Nevertheless, as you say, there was a market for it, which, you said, was a pre-requisite.

Not to mention sushi, anime, Japanese horror (Godzilla) cartoons (eg Miyazaki), Korean cinema (Bong Joon Ho) etc. Japanese and Korean cultural activities (not necessarily narrowly 'art' activities) have been exported to the UK for some time. Some aspects have greater impact than others - some on teen and youth markets more than mainstream adult, but it all adds up to an increased awareness, influence and consumption.

I don't know what role their governments have played in exporting.


----------



## RogerWaters

fluteman said:


> Why did American people, and ultimately westerners generally, beginning circa 1900 or even earlier, flock to musical traditions originally brought to them by slaves from West Africa?
> 
> I'd say it's because those West African traditions brought aesthetic elements to western music that it had previously lacked, and that many Europeans and Americans found highly appealing. American popular music before it absorbed West African influences is now largely forgotten, with Stephen Foster being perhaps the only major exception. * American popular music after absorbing its West African influences has long dominated the popular music scene in much of the world*.
> 
> *Why is pop music from Japan and Korea having such a major influence on European and American pop music today*?
> 
> I see no evidence anywhere supporting *your proposition*.


Lol. you really think American popular music only dominated the world in virtue of absorbing its west African influences? Technology and globalisation had nothing to do with this?! Western melody and harmony had nothing to do with the Beatles massive success?! And, as Hammered mentioned and I did too, Kpop is pretty much western in its 'theory'.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting other cultures don't bring factors into the mix along side European functional harmony. Of course they do. Classical music doesn't have enough earth, emphasis on beat and rhythm for the masses and of course other music provides this (although I'm not sure you could call John Bonham's mammoth drumming in Led Zeppelin as 'african' or somehow exotic).

My 'proposition' is that there is a human nature that various elements of music stimulate more than others, and that this is a check on a complete relativist position. You can think of this human nature as an 'attractor' in the the landscape of cultural evolution (along side many other arbitrary factors).

This 'human nature' is the reason why much current 'classical' music will never be more than a minority interest, supported mostly by government grants, academic institutions and arts school graduates.


----------



## fbjim

apart from the attempted minimization of the role black music has in popular music, im extremely interested in what compelling evidence you have for your "human nature" theory


----------



## SanAntone

fbjim said:


> apart from the attempted minimization of the role black music has in popular music, im extremely interested in what compelling evidence you have for your "human nature" theory


It is impossible to exaggerate the influence of *African American* (not African) influence on popular music in the USA, which then was exported globally.


----------



## fbjim

Oh yeah, though I say "black" in lieu of "African" or. "African American" because a lot of it was Carribean. Hip-hop and electronic music owe a lot to dub music culture.


----------



## SanAntone

fbjim said:


> I say black because a lot of it was Carribean. Hip-hop and electronic music owe a lot to dub music culture.


My point was not semantical, but to stress that it was the *Black experience in America* that produced Blues, Jazz, Rock & Roll, R&B, etc. It wasn't a direct African influence, although the slaves brought some of that with them. But early on they fused their native music with what they heard around them: hymn tunes they were taught, European Classical music (New Orleans had three opera houses) as well as white rural music, medicine shows, Vaudeville, and Tin Pan Alley songs they heard.

And White musicians did the same by incorporating Black musical influences.


----------



## fbjim

And remarkably a similar thing happened again in the 1970s, with black musicians getting imported records from Germany with the influences of Stockhausen, early electronic avant garde composers, and minimalist composers, resulting in the formation of modern electronic and house music (including hip-hop which was more or less a descendent of electro music). 

The astonishing disparity of influences from all over the world in electronic music is one of the reasons it remains a favorite genre of mine.


----------



## RogerWaters

fbjim said:


> apart from *the attempted minimization of the role black music has in popular music,* im extremely interested in what compelling evidence you have for your "human nature" theory


That's a bit unhinged, based on what I said.

The evidence is the enthusiastic take up of various aspects of music (such as western harmony) by different cultures (and its retention in western music long after other influences joined the fray).

Do you really think there is no human nature limiting an otherwise random spread of cultural traits? When it comes to music, do you really think loud atonal screeching, say, is going to be as widely appreciated as a harmonic sequence - qua human beings with our particular auditory and cognitive structure?


----------



## SanAntone

This is not a response to your last post, which has some intereting observations, but a continuation of my last post in response to yours.

A number of musicologists and musicians have traveled to Africa looking for the "roots of the Blues." But they've mostly come up empty handed. The closest thing they found were an instrument which was played like a banjo or guitar (the _kora_, which features a skin head and gourd body), and monophonic singing which resembled field shouts in the rural South.

Blues was a unique American creation by Blacks created by the mixture of ancient African styles and the America experience. Blues was the founding music for Jazz and Rock & Roll. Bluegrass, and "hillbilly music" in general also shows Black influences, not only with the 12-bar Blues form, but in the scales and solo playing. Blacks also were influenced and there were a number of Black string bands during the 20s.


----------



## fbjim

RogerWaters said:


> Do you really think there is no human nature limiting an otherwise random spread of cultural traits? When it comes to music, do you really think loud atonal screeching, say, is going to be as widely appreciated as a harmonic sequence - qua human beings with our particular auditory and cognitive structure?


Yes. There are entire genres and cultures of music based on atonal music where progression is based on timbre rather than tone or melody.

Like, literally the entire 90s culture of acid house happened because people went nuts for the weird squeaky sounds a certain synthesizer made. Especially when combined with lots of drugs.


----------



## RogerWaters

fbjim said:


> Yes. There are entire genres and cultures of music based on atonal music where progression is based on timbre rather than tone or melody.
> 
> Like, literally the entire 90s culture of acid house happened because people went nuts for the weird squeaky sounds a certain synthesizer made. Especially when combined with lots of drugs.


Note, I said 'as widely appreciated'. There will always be variation. What is telling is the distribution.

I think there is clearly a human nature limiting an otherwise random spread of cultural traits. Pornography and gossip columns on the internet is an obvious example (yes, even in the face of variation - people who don't avail themselves of these cultural traits). When it comes to music, I find convergence indicative of this human nature at work - alongside other factors.


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> The French are legendary for disliking American diary products. Conversely, when I first visited France long ago, two things that tasted strange to me were bottled mineral water and chicken. Of course, eventually French mineral water became fashionable in the US, so I have to assume many Americans learned to like the distinctive taste of many brands. As for chicken, eventually "free range" chicken became more widely available in the US (more free range in some cases than in others, apparently, but still), allegedly fed a more natural and varied diet, and lo and behold, the flavor was closer to the French standard.
> 
> Taste in food is profoundly cultural, though in that area, I think if one is hungry or thirsty enough, nature overwhelms nurture.


I must say that on my visits to the US, I discovered, unsurprisingly, that food was not cooked or served in the way I'm accustomed to at home. But then, I also know that food is not cooked or served in some homogeneous 'UK' style either. There are differences that are community-based and some that are economically-based. I assume the same holds true everywhere: people buy what they can afford, cook it how they're used to cooking it and eating it how they're used to eating it.



RogerWaters said:


> My 'proposition' is that there is a human nature that various elements of music stimulate more than others, and that this is a check on a complete relativist position.


Would you explain what you mean by "a human nature"? And "a complete relativist position"? Thanks.


----------



## fbjim

RogerWaters said:


> Note, I said 'as widely appreciated'. There will always be variation. What is telling is the distribution.
> 
> I think there is clearly a human nature limiting an otherwise random spread of cultural traits. Pornography and gossip columns on the internet is an obvious example (yes, even in the face of variation - people who don't avail themselves of these cultural traits). When it comes to music, I find convergence indicative of this human nature at work - alongside other factors.


If human nature trended toward western ideas of tonality, we'd expect to see a convergence along those lines in recorded (audio records, or sheet) music. If anything, despite the Western domination of recorded music throughout a large part of history, we certainly aren't converging along those lines.

In fact the closest thing I can think of for universality in music is rhythm and dance, and even that's arguable- I can think of a lot of music which de-emphasizes those qualities.

I also don't know what to say about "widely appreciated" since it frankly seems like an entirely subjective standard. What counts as "widely appreciated"?


----------



## fluteman

RogerWaters said:


> This 'human nature' is the reason why much current 'classical' music will never be more than a minority interest, supported mostly by government grants, academic institutions and arts school graduates.


I agree with your post, except you need to delete the word "current" from this final sentence. It is pre-20th century 'common practice' classical music and opera that has gradually faded away from our culture, especially since the 1960s, and only survives with the aid of government grants, academic institutions and arts school graduates. I have experience in working with classical music organizations and have observed this close up. As Zubin Mehta said, the symphony orchestra is now a museum.

Current music is pretty much just as current music always has been. Again, I have real world experience. All sorts of new music appears on the scene, some of it is an immediate bust, some enjoys short-term popularity, and some enjoys longer-term popularity. I think it takes at least 75 years, the full length of a typical human lifetime, before one can draw any conclusion as to long-term cultural significance of contemporary art. Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Hindemith, Copland, et al. remain in the picture after 75 years. But as you correctly point out, modern technology has had a major impact on western musical traditions as well as globalization. That isn't going away, so we can expect the trend ever further away from 18th and 19th "common practice" to continue.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> When you hear a beautiful piece of music, is the beauty in the music itself or is it in the listeners brain?
> 
> Give a short explanation of why you voted either way.


OK, I'm a monist and a materialist. So the obvious answer is 'in the brain'. 
Music is only a complex signal until it is picked up by a receiver, and the characteristics of that receiver will influence what is picked up and the effect that it has. If the beauty of music were something inherent in the music itself, then how could some TC members find such beauty in, for example, Wagner's music when I find none? Or my son find beauty in rock music when that passes me by completely?


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> This is not a response to your last post, which has some intereting observations, but a continuation of my last post in response to yours.
> 
> A number of musicologists and musicians have traveled to Africa looking for the "roots of the Blues." But they've mostly come up empty handed. The closest thing they found were an instrument which was played like a banjo or guitar (the _kora_, which features a skin head and gourd body), and monophonic singing which resembled field shouts in the rural South.
> 
> Blues was a unique American creation by Blacks created by the mixture of ancient African styles and the America experience. Blues was the founding music for Jazz and Rock & Roll. Bluegrass, and "hillbilly music" in general also shows Black influences, not only with the 12-bar Blues form, but in the scales and solo playing. Blacks also were influenced and there were a number of Black string bands during the 20s.


Yes, all very true, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But also, modern technology has greatly accelerated inter-cultural musical influences. As you probably know far better than I, in the 1920s a for-profit record label decided to send reps into the field to get some African-American blues singers on record, thinking these records would be popular with an African-American audience. But what actually began to happen is that these records helped start the blues on the road to nationwide, and eventually worldwide, popularity.

So, thanks to modern technology, a musical tradition that probably dates back to slaves working in adjacent fields and developing a "call and response" form of singing suddenly got onto the road towards becoming a national and then global hit. Today the process is much accelerated thanks to ever improving global communication.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> Yes, all very true, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But also, modern technology has greatly accelerated inter-cultural musical influences. As you probably know far better than I, in the 1920s a for-profit record label decided to send reps into the field to get some African-American blues singers on record, thinking these records would be popular with an African-American audience. But what actually began to happen is that these records helped start the blues on the road to nationwide, and eventually worldwide, popularity.
> 
> So, thanks to modern technology, a musical tradition that probably dates back to slaves working in adjacent fields and developing a "call and response" form of singing suddenly got onto the road towards becoming a national and then global hit. Today the process is much accelerated thanks to ever improving global communication.


I don't know what type of harmony the African slaves had before they were sent here, but I've always assumed that they took the traditional song forms and those Western harmonies and forms and then created ragtime (or somebody did and the African Americans co-opted it into their playing, singing and dancing).

Quite sometime later they added the blue notes and some people thought they were a stylistic improvements and other groups saw them as a degradation (degeneration) of music. Since the blue notes moved to become blues and jazz the early adopters were right! and the other people were 'wrong' (about the future of entertainment music).

Of course we're talking about many decades of history so it's not as simple as the above..


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> Yes, all very true, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But also, modern technology has greatly accelerated inter-cultural musical influences. As you probably know far better than I, in the 1920s a for-profit record label decided to send reps into the field to get some African-American blues singers on record, thinking these records would be popular with an African-American audience. But what actually began to happen is that these records helped start the blues on the road to nationwide, and eventually worldwide, popularity.
> 
> So, thanks to modern technology, a musical tradition that probably dates back to slaves working in adjacent fields and developing a "call and response" form of singing suddenly got onto the road towards becoming a national and then global hit. Today the process is much accelerated thanks to ever improving global communication.


What's also interesting, to me, is the false picture created by those record companies about the nature of Black rural musicians. Almost all of the acoustic country Blues singers/guitarists, e.g. Blind Lemon Jefferson, played Blues, but also Ragtime, Tin Pan Alley tunes, and Vaudeville numbers, sentimental songs such as "After the Ball" - basically anything that might have been heard at the time and requested at one of their gigs.

However, the recording engineers only wanted them to play Blues numbers, so the other material was not recorded, and also producers such as Ralph Peer and others like him, wanted original songs so they could publish the song and gain access to royalties and copyrights. A.P. Carter and Peer have copyrights to any song that Carter collected whether he actually wrote it or not. Of course you can copyright an arrangement of a traditional song, so it wasn't illegal.

But this behavior does give an inaccurate picture of the musicians.


----------



## parlando

I submit that really interesting, _good_ music with a stable performance notation, and a performance duration longer than at most seven or eight minutes (my definition of Classical Music [that goes back to the archaic Delphic Hymn to Apollo]), has always been either supported or encouraged by the powers that be, and that the happiest audience for it has almost always been a social subset of the entire population-that is, people able to focus on it and sit still in bunches to hear it, even as dedicated musicians are a special subset of the population. Elitist? Faugh! People differ. Profoundly. There's an inescapable range of taste. What is it that has always differentiated audiences from pedestrians? Interest, and some free time. This has always been true as far as I know from early Athens through the Middle Ages up to today.

I think that the essence of "classicalismus," if you will, is repertory, stable notation for a work, and discernment by people of educated taste.


----------



## fluteman

parlando said:


> I submit that really interesting, _good_ music with a stable performance notation, and a performance duration longer than at most seven or eight minutes (my definition of Classical Music [that goes back to the archaic Delphic Hymn to Apollo]), has always been either supported or encouraged by the powers that be, and that the happiest audience for it has almost always been a social subset of the entire population-that is, people able to focus on it and sit still in bunches to hear it, even as dedicated musicians are a special subset of the population. Elitist? Faugh! People differ. Profoundly. There's an inescapable range of taste. What is it that has always differentiated audiences from pedestrians? Interest, and some free time. This has always been true as far as I know from early Athens through the Middle Ages up to today.
> 
> I think that the essence of "classicalismus," if you will, is repertory, stable notation for a work, and discernment by people of educated taste.


Not a bad definition, exception in this era when nearly everything is recorded, notation has become less important in many musical genres.

In non-western and ancient cultures, musical and literary traditions have long been passed down without notation. Homer's Odyssey was adapted from an oral tradition that long predated him.


----------



## fluteman

RogerWaters said:


> Do you really think there is no human nature limiting an otherwise random spread of cultural traits? When it comes to music, do you really think loud atonal screeching, say, is going to be as widely appreciated as a harmonic sequence [...?]


The thing is, one man's 'loud atonal screeching' is another man's Jimi Hendrix Plays Monterey.


----------



## SanAntone

parlando said:


> I submit that really interesting, _good_ music with a stable performance notation, and a performance duration longer than at most seven or eight minutes (my definition of Classical Music [that goes back to the archaic Delphic Hymn to Apollo]), has always been either supported or encouraged by the powers that be, and that the happiest audience for it has almost always been a social subset of the entire population-that is, people able to focus on it and sit still in bunches to hear it, even as dedicated musicians are a special subset of the population. Elitist? Faugh! People differ. Profoundly. There's an inescapable range of taste. What is it that has always differentiated audiences from pedestrians? Interest, and some free time. This has always been true as far as I know from early Athens through the Middle Ages up to today.
> 
> I think that the essence of "classicalismus," if you will, is repertory, stable notation for a work, and discernment by people of educated taste.


I hope you realize that you have only described what "good music" is for you. I already see several qualifications which limit the options for "good music" too much.


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> The thing is, one man's 'loud atonal screeching' is another man's Jimi Hendrix Plays Monterey.


Or what I've been listening to today: Ornette Coleman.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> Or what I've been listening to today: Ornette Coleman.


In college, I listened to a late-night jazz radio show that seemed to feature nobody but John Coltrane. 
'Trane would wail on at length with no interruption from the announcer. Finally, the music would stop, there would be several seconds of silence, and he would say: "That was ... John Coltrane." A few more seconds of silence, and then: "Now ... more John Coltrane." And the wailing, the virtuoso dips and dives, and the far from any tonal center harmonic progressions, would resume.


----------



## parlando

fluteman said:


> Not a bad definition, exception in this era when nearly everything is recorded, notation has become less important in many musical genres.
> 
> In non-western and ancient cultures, musical and literary traditions have long been passed down without notation. Homer's Odyssey was adapted from an oral tradition that long predated him.


Thanks. For me at least, I think a better ancient parallel would not be Homer (unless we want to deal with the rhapsodes who later reproduced the more or less stabilized poetry for civic events), but the dramatic performances in both Greece and Rome, where popular plays were repeated over long periods. Aristophanes is a pleasing example familiar to everyone. That's why we still have the texts. Shakespeare. Sheridan, George Bernard Shaw, and our musicals are similar. Who could forget My Fair Lady or Robert Preston in the film of-smile-The Music Man ??


----------



## fluteman

parlando said:


> Thanks. For me at least, I think a better ancient parallel would not be Homer (unless we want to deal with the rhapsodes who later reproduced the more or less stabilized poetry for civic events), but the dramatic performances in both Greece and Rome, where popular plays were repeated over long periods. Aristophanes is a pleasing example familiar to everyone. That's why we still have the texts. Shakespeare. Sheridan, George Bernard Shaw, and our musicals are similar. Who could forget My Fair Lady or Robert Preston in the film of-smile-The Music Man ??


Not me. I could play or sing most of the songs from My Fair Lady and The Music Man for you right now. But, I've never seen the scores of either. I surely did see the score for the Sound of Music a whole lot, as I played in the pit in that in a professional production. But we rewrote many parts of that, as we didn't have a full orchestra.


----------



## RogerWaters

fbjim said:


> *If human nature trended toward western ideas of tonality, we'd expect to see a convergence along those lines in recorded (audio records, or sheet) music. If anything, despite the Western domination of recorded music throughout a large part of history, we certainly aren't converging along those lines*.
> 
> In fact the closest thing I can think of for universality in music is rhythm and dance, and even that's arguable- I can think of a lot of music which de-emphasizes those qualities.
> 
> I also don't know what to say about "widely appreciated" since it frankly seems like an entirely subjective standard. What counts as "widely appreciated"?


Let me get this straight: you _don't_ think there has been significant convergence on functional harmony, in globalised popular music forms? Standard chord progressions, etc?

Maybe my lack of music theory is causing problems for my comprehension here...


----------



## SanAntone

RogerWaters said:


> Let me get this straight: you _don't_ think there has been significant convergence on functional harmony, in globalised popular music forms? Standard chord progressions, etc?
> 
> Maybe my lack of music theory is causing problems for my comprehension here...


I think the problem may be your use of the phrase "functional harmony." While much of Pop, Rock, etc. music relies upon diatonic triad harmony, and generally melodies which conform to those harmonies - it is often not functional in the manner of a common practice composer's use.

E.g. the song by *The Kinks* "You Really Got Me".






This is a modal song - Mixolydian, I would guess. And it is not alone, there are hundreds, thousands of similar usage of this kind of chordal patterns, mainly because the songs were written on the guitar and this kind of stuff is easy to find.


----------



## fbjim

This isn't even getting into the large growth in music where tonality isn't very relevant. I hesitate to call it "atonal" because that term generally refers to classical compositions, but I mean, when this was a massive hit in clubs in Detroit and Chicago leading it to being extremely influential for electro and early hip-hop producers, well


----------



## SanAntone

Here's an even better example of how a simple Pop song can not use functional diatonic harmony.






An analysis of this song using the standard tools of harmonic analysis would appear much more complicated than the song actually is.


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> This isn't even getting into the large growth in music where tonality isn't very relevant. I hesitate to call it "atonal" because that term generally refers to classical compositions, but I mean, when this was a massive hit in clubs in Detroit and Chicago leading it to being extremely influential for electro and early hip-hop producers, well


Not to mention the major influence on popular music and culture of minimalists like Terry Riley, Steve Reich, Philip Glass and La Monte Young, among others, clearly heard in the music of Brian Eno, for example.






Progressive rocker Frank Zappa cited Edgard Varese as a major influence:






Not a whole lot of harmonic convergence there. :lol:


----------



## SanAntone

One of my favorite bands - deceptive not functional diatonic harmonic.


----------



## BachIsBest

In the (likely vain) hope to bring this thread back on topic, I'll provide an actual definition of beauty.

From Merriam-Webster, the world's oldest still-published English dictionary.


> 1: the quality of being physically attractive
> 
> 2: the qualities in a person or a thing that give pleasure to the senses or the mind
> 
> 3: a beautiful woman


Obviously, when we talk of music or art in general, we're looking at the second definition. Despite what over half of those who voted in the poll say, it certainly doesn't take a genius to figure out that the definition is referring to qualities present in the object referred to as beautiful.

When the Greeks first started thinking of beauty many philosophers argued that it should be on a similar pedestal to that of "truth" and "goodness". They would take beauty as a first-order principle; to say "I observe something that is beautiful because it is beautiful" would leave no more need for an explanation than saying "I believe something that is true because it is true". I perceive the way I do because of beauty; I believe the way I do because of truth; I act the way I do because of good.

Although precisely such views are no longer held by many, including myself, the notion of beauty as a first-order concept, something that can not be defined through other, more basic notions any more than the notion of truth can be defined through other, more basic notions, is still critical to a proper understanding of beauty. Beauty, in other words, can not be explained second hand, it must be taught and learned through experience in much the same way one can not learn what the colour green is without having it pointed out.

Which brings us back to the definition of beauty, it being "the qualities in a person or a thing that give pleasure to the senses or the mind". Of course, one line can't sum up or define beauty, that which has been the subject of volumes, but notice how even the definition belies the fact that there this is a first-order notion; the definition must define beauty in terms of the effect when it is perceived, for to define it in terms, specifically, of its actual qualities is a basic impossibility.

This is all to say, if you truly believe that beauty is a property of the listener and not of that which is being listened to, then I'm afraid you don't much believe in beauty at all. Beauty is, definitionally, a quality of objects that we perceive; if one proposes its perception is merely a byproduct of our senses, a trick of the mind, or a human happenstance, then no object has such quality as beauty and, as a necessary corollary, beauty does not exist in our world. An ugly idea if there ever was one.


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> In the (likely vain) hope to bring this thread back on topic, I'll provide an actual definition of beauty.
> 
> From Merriam-Webster, the world's oldest still-published English dictionary.


I'm pretty sure that your hope is vain, not least because dictionary definitions have already been offered, chewed over (though not necessarily exhaustively) and found wanting.



> 2: the qualities in a person or a thing that give pleasure to the senses or the mind


The problem is not the definition, but the application of the definition to examples so we can understand it and make use of it. What "qualities"? Who's to say which "qualities" count? Is it sufficient for me to report which qualities give my senses and mind pleasure?


----------



## arpeggio

I have seen many various means that one can use to determine beauty in music.

No matter what method one may use, one can run into some glaring exceptions. A work that should be ugly that is really quite beautiful.


----------



## fluteman

arpeggio said:


> I have seen many various means that one can use to determine beauty in music.
> 
> No matter what method one may use, one can run into some glaring exceptions. A work that should be ugly that is really quite beautiful.


In other words, there can be no universal comprehensive method, or theory, of art. A point made in detail by Morris Weitz in a famous essay, but really made before him by Ludwig Wittgenstein. Because, our aesthetic senses are shaped in significant part by cultural context and individual experience resulting from a never ending stream of random external historic events.

Humans do innately share certain sensory characteristics. So, not surprisingly, if you look carefully enough, you can find some common traits among certain European, African, Asian and various other artistic traditions. The problem in this thread is that some insist these are absolute, universal principles governing all art.

But as you say, inevitably one runs into significant exceptions to any such principle.


----------



## Xisten267

I still think that my previous answer was in the right direction. Music is the code, the human brain is the decoder. Therefore, beauty as we intuitively feel when listening to a piece lies in both, and can't exist without both.


----------



## fluteman

Xisten267 said:


> I still think that my previous answer was in the right direction. Music is the code, the human brain is the decoder. Therefore, beauty as we intuitively feel when listening to a piece lies in both, and can't exist without both.


One can indeed describe a code based on a finite number of rules for a particular style of music, though not for music generally. Leonard B. Meyer has a good discussion in Style and Music: Theory, History and Ideology. He says:

"Rules are intracultural, not universal. They encompass the highest, most encompassing level of stylistic constraints. Differences in rules are what distinguish large periods such as Medieval, Renaissance and Baroque from one another; and it is the commonality of rules that links Classic and Romantic musics together."

You can join the internet archive library and read it for free. Elsewhere I suggested Walter Jackson Bate's From Classic to Romanic: Premises of Taste in 18th Century England, and Charles Rosen's The Classical Style and The Romantic Generation.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> In other words, there can be no universal comprehensive method, or theory, of art. A point made in detail by Morris Weitz in a famous essay, but really made before him by Ludwig Wittgenstein. Because, our aesthetic senses are shaped in significant part by cultural context and individual experience resulting from a never ending stream of random external historic events.
> 
> Humans do innately share certain sensory characteristics. So, not surprisingly, if you look carefully enough, you can find some common traits among certain European, African, Asian and various other artistic traditions. The problem in this thread is that some insist these are absolute, universal principles governing all art.
> 
> But as you say, inevitably one runs into significant exceptions to any such principle.


Yes, many posters think like you. But I think there's a gap in your logic, because there has to be something objective to start with?


----------



## Luchesi

Xisten267 said:


> I still think that my previous answer was in the right direction. Music is the code, the human brain is the decoder. Therefore, beauty as we intuitively feel when listening to a piece lies in both, and can't exist without both.


But to me the 'code' is 'beautiful' without even hearing it. Hearing it involves an interpretation by somebody. You might find the score beautiful, but somebody's interpretation will not please you. This happens to us all the time.


----------



## fbjim

I think one point of fundamental disagreement is that "subjective" means "doesn't exist"- this comes up all the time in discussions on subjectivity.

This is getting into philosophy I have little scholarly experience with, but subjective things are products of human cognition, and as humans, they can have profound effects on us! To say that beauty, aesthetics, morals, rules, emotions, et al are "subjective" isn't to diminish their importance, it's just to say they're products of human cognition and minds.

the value of currency or gold is subjective- that doesn't mean there aren't significant real-world effects if you happen to have a lot, or very little of it.


----------



## parlando

SanAntone said:


> I hope you realize that you have only described what "good music" is for you. I already see several qualifications which limit the options for "good music" too much.


Alas, weak wording. I meant to outline only my idea of Classical, which involves durability over centuries. Of course, I thoroughly enjoy lots of unclassical music. I won't post samples just yet. I listen to the sirens of song and instrumentation, often with delight. Some are funny. Some just awful. Some that are "covered" a lot even with some changes almost certainly will become classics. I tune my car radio daytime or night looking for ideas and lines I might adapt for conversation. Oldies but goodies. "Monster Mash" is full of dopey last century dreck. Anything to spool up my mind. Even that Taco, which I picked up two weeks ago, almost fifty years after it must have premiered according to the link info. Kind of tacky, but there it was. There are one thousand versions of "Bye, Bye, Blues". Blu deTiger has a lovely "Figure it out" that I found on Fordham University's WFUV eighteen months ago. Not yet a "classic". Some C&W is sweet, though that local station went hiphop two weeks ago. I like a lot of things, and that definitely includes Parsifal-a classic. The modern orchestra and classical music is Not a museum! Nevah!


----------



## Luchesi

fbjim said:


> I think one point of fundamental disagreement is that "subjective" means "doesn't exist"- this comes up all the time in discussions on subjectivity.
> 
> This is getting into philosophy I have little scholarly experience with, but subjective things are products of human cognition, and as humans, they can have profound effects on us! To say that beauty, aesthetics, morals, rules, emotions, et al are "subjective" isn't to diminish their importance, it's just to say they're products of human cognition and minds.
> 
> the value of currency or gold is subjective- that doesn't mean there aren't significant real-world effects if you happen to have a lot, or very little of it.


I find subjectivity to be of little importance, because everybody has their own life path and experiences and hopes and fears, and current concerns, on and on. How could it be any kind of reliable standard? But maybe I'm too harsh and nobody really wants a reliable standard - that's not what Art's about.. I always backtrack and say that a reliable standard will save you time. Especially as a young person or a new listener.


----------



## BachIsBest

Forster said:


> I'm pretty sure that your hope is vain, not least because dictionary definitions have already been offered, chewed over (though not necessarily exhaustively) and found wanting.
> 
> The problem is not the definition, but the application of the definition to examples so we can understand it and make use of it. What "qualities"? Who's to say which "qualities" count? Is it sufficient for me to report which qualities give my senses and mind pleasure?


Well, you say this as if I don't agree. I have already stated beauty is a rather difficult subject. I also stated that I don't think the definition (as I further explained, I think a definition is likely impossible) is adequate, although given that it is one line, I think we ought to cut it some slack. The point of providing the dictionary definition is not to present it as the one true definition of beauty but merely to point out that whatever it is, beauty, if it exists at all, is a property of the thing that is beautiful. To say otherwise is to not use the word beauty in a way that corresponds to how it is used in the English language, its dictionary definition, and the common understanding of the word.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> I find subjectivity to be of little importance, because everybody has their own life path and experiences and hopes and fears, and current concerns, on and on. How could it be any kind of reliable standard? But maybe I'm too harsh and nobody really wants a reliable standard - that's not what Art's about.. I always backtrack and say that a reliable standard will save you time. Especially as a young person or a new listener.


I think you place too little or no significance on cultural and stylistic standards, which certainly exist and in fact are of paramount importance if we are discussing European classical music in the "common practice" tradition of the 18th and 19th centuries, as opposed to individual or universal standards.

Respectfully, I think this is a gap in your logic, not mine.


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> Well, you say this as if I don't agree. I have already stated beauty is a rather difficult subject. I also stated that I don't think the definition (as I further explained, I think a definition is likely impossible) is adequate, although given that it is one line, I think we ought to cut it some slack. The point of providing the dictionary definition is not to present it as the one true definition of beauty but merely to point out that whatever it is, beauty, if it exists at all, is a property of the thing that is beautiful. To say otherwise is to not use the word beauty in a way that corresponds to how it is used in the English language, its dictionary definition, and the common understanding of the word.


I am surprised you do not admit that different people will not agree on what is beautiful. What is then the "property of the thing" that some people will not call beautiful?


----------



## eljr

BachIsBest said:


> Well, you say this as if I don't agree. I have already stated beauty is a rather difficult subject. I also stated that I don't think the definition (as I further explained, I think a definition is likely impossible) is adequate, although given that it is one line, I think we ought to cut it some slack.The point of providing the dictionary definition is not to present it as the one true definition of beauty


How is it a difficult subject?

How is a definition likely impossible?

if a dictionary does not define a word, what does?



BachIsBest said:


> but merely to point out that whatever it is, beauty, if it exists at all, is a property of the thing that is beautiful. To say otherwise is to not use the word beauty in a way that corresponds to how it is used in the English language, its dictionary definition, and the common understanding of the word.


Beauty is a perceptually pleasurable response to stimuli. Pleasurable responses do exist.

It is not the property of an object. It is our interpretation of the objects properties.

Dictionary:
"a combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, *that pleases the aesthetic senses*"

So, if your senses are not pleased it is not beautiful.

We call things beautiful because TO US they are. There is no universality to what is beautiful because beauty is a perception within US. Within our brain.

When we use the term beautiful we mean "to us."

The word is used just fine. It corresponds completely with the dictionary.


----------



## eljr

SanAntone said:


> I am surprised you do not admit that different people will not agree on what is beautiful.


I am not. Not even a little.


----------



## fluteman

eljr said:


> I am not. Not even a little.


I wonder if some of the non-musicians here don't understand a basic reality that anyone who has seriously studied music theory, composition or performance, or been hired to compose or perform music, learns very quickly: mastering or becoming expert in music means mastering or becoming expert in one (or more) musical styles or traditions. There is no such thing as mastering or becoming expert in music "as a whole."

This point is hilariously made in a famous American movie comedy called The Blues Brothers. At one point, the Blues Brothers and their blues band, in dire need of paying gigs, sabotages the bus of a band that wears cowboy hats and steals their gig at an alcohol-serving establishment. When the blues band leader, played by John Belushi, asks the proprietress of the establishment what kind of music they like there, she replies, "Both kinds -- country and western!" Belushi shrugs and instructs the band to play their standard set. Chaos ensues.

I wonder if some here think they enjoy all music since they like all three kinds -- baroque, classical and romantic.


----------



## Xisten267

fluteman said:


> One can indeed describe a code based on a finite number of rules for a particular style of music, though not for music generally. Leonard B. Meyer has a good discussion in Style and Music: Theory, History and Ideology. He says:
> 
> "Rules are intracultural, not universal. They encompass the highest, most encompassing level of stylistic constraints. Differences in rules are what distinguish large periods such as Medieval, Renaissance and Baroque from one another; and it is the commonality of rules that links Classic and Romantic musics together."
> 
> You can join the internet archive library and read it for free. Elsewhere I suggested Walter Jackson Bate's From Classic to Romanic: Premises of Taste in 18th Century England, and Charles Rosen's The Classical Style and The Romantic Generation.


Just as there are many languages in the world and they are intracultural, so are there different approaches in how to make music. But I believe that what is expressed in each of these codes is universal, depending merely in the ability of the encoders (the composer and performers in music's case) and the decoders (the listeners) to codify/decodify the message to be sent/received.

Rules can be intuitive and don't always need to be explained. A young bird doesn't need be taught on how to fly; it just flies, based on it's own intuitive experience. Our brains and sensory organs usually already come equipped with the ways to perceive many things in our reality (drivers?), and this includes decodifying certain patterns in sound waves captured by our ears (music) and translating them into sensations.



fluteman said:


> I wonder if some of the non-musicians here don't understand a basic reality that anyone who has seriously studied music theory, composition or performance, or been hired to compose or perform music, learns very quickly: mastering or becoming expert in music means mastering or becoming expert in one (or more) musical styles or traditions. There is no such thing as mastering or becoming expert in music "as a whole."


Just as an expert programmer will need to know many different computer languages. But no matter which he selects for a certain application, in the end he will be working with a code to create his program and, in theory, any language that is Turing-complete can be used to create a same application (in reality there are technical aspects that make some languages better to use than others depending on the chosen application).



Luchesi said:


> But to me the 'code' is 'beautiful' without even hearing it. Hearing it involves an interpretation by somebody. You might find the score beautiful, but somebody's interpretation will not please you. This happens to us all the time.


What is in the score is a representation of the code, and by reading it you may be able to hear the music in your mind. Once that the code has been decodified by your brain, it can simulates it's execution as you wish, at any time, and you can even change it as it is played to make it sound as you want. This process is based in your memory and can generate errors depending on factors such as time since you were last exposed to the music (physically or through the score) and your level of attention when this last happened, and this may explain why you (and everybody else) have more potential of pleasure from hearing the sound waves of music than from playing it directly from your head, if you meet performers that meet your standard of course.

If you meant that for you the score may be graphically/visually beautiful, then this is another kind of code that can also be decodified as a sensation of beauty in your brain.


----------



## Xisten267

SanAntone said:


> I am surprised you do not admit that different people will not agree on what is beautiful.


Contrary to this statement, I think that most of us can actually agree on what is the basic nature of the meaning of a piece of music that was well characterized. Would someone describe Giazotto's Adagio as light and happy? Or the first movement of Beethoven's first symphony as sad and tragic? I guess not. Why can most of us agree on who's the "lightest" composer between some of them (see this poll for example, with more than 80% of agreement)?

Because basic sensations are, indeed, universal.


----------



## fluteman

Xisten267 said:


> Just as there are many languages in the world and they are intracultural, so are there different approaches in how to make music. But I believe that what is expressed in each of these codes is universal, depending merely in the ability of the encoders (the composer and performers in music's case) and the decoders (the listeners) to codify/decodify the message to be sent/received.
> 
> Rules can be intuitive and don't always need to be explained. A young bird doesn't need be taught on how to fly; it just flies, based on it's own intuitive experience. Our brains and sensory organs usually already come equipped with the ways to perceive many things in our reality (drivers?), and this includes decodifying certain patterns in sound waves captured by our ears (music) and translating them into sensations.
> 
> What is in the score is a representation of the code, and by reading it you may be able to hear the music in your mind. Once that the code has been decodified by your brain, it can simulates it's execution as you wish, at any time, and you can even change it as it is played to make it sound as you want. This process is based in your memory and can generate errors depending on factors such as time since you were last exposed to the music (physically or through the score) and your level of attention when this last happened, and this may explain why you (and everybody else) have more potential of pleasure from hearing the sound waves of music than from playing it directly from your head, if you meet performers that meet your standard of course.
> 
> If you meant that for you the score may be graphically/visually beautiful, then this is another kind of code that can also be decodified as a sensation of beauty in your brain.


But different people hear different things in the same music and see different things in the same visual art. In fact, different people have very different reactions to the same poem, book or play. As I said above, one man's "loud atonal screeching" is another's Jimi Hendrix Plays Monterey (a famous live 1967 concert performance by a famous rock guitarist that ultimately became a famous record album).

So, as much as you may believe it is there, you will have a hard time actually finding anything truly universal in any work of art.


----------



## fbjim

Xisten267 said:


> Contrary to this statement, I think that most of us can actually agree on what is the basic nature of the meaning of a piece of music that was well characterized. Would someone describe Giazotto's Adagio as light and happy? Or the first movement of Beethoven's first symphony as sad and tragic? I guess not. Why can most of us agree on who's the "lightest" composer between some of them (see this poll for example, with more than 80% of agreement)?
> 
> Because basic sensations are, indeed, universal.


They aren't universal, they're conventional. Artistic conventions exist all the time, this is not to say they are inate truths.


----------



## SanAntone

Xisten267 said:


> Contrary to this statement, I think that most of us can actually agree on what is the basic nature of the meaning of a piece of music that was well characterized. Would someone describe Giazotto's Adagio as light and happy? Or the first movement of Beethoven's first symphony as sad and tragic? I guess not. Why can most of us agree on who's the "lightest" composer between some of them (see this poll for example, with more than 80% of agreement)?
> 
> Because basic sensations are, indeed, universal.


I can imagine an African Bushman not hearing what you expect "most of us" to hear in those pieces of music.


----------



## Xisten267

fbjim said:


> They aren't universal, they're conventional. Artistic conventions exist all the time, this is not to say they are inate truths.


No, most people _feel_ the music they listen to and enjoy, and this may have little to do with conventions. Conventions in music nowadays only really matter to a minority of listeners I think.



fluteman said:


> But different people hear different things in the same music and see different things in the same visual art. In fact, different people have very different reactions to the same poem, book or play. As I said above, one man's "loud atonal screeching" is another's Jimi Hendrix Plays Monterey (a famous live 1967 concert performance by a famous rock guitarist that ultimately became a famous record album).
> 
> So, as much as you may believe it is there, you will have a hard time actually finding anything truly universal in any work of art.


There are some differences in the brain "decoders", and how we perceive certain meanings certainly is partially subjective. But the meanings are there, and most of us will agree on the basic nature of a well-characterized piece of art. That's why certain adjectives "fit" better than others in the description of the pieces and the overall work of their creators.

Would you characterize Ravel's oeuvre as a whole as bombastic, tumultuous and fiery? Most wouldn't, as these sensations aren't really usually displayed by his music. And this is not a convention, this is feeling.



SanAntone said:


> I can imagine an African Bushman not hearing what you expect "most of us" to hear in those pieces of music.


Any person of any ethnicity may understand the basic nature of the musical code. That's why Scott Joplin, an afro-american, was able to create great music in the western fashion with fluency (he was, and described himself as, a classical music composer), and that's why the Chinese and the Japanese have no problem hearing western classical music.


----------



## SanAntone

Xisten267 said:


> Any person of any ethnicity may understand the basic nature of the musical code. That's why Scott Joplin, an afro-american, was able to create great music in the western fashion without problems (he was, and described himself as, a classical music composer), and that's why the Chinese and the Japanese have no problem hearing western classical music.


But they have to be _taught_ how to appreciate Classical music. Not all Chinese, or Japanese, African Americans, are interested in Western Classical music precisely because it does not offer them music which they intuitively find beautiful. In fact a vast majority of _all_ people do not find Classical music the most "beautiful" music or at least the music they choose to listen to most, if not all, of the time.

And I wonder if _you_ would find the music a Chinese person considered beautiful from their own tradition, i.e. not Western Classical music?


----------



## fbjim

this is getting past the bit where the Chinese and Japanese both had historical periods where they made deliberate attempts to westernize their culture (and periods of outright western occupation) which included a large amount of cultural exchange. it is not a story of the naive oriental having his eyes opened by Bach, there are specific historical contexts behind the influx of Western culture to China and Japan.


----------



## Xisten267

SanAntone said:


> But they have to be _taught_ how to appreciate Classical music. Not all Chinese, or Japanese, African Americans, are interested in Western Classical music precisely because it does not offer them music which they intuitively find beautiful.


I don't think that one needs to be taught to enjoy a message. It's there and you may like what it represents or not. Learning theory may add layers of musical appreciation but is not necessary.

Pop is the most popular kind of music in China. It has it's roots in the western culture, as we know. Do you really believe that the millions of Chinese who enjoy Pop do so because they were taught to do so?



SanAntone said:


> In fact a vast majority of _all_ people do not find Classical music the most "beautiful" music or at least the music they choose to listen to most, if not all, of the time.


Many people like their music dirty, simple, rebellious, etc. Perhaps these qualities may be better associated with kinds of music other than classical. One may look to a swan, see that it's beautiful and graceful, and dislike it precisely due to these qualities. "Beautiful" is a sensory response of our brains to something and not necessarily our response to it have to be positive.



SanAntone said:


> And I wonder if _you_ would find the music a Chinese person considered beautiful from their own tradition, i.e. not Western Classical music?


Why not?


----------



## science

I wonder how much Chinese and Japanese opera we've listened to, and how well we can feel the emotion in that music.


----------



## Xisten267

fbjim said:


> this is getting past the bit where the Chinese and Japanese both had historical periods where they made deliberate attempts to westernize their culture (and periods of outright western occupation) which included a large amount of cultural exchange. it is not a story of the naive oriental having his eyes opened by Bach, there are specific historical contexts behind the influx of Western culture to China and Japan.


_The Beatles_ had no problem in discovering Indian music and displaying it to the western public. Who teached us that it's good?



science said:


> I wonder how much Chinese and Japanese opera we've listened to, and how well we can feel the emotion in that music.


If they can understand our culture then we can understand theirs, rest assured.


----------



## Art Rock

Personally, I've listened to (and watched live) Chinese opera, because it is my father-in-law's favourite music. I found the music alien and incomprehensible (even apart from the texts). He on the other hand does not enjoy listening to Western-style classical music. Several of my wife's cousins do attend Western-style classical music concerts in Shanghai, but I'm pretty sure it is just a status thing - none of them listen to it at home.


----------



## SanAntone

Xisten267 said:


> I don't think that one needs to be taught to enjoy a message. It's there and you may like what it represents or not. Learning theory may add layers of musical appreciation but is not necessary.
> 
> Pop is the most popular kind of music in China. It has it's roots in the western culture, as we know. Do you really believe that the millions of Chinese who enjoy Pop do so because they were taught to do so?
> 
> Many people like their music dirty, simple, rebellious, etc. Perhaps these qualities may be better associated with kinds of music other than classical. One may look to a swan, see that it's beautiful and graceful, and dislike it precisely due to these qualities. "Beautiful" is a sensory response of our brains to something and not necessarily our response to it have to be positive.
> 
> Why not?


Let's try a little experiment: You post three YouTube clips of music you think is beautiful and I will do the same. Then we will offer our responses.

You first.


----------



## Xisten267

Art Rock said:


> Personally, I've listened to (and watched live) Chinese opera, because it is my father-in-law's favourite music. I found the music alien and incomprehensible (even apart from the texts). He on the other hand does not enjoy listening to Western-style classical music. Several of my wife's cousins do attend Western-style classical music concerts in Shanghai, but I'm pretty sure it is just a status thing - none of them listen to it at home.


*Love for Western classical music continues to rise in China.*

The dozens of millions of Chinese who claim to enjoy western classical music only do so due to status, of course.


----------



## fluteman

Xisten267 said:


> Any person of any ethnicity may understand the basic nature of the musical code. That's why Scott Joplin, an afro-american, was able to create great music in the western fashion with fluency (he was, and described himself as, a classical music composer), and that's why the Chinese and the Japanese have no problem hearing western classical music.


It has nothing to do with skin color or ethnicity. There was a fine 18th century French classical composer and violinist named Joseph Bologne, who happened to be black. Scott Joplin was indeed a classical composer in the western tradition.

The fact that people can learn about musical traditions others than those they grew up with or are accustomed to, or that their parents or grandparents or more distant ancestors may have had, and incorporate a few or many or even all elements of those traditions into their own preferences, means very little. Preferences still inevitably will diverge, especially along cultural lines. Radically different styles of music persist within different cultures or sub-cultures. Music that many here at TC endlessly criticize as "loud atonal screeching" persists.


----------



## Xisten267

fluteman said:


> It has nothing to do with skin color or ethnicity. There was a fine 18th century French classical composer and violinist named Joseph Bologne, who happened to be black. Scott Joplin was indeed a classical composer in the western tradition.


We agree here.



fluteman said:


> The fact that people can learn about musical traditions others than those they grew up with or are accustomed to, or that their parents or grandparents or more distant ancestors may have had, and incorporate a few or many or even all elements of those traditions into their own preferences, means very little. *Preferences still inevitably will diverge, especially along cultural lines.* Radically different styles of music persist within different cultures or sub-cultures. Music that many here at TC endlessly criticize as "loud atonal screeching" persists.


They diverge in an individual level, but they certainly converge in a group of individuals, and the greater the group the easier it is to perceive this. Anyway, understanding the basic nature of a piece of art not necessarily means liking it or not, and this "enjoying factor" is of course culturally dependent as the fundamental values of people vary according to their culture. One may understand that the Flower Waltz is beautiful in Afghanistan but detest it due to cultural values (it's not religious music and, therefore, may be seen as being against the _sharia_).



SanAntone said:


> Let's try a little experiment: You post three YouTube clips of music you think is beautiful and I will do the same. Then we will offer our responses.
> 
> You first.


I won't post the YouTube links, but my three choices are Tchaikovsky's _Swan Lake_, _The Sleeping Beauty_ and _The Nutcracker_ nonetheless, and I just created a poll about these choices to see how the members of TC will react. I think that we will agree that they can be described as "beautiful". Let's see.


----------



## fbjim

absolutely nothing should be implied from my posts that cultural divides are unbridgeable or that one can't appreciate art from another culture. this happens all the time. i actually think classical music's unusual emphasis on tonality helps it as an "export" because it is so different from other musical traditions, making it distinctive. what this does not imply is that the conventions of classical music are universal and innate to human physiology.


----------



## SanAntone

Xisten267 said:


> My three choices are Tchaikovsky's _Swan Lake_, _The Sleeping Beauty_ and _The Nutcracker_, and I just created a poll about these choices to see how the members of TC will react. I think that we will agree that they can be described as "beautiful". Let's see...


I find those works to be superficial and sugary; not my taste.

A TC poll is meaningless since there will be some people who do find them beautiful, but others who do not. Which is my point. But I had asked for YouTube clips.

Are these beautiful to you? They are to me.


----------



## fbjim

what you will have proved is that a lot of classical music listeners find Tchaikovsky beautiful. what you will not have proved is that beauty is an innate quality that Tchaikovsky's music possesses outside of human cognition


----------



## Xisten267

fbjim said:


> absolutely nothing should be implied from my posts that cultural divides are unbridgeable or that one can't appreciate art from another culture. this happens all the time. i actually think classical music's unusual emphasis on tonality helps it as an "export" because it is so different from other musical traditions, making it distinctive. *what this does not imply is that the conventions of classical music are universal and innate to human physiology.*


The technical conventions are not universal, but the fundamental feelings that the music portrays are. I doubt that music that stir up profound emotions in an European can't do the same for an African or an Asiatic, and I doubt that western music (doesn't need to be classical) that makes an American want to dance can't have the same effect on a Chinese or an Indian.


----------



## fbjim

if there's something that tricks people up, i think it's because there's a learned (not via music theory classes, by simple exposure) convention on how to write triumphant, tragic, elegiac, or beautiful music in CPT music, to the point where even musical keys have emotional responses to people familiar with the CPT idiom. this should not be mistaken as innate qualities those keys possess, any more than blue is inherently masculine or pink inherently feminine.


----------



## fbjim

i actually think dance and the human voice are about as close as you can get to an argumentation that certain elements of music have any sort of human universality to them. ironically these are two elements that classical music either de-emphasizes or heavily stylizes.


----------



## science

Xisten267 said:


> *Love for Western classical music continues to rise in China.*
> 
> The dozens of millions of Chinese who claim to enjoy western classical music only do so due to status, of course.


No human being ever does anything -- especially not music -- entirely without regard to how it will affect how other people view them.

Music is a social activity. Even when someone is all alone, playing (as they might feel) entirely for their own amusement, some part of their brain will be considering what if other people were there.


----------



## Xisten267

SanAntone said:


> I find those works to be superficial and sugary; not my taste.


The point is not if you and others like them or not, but if the word "beautiful" is appropriate or not to describe them.



SanAntone said:


> A TC poll is meaningless since there will be some people who do find them beautiful, but others who do not. Which is my point. But I had asked for YouTube clips.


The poll may indicate a convergence of sensory responses to the pieces in question among TC members (a respectable group of music lovers), exactly what I want to test. I believe that there will be an overall agreement that the pieces in question may be described as beautiful, even if a few individuals disagree.



SanAntone said:


> Are these beautiful to you? They are to me.


But are we talking about the same "beautiful"? I mean a kind of sensation, while you seem to be talking about liking or not pieces of music.



fbjim said:


> if there's something that tricks people up, i think it's because there's a learned (not via music theory classes, by simple exposure) convention on how to write triumphant, tragic, elegiac, or beautiful music in CPT music, to the point where even musical keys have emotional responses to people familiar with the CPT idiom. this should not be mistaken as innate qualities those keys possess, any more than blue is inherently masculine or pink inherently feminine.


As a child I was able to tell that the introduction (I of course didn't know the term) of the fourth movement of Brahms' first symphony (I didn't even know what a symphony is, nor who was this Brahms guy) is sad, just as the third of his third symphony. I wasn't preoccupied with the "CPT music" and it's traditions because I didn't even know what was a "C" or a "tradition". I bet that other children also may have an emotional response to music.

Most people _feel_ music, they aren't just taught to like what they must and that's it, like you say.



science said:


> No human being ever does anything -- especially not music -- entirely without regard to how it will affect how other people view them.
> 
> Music is a social activity. Even when someone is all alone, playing (as they might feel) entirely for their own amusement, some part of their brain will be considering what if other people were there.


So the Chinese who claim to like classical music are all liars? Curious.


----------



## science

fbjim said:


> i actually think dance and the human voice are about as close as you can get to an argumentation that certain elements of music have any sort of human universality to them. ironically these are two elements that classical music either de-emphasizes or heavily stylizes.


I think this is a very interesting line of thought. Maybe it's not "ironic" at all, maybe it's actually intentional.

There's something dangerous about rhythm and dance.


----------



## parlando

Xisten267 said:


> Just as an expert programmer will need to know many different computer languages. But no matter which he selects for a certain application, in the end he will be working with a code to create his program and, in theory, any language that is Turing-complete can be used to create a same application (in reality there are technical aspects that make some languages better to use than others depending on the chosen application).


I'm not a expert programmer, and certainly not conversant with the latest. Regardless, I have taught elementary programming and written enough of my own in several languages to know my way around. So what I think what you call beauty is what I would call _elegance_. Once again, the elegance is a judgment call made by a perceiver. Imagine stumbling upon a scrap of paper or punched tape or a reel of tape or GHU a stacked deck of fine old FORTRAN cards in a dark forest at night. Does it have elegance? Hardly! Yet. And I don't think a naked computer program or a scantily covered musical score in a dark forest at night is anything but a lifeless and invisible artifact. It needs to be seen (and put to work in the proper way) by a mind to be anything more. Read the music. Perform the music. Make a noise. Make (or revise) a judgment.


----------



## Xisten267

parlando said:


> I'm not a expert programmer, and certainly not conversant with the latest. Regardless, I have taught elementary programming and written enough of my own in several languages to know my way around. So what I think what you call beauty is what I would call _elegance_. Once again, the elegance is a judgment call made by a perceiver. Imagine stumbling upon a scrap of paper or punched tape or a reel of tape or GHU a stacked deck of fine old FORTRAN cards in a dark forest at night. Does it have elegance? Hardly! Yet. And I don't think a naked computer program or a scantily covered musical score in a dark forest at night is anything but a lifeless and invisible artifact. *It needs to be seen (and put to work in the proper way) by a mind to be anything more.* Read the music. Perform the music. Make a noise. Make (or revise) a judgment.


We seem to actually agree then. My point in this discussion has been that beauty as we feel in musical pieces lies both in the music and in the human brain, and can't exist without both. To me, music is a kind of code that needs to be decoded by the brain in order to produce sensations such as that of beauty. This code can be represented by a score and those capable of reading it can reproduce the music in their minds without the need of the actual sound waves, and still get a sensorial response from the experience.


----------



## eljr

fluteman said:


> I wonder if some of the non-musicians here don't understand a basic reality that anyone who has seriously studied music theory, composition or performance, or been hired to compose or perform music, learns very quickly: mastering or becoming expert in music means mastering or becoming expert in one (or more) musical styles or traditions. There is no such thing as mastering or becoming expert in music "as a whole."
> 
> This point is hilariously made in a famous American movie comedy called The Blues Brothers. At one point, the Blues Brothers and their blues band, in dire need of paying gigs, sabotages the bus of a band that wears cowboy hats and steals their gig at an alcohol-serving establishment. When the blues band leader, played by John Belushi, asks the proprietress of the establishment what kind of music they like there, she replies, "Both kinds -- country and western!" Belushi shrugs and instructs the band to play their standard set. Chaos ensues.
> 
> I wonder if some here think they enjoy all music since they like all three kinds -- baroque, classical and romantic.


This made me smile. Both the proprietress answer to Belushi and your expressed contemplation to end the post. :tiphat:


----------



## 59540

fluteman said:


> I wonder if some here think they enjoy all music since they like all three kinds -- baroque, classical and romantic.


Not very likely, but it makes for a handy caricature.


science said:


> No human being ever does anything -- especially not music -- entirely without regard to how it will affect how other people view them.
> 
> Music is a social activity. Even when someone is all alone, playing (as they might feel) entirely for their own amusement, some part of their brain will be considering what if other people were there.


Just curious...on what do you base that pretty confident-sounding assertion?


----------



## fluteman

Xisten267 said:


> _The Beatles_ had no problem in discovering Indian music and displaying it to the western public. Who teached us that it's good?
> 
> If they can understand our culture then we can understand theirs, rest assured.


I notice actual facts don't much interest you. The Beatles very much did not display Indian music to the western public. Rather, the Beatles, George Harrison in particular, incorporated certain elements of traditional Indian music, into what fundamentally was still American-based rock 'n' roll and not traditional Indian music.

That is what musicians often try to do after extended exposure to music traditions of other cultures that interest them: incorporate what works best with their own music to create something different from either original tradition. BTW, although from the start the idea of the Beatles and its predecessor band was to play American popular music, they never entirely freed themselves of their native British influences. I don't believe that was their intention, especially after they started to create their own music rather than simply covering that of Little Richard, Ray Charles and the Isley Brothers.


----------



## Xisten267

fluteman said:


> I notice actual facts don't much interest you.


Actually they do.



fluteman said:


> The Beatles very much did not display Indian music to the western public. Rather, the Beatles, George Harrison in particular, incorporated certain elements of traditional Indian music, into what fundamentally was still American-based rock 'n' roll and not traditional Indian music.
> 
> That is what musicians often try to do after extended exposure to music traditions of other cultures that interest them: incorporate what works best with their own music to create something different from either original tradition. BTW, although from the start the idea of the Beatles and its predecessor band was to play American popular music, they never entirely freed themselves of their native British influences. I don't believe that was their intention, especially after they started to create their own music rather than simply covering that of Little Richard, Ray Charles and the Isley Brothers.


So, what's your point? If Harrison was able to understand and make a musical synthesis of Indian music by mere exposition to it, and if this is the customary event to happen when distinct musical traditions meet each other, as you say, then why is it so problematic to argue that music is a kind of code? If all cultures have no problem assimilating the music of the others, what's the problem of attaching the word "universal" to it?


----------



## eljr

Xisten267 said:


> *Love for Western classical music continues to rise in China.*
> 
> The dozens of millions of Chinese who claim to enjoy western classical music only do so due to status, of course.


With all respect, your posts seem to be an advertisement for logical fallacies.

Just saying, that is my take sincere take away from your recent posts in this thread.

Peace


----------



## eljr

Xisten267 said:


> I won't post the YouTube links, but my three choices are Tchaikovsky's _Swan Lake_, _The Sleeping Beauty_ and _The Nutcracker_ nonetheless, and I just created a poll about these choices to see how the members of TC will react. I think that we will agree that they can be described as "beautiful". Let's see.


If 100% think them beautiful, it is still has zero relevance to this discussion.


----------



## Xisten267

eljr said:


> With all respect, your posts seem to be an advertisement for logical fallacies.
> 
> Just saying, that is my take sincere take away from your recent posts in this thread.
> 
> Peace


I'm not aware of them. Could you please point out them to me? The post you quoted was sarcastic, not serious.



eljr said:


> If 100% think them beautiful, it is still has zero relevance to this discussion.


I disagree. If 100% considered them beautiful, this would indicate a convergence to what I'm arguing, at least amongst this group of people. This wouldn't be a proof, but would work as an evidence to my case.


----------



## eljr

SanAntone said:


> I find those works to be superficial and sugary; not my taste.
> 
> A TC poll is meaningless since there will be some people who do find them beautiful, but others who do not.


It is meaningless because the sample group is anything but random. It is also meaningless because it ignores all scientific methodologies. It is merely a query of classical music enthusiasts preferences, very select group of like minded people.


----------



## eljr

fluteman said:


> I notice actual facts don't much interest you.


QFT

I think this thread separated the dreamer from the pragmatist.


----------



## Xisten267

eljr said:


> How is it a difficult subject?
> 
> How is a definition likely impossible?
> 
> if a dictionary does not define a word, what does?


Because we are talking about an intuitive sensation that is easy to feel but hard to describe with words. Dictionaries not necessarily will be totally precise and exact in what they define. Any language has it's limitations.



eljr said:


> Beauty is a perceptually pleasurable response to stimuli. Pleasurable responses do exist.


This definition is incomplete. Eating an apple is a pleasant sensation to most people, but I've never seem anyone describing it as beautiful.



eljr said:


> Dictionary:
> Beauty: "a combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the *aesthetic* senses"


The same dictionary (Google's):
Aesthetic: "concerned with beauty or the appreciation of *beauty*."

As you see, the dictionary uses one term to define the other. Amazing, huh? In the end, it can't really define precisely what we feel with mere words. That's because they are a representation, not the feeling itself.



eljr said:


> We call things beautiful because TO US they are. There is no universality to what is beautiful because beauty is a perception within US. Within our brain.
> 
> When we use the term beautiful we mean "to us."


Beauty is partially relative, but not totally. There's universality in what human beings call beautiful to a certain extent, otherwise we wouldn't usually associate the swan to beauty and feces to dirt and ugliness for example.



eljr said:


> It is meaningless because the sample group is anything but random. It is also meaningless because it ignores all scientific methodologies. It is merely a query of classical music enthusiasts preferences, very select group of like minded people.


But it's a sample group of music enthusiasts, not better but not worse than any others. And the results among this group not necessarily will be random, and can be indicative of a pattern, at least among this group. Therefore, it's not meaningless, but I agree that it may be inconvenient to one if it indicates the opposite to what this one believes.

You can always provide me better, more accurate and scientific data about beauty if you are so annoyed by a simple poll done here anyway.



eljr said:


> QFT
> 
> I think this thread separated the dreamer from the pragmatist.


Prove me wrong then.


----------



## SanAntone

Xisten267 said:


> Because we are talking about an intuitive sensation that is easy to feel but hard to describe with words. Dictionaries not necessarily will be totally precise and exact in what they define. Any language has it's limitations.
> 
> This definition is incomplete. Eating an apple is a pleasant sensation, but I've never seem anyone describing it as beautiful.
> 
> The same dictionary (Google's):
> Aesthetic: "concerned with beauty or the appreciation of *beauty*."
> 
> As you see, the dictionary uses one term to define the other. Amazing, huh? In the end, it can't really define precisely what we feel with mere words. That's because they are a representation, not the feeling itself.
> 
> Beauty is partially relative, but not totally. There's universality in what human beings call beautiful to a certain extent, otherwise we wouldn't usually associate the swan to beauty and feces to dirt and ugliness for example.
> 
> But it's a sample group of music enthusiasts, not better but not worse than any others. And the results among this group not necessarily will be random, and can be indicative of a pattern, at least among this group. Therefore, it's not meaningless, but I agree that it may be inconvenient to one if it indicates the opposite to what this one believes.
> 
> You can always provide me better, more accurate and scientific data about beauty if you are so annoyed by a simple poll done here.


It must be nice to have a nice simple idea of beauty and how it is universally perceived. Unfortunately, in order to sustain this illusion you must adhere to a monolithic conception of humanity. Need I say more?


----------



## Xisten267

SanAntone said:


> Need I say more?


Yes. Begin refuting my points with facts, if you have access to them.


----------



## SanAntone

Xisten267 said:


> Yes. Begin refuting my points with facts, if you have access to them.


I only have one fact: human beings from different cultures have different ideas about beauty.


----------



## Xisten267

SanAntone said:


> I only have one fact: human beings from different cultures have different ideas about beauty.


I think that they are different to a certain extent, but also that these cultures share a fundamental, intuitive level of comprehension of what means this concept. Not all people do though.

The definition of "beauty" in wikipedia is the most reasonable I've found so far, in my opinion of course:

"Beauty is commonly described as a feature of objects that makes these objects pleasurable to perceive. Such objects include landscapes, sunsets, humans and works of art. Beauty, together with art and taste, is the main subject of aesthetics, one of the major branches of philosophy. As a positive aesthetic value, it is contrasted with ugliness as its negative counterpart. Along with truth and goodness it is one of the transcendentals, which are often considered the three fundamental concepts of human understanding.

One difficulty for understanding beauty is due to the fact that it has both objective and subjective aspects: it is seen as a property of things but also as depending on the emotional response of observers. Because of its subjective side, beauty is said to be "in the eye of the beholder". It has been argued that the ability on the side of the subject needed to perceive and judge beauty, sometimes referred to as the "sense of taste", can be trained and that the verdicts of experts coincide in the long run. This would suggest that the standards of validity of judgments of beauty are intersubjective, i.e. dependent on a group of judges, rather than fully subjective or fully objective." - Source.

"Intersubjective." Yes, this is the best word to describe "beauty" in my view.


----------



## SanAntone

Xisten267 said:


> I think that they are different to a certain extent, but also that these cultures share a fundamental, intuitive level of comprehension of what means this concept. Not all people do though.
> 
> The definition of "beauty" in wikipedia is the most reasonable I've found so far, in my opinion of course:
> 
> "Beauty is commonly described as a feature of objects that makes these objects pleasurable to perceive. Such objects include landscapes, sunsets, humans and works of art. Beauty, together with art and taste, is the main subject of aesthetics, one of the major branches of philosophy. As a positive aesthetic value, it is contrasted with ugliness as its negative counterpart. Along with truth and goodness it is one of the transcendentals, which are often considered the three fundamental concepts of human understanding.
> 
> One difficulty for understanding beauty is due to the fact that it has both objective and subjective aspects: it is seen as a property of things but also as depending on the emotional response of observers. Because of its subjective side, beauty is said to be "in the eye of the beholder". It has been argued that the ability on the side of the subject needed to perceive and judge beauty, sometimes referred to as the "sense of taste", can be trained and that the verdicts of experts coincide in the long run. This would suggest that the standards of validity of judgments of beauty are intersubjective, i.e. dependent on a group of judges, rather than fully subjective or fully objective." - Source.
> 
> "Intersubjective." Yes, this is the best word to describe "beauty" in my view.


All of your definitions of beauty hinge on some version of the idea that a "feature of objects that makes these objects pleasurable to perceive". Depending upon the person doing the perceiving, the same features may or may not be perceived as pleasurable, or even features worthy of consideration.


----------



## Xisten267

SanAntone said:


> All of your definitions of beauty hinge on some version of the idea that a "feature of objects that makes these objects pleasurable to perceive". Depending upon the person doing the perceiving, the same features may or may not be perceived as pleasurable, or even features worthy of consideration.


But I think that certain properties of the objects in question may be seem as pleasurable by the majority of humankind, while other properties may be seem as undesirable also by a large percentual amount of people. It's not everything in the eye of the beholder in my view; I think that there are certain patterns of aesthetic appreciation that are shared by most human beings, independent of their culture. I agree that beauty is intersubjective, as wikipedia says.


----------



## eljr

Xisten267 said:


> Because we are talking about an intuitive sensation that is easy to feel but hard to describe with words. Dictionaries not necessarily will be totally precise and exact in what they define. Any language has it's limitations.
> 
> This definition is incomplete. Eating an apple is a pleasant sensation to most people, but I've never seem anyone describing it as beautiful.
> 
> The same dictionary (Google's):
> Aesthetic: "concerned with beauty or the appreciation of *beauty*."
> 
> As you see, the dictionary uses one term to define the other. Amazing, huh? In the end, it can't really define precisely what we feel with mere words. That's because they are a representation, not the feeling itself.
> 
> Beauty is partially relative, but not totally. There's universality in what human beings call beautiful to a certain extent, otherwise we wouldn't usually associate the swan to beauty and feces to dirt and ugliness for example.
> 
> But it's a sample group of music enthusiasts, not better but not worse than any others. And the results among this group not necessarily will be random, and can be indicative of a pattern, at least among this group. Therefore, it's not meaningless, but I agree that it may be inconvenient to one if it indicates the opposite to what this one believes.
> 
> You can always provide me better, more accurate and scientific data about beauty if you are so annoyed by a simple poll done here anyway.
> 
> Prove me wrong then.


Enjoy yourself in this thread. It will not be I that devotes my day to teaching an on line course in logic only to be rebuffed by fallacy laden quips or ponderances on metaphysics.

My posts were not for debate, they were for your edification.

Be well.


----------



## BachIsBest

eljr said:


> How is it a difficult subject?


I suppose maybe you are of pre-eminent intelligence and have figured out beauty and all the great philosophers who struggled with the topic were just wrong to waste so much time on what is simple.



eljr said:


> How is a definition likely impossible?


In the same way a definition of truth is impossible. If we attach words to concepts, and then explain concepts in terms of other, more basic, concepts, eventually we will arrive at "first-order" or "fundamental" concepts which have no explination in terms of other concepts. I would posit (and this is philosophically very common) that "beauty" and "truth" are such fundamental concepts.



eljr said:


> if a dictionary does not define a word, what does?


It does give a definition in a sense. But surely you agree that the definition "the qualities in a person or a thing that give pleasure to the senses or the mind" is not adequate. Dictionaries are great for simple words like "simple", but when it comes to complex philosophical or technical words that often describe concepts dictionaries must give a simple definition that inevitably is inadequate.



eljr said:


> Beauty is a perceptually pleasurable response to stimuli. Pleasurable responses do exist.
> 
> It is not the property of an object. It is our interpretation of the objects properties.
> 
> Dictionary:
> "a combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, *that pleases the aesthetic senses*"
> 
> So, if your senses are not pleased it is not beautiful.
> 
> We call things beautiful because TO US they are. There is no universality to what is beautiful because beauty is a perception within US. Within our brain.
> 
> When we use the term beautiful we mean "to us."
> 
> The word is used just fine. It corresponds completely with the dictionary.


First, I would not take dictionary.com over Merriam-Webster as you have. Regardless of the taken definition, beauty is always a property of the object. You literally say beauty "is not the property of an object" when the definition of beauty in Merriam-Webster is "the qualities in a person or a thing that give pleasure to the senses or the mind". Your definition also talks of colour, shape and form, I suppose you also believe these aren't properties of the object?

Another point, ist that nowhere in the definition does it say "to you, specifically", but rather talks in a general sense about aesthetic perception. As such, I'm not sure where you appear to be getting the "to you, specifically".

As a final point, pleasurable responses of course exist. But beauty is not a pleasurable response, as both definitions clarify, it is a quality in the object that leads to a pleasurable response. If you argue only the pleasurable response exists, then you have removed beauty from the equation.


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> I am surprised you do not admit that different people will not agree on what is beautiful. What is then the "property of the thing" that some people will not call beautiful?


Do you believe that truth is a thing? If so, why do so many people disagree on it? Surely then, if truth was real, then everyone would agree whether or not a statement was true.

Of course I admit that people disagree on what is beautiful. Why some think this disagreement then means nothing can be beautiful, I have no idea.


----------



## fbjim

science said:


> I think this is a very interesting line of thought. Maybe it's not "ironic" at all, maybe it's actually intentional.
> 
> There's something dangerous about rhythm and dance.


I actually wonder if one of the aspects of "elevated" art is to be skeptical of more "base" aesthetic factors. It's probably for someone much smarter than me to write a paper on, though.


----------



## fbjim

BachIsBest said:


> Do you believe that truth is a thing? If so, why do so many people disagree on it? Surely then, if truth was real, then everyone would agree whether or not a statement was true.
> 
> Of course I admit that people disagree on what is beautiful. Why some think this disagreement then means nothing can be beautiful, I have no idea.


Nobody has said nothing can be beautiful (or at least nobody should). It is a common point of frustration but "subjective" is not "nonexistent".


----------



## BachIsBest

fbjim said:


> Nobody has said nothing can be beautiful (or at least nobody should). It is a common point of frustration but "subjective" is not "nonexistent".


Nobody has said this, but many have implied it. If you read my post, I say pleasurable responses exist. We can all agree that pleasurable responses are subjective responses. Ergo, I believe subjective things can exist, and therefore do not believe "subjective" is "nonexistent".

My problem with beauty is that it is defined to be a quality of property of the objects that are beautiful (see the multiple dictionary definitions provided on this thread). To say that nothing actually has the property or quality of beauty, but that what we commonly refer to as beauty is just the pleasurable response, is to say that beauty doesn't exist.


----------



## fbjim

incidentally the arguments of multiple dictionary definitions are probably a good example of why philosophy ends up crossing over so much with linguistics


----------



## parlando

Xisten267 said:


> We seem to actually agree then. My point in this discussion has been that beauty as we feel in musical pieces lies both in the music and in the human brain, and can't exist without both. To me, music is a kind of code that needs to be decoded by the brain in order to produce sensations such as that of beauty. This code can be represented by a score and those capable of reading it can reproduce the music in their minds without the need of the actual sound waves, and still get a sensorial response from the experience.


Let me suggest what should be obvious to all of us, even those who might not instantly read polyphony or a computer program, but who are reading this: reading a traditional sonnet said by many to be beautiful or close enough: Shakespeare's Sonnet 18. The "beauty" or at least the excellence of this is apparent even to the silent perceiver. It is so very immediately clear to the observer of it on a page that something great is here-*in the text*-that once again the question arises: where is its magic? I want to say "everywhere". Let Plato play his games about goodness, beauty, and whatnot. Thus:

Sonnet 18: Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
BY WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date;
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimm'd;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance or nature's changing course untrimm'd;
But thy eternal summer shall not fade,
Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow'st;
Nor shall death brag thou wander'st in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou grow'st:
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.

We can instantly perceive its effect even in silence because reading is so much a second nature to all of that decoding the sonnet is effortless. It swells with quality.


----------



## eljr

BachIsBest said:


> I suppose maybe you are of pre-eminent intelligence and have figured out beauty and all the great philosophers who struggled with the topic were just wrong to waste so much time on what is simple.


Philosophy was of great interest to me in my youth. I think it good to contemplate one's navel on occasion still. I find far more value in the sciences today. 
I was similarly very curious about what we call today conspiracy theories. I outgrew them when no fruit ever feel from the tree.



> In the same way a definition of truth is impossible. If we attach words to concepts, and then explain concepts in terms of other, more basic, concepts, eventually we will arrive at "first-order" or "fundamental" concepts which have no explination in terms of other concepts. I would posit (and this is philosophically very common) that "beauty" and "truth" are such fundamental concepts.


Hog wash.



> It does give a definition in a sense. But surely you agree that the definition "the qualities in a person or a thing that give pleasure to the senses or the mind" is not adequate. Dictionaries are great for simple words like "simple", but when it comes to complex philosophical or technical words that often describe concepts dictionaries must give a simple definition that inevitably is inadequate.


Let's cut to the chase, I am tired of this nonsense. The definitions are fine. No mental gymnastics are needed to define simple words.



> First, I would not take dictionary.com over Merriam-Webster as you have. Regardless of the taken definition, beauty is always a property of the object. You literally say beauty "is not the property of an object" when the definition of beauty in Merriam-Webster is "the qualities in a person or a thing that give pleasure to the senses or the mind". Your definition also talks of *colour, shape and form,* I suppose you also believe these aren't properties of the object?


It is of no relevance if they are not perceived by the individual in a way that we caption, "beautiful."



> Another point, ist that nowhere in the definition does it say "to you, specifically", but rather talks in a general sense about aesthetic perception. As such, I'm not sure where you appear to be getting the "to you, specifically".


It does not need to, I already spoke to this, it is implied.



> As a final point, pleasurable responses of course exist. But beauty is not a pleasurable response, as both definitions clarify, it is a quality in the object that leads to a pleasurable response. If you argue only the pleasurable response exists, then you have removed beauty from the equation.


I have no patience to argue and twist the definitions of words to avoid the science.

This conversation should be about the brain's activity areas, what pathways are created when we perceive what we call beauty not philosophy and semantics.

Peace


----------



## science

Xisten267 said:


> So the Chinese who claim to like classical music are all liars? Curious.


Sure, probably everyone alive who makes any kind of claims about themselves lies occasionally. That's also part of the human condition.

But I'm sure you're intelligent enough to know that this point has nothing to do with what I wrote in the post you quoted.


----------



## science

fbjim said:


> I actually wonder if one of the aspects of "elevated" art is to be skeptical of more "base" aesthetic factors. It's probably for someone much smarter than me to write a paper on, though.


Absolutely it is -- it's the essence of the thing, not merely one aspect -- you just have to see the class/identity dimension in words like "elevated" and "base."


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> I notice actual facts don't much interest you. The Beatles very much did not display Indian music to the western public. Rather, the Beatles, George Harrison in particular, incorporated certain elements of traditional Indian music, into what fundamentally was still American-based rock 'n' roll and not traditional Indian music.
> 
> That is what musicians often try to do after extended exposure to music traditions of other cultures that interest them: incorporate what works best with their own music to create something different from either original tradition...


Speaking of actual facts, the true story: The Beatles and particularly George Harrison had a major role in Ravi Shankar and his Indian music becoming very popular during the latter 60s. When Shankar toured he played Indian sitar music and when he was on TV shows he played Indian sitar music.

From the wiki:

Beatles guitarist George Harrison, who was first introduced to Shankar's music by American singers Roger McGuinn and David Crosby, who were big fans of Shankar, became influenced by Shankar's music. He went on to help popularize Shankar and the use of Indian instruments in pop music throughout the 1960s. Olivia Harrison explains:
_
'When George heard Indian music, that really was the trigger, it was like a bell that went off in his head. It not only awakened a desire to hear more music, but also to understand what was going on in Indian philosophy. It was a unique diversion'_

*Shankar's association with Harrison greatly increased Shankar's popularity, and decades later Ken Hunt of AllMusic wrote that Shankar had become "the most famous Indian musician on the planet" by 1966.*


----------



## BachIsBest

eljr said:


> Philosophy was of great interest to me in my youth. I think it good to contemplate one's navel on occasion still. I find far more value in the sciences today.
> I was similarly very curious about what we call today conspiracy theories. I outgrew them when no fruit ever feel from the tree.


I'm not sure what to say? I'm glad you outgrew philosophy? Are you attempting to equate philosophy and conspiracy theories?



eljr said:


> Hog wash.


You make a strong point here.



eljr said:


> Let's cut to the chase, I am tired of this nonsense. The definitions are fine. No mental gymnastics are needed to define simple words.


Then define truth. Although you are not interested in philosophy (you seem to outright disdain it) I can assure you that when you present your simple and obvious definition of truth, you will become very famous amongst philosophers.



eljr said:


> It is of no relevance if they are not perceived by the individual in a way that we caption, "beautiful."


To try and understand your point: if nobody finds something beautiful, it doesn't matter its colour, shape, or form? But surely colour, shape, and form aren't independent of beauty (or, to yield temporarily to your point of view, the causing of pleasure through perception) and therefore this statement is a bit fallacious, no? If you assume an object is not beautiful, then surely this implies the colour, shape, and form are not such to create beauty.



eljr said:


> It does not need to, I already spoke to this, it is implied.


Right. So when the dictionary says beauty refers to the qualities of an object, it actually is saying it doesn't refer to the qualities of an object (through an implication) and to say it does is just twisting words.



eljr said:


> I have no patience to argue and twist the definitions of words to avoid the science.
> 
> This conversation should be about the brain's activity areas, what pathways are created when we perceive what we call beauty not philosophy and semantics.
> 
> Peace


To be frank, when the dictionary definition is "the qualities in a person or a thing that give pleasure to the senses or the mind" and I say that beauty therefore refers to the qualities in a person or a thing and you say the definition actually implies that beauty isn't about the qualities in a person or a thing, I'm pretty sure I'm not the one twisting definitions.

Finally, there is a reason that aesthetics, as a subject, is not a science. Although the brain's response to beauty is certainly an interesting subject, beauty itself is not really the domain of hard science. To "avoid the science" in a conversation that isn't about science, and doesn't really involve much science at all, is hardly a cardinal sin.

Peace be to you too. :tiphat:


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> It must be nice to have a nice simple idea of beauty and how it is universally perceived. Unfortunately, in order to sustain this illusion you must adhere to a monolithic conception of humanity. Need I say more?


Perhaps say less. 'A monolithic conception of humanity' is unnecessary hyperbole and not relevant to the post.


----------



## Art Rock

Looking at some of the more recent posts: we accept that discussions can get a bit heated at times, but please keep it civil and refrain from ad hominems (even veiled ones). Discuss posts, not posters.


----------



## 59540

San Antone said:


> Unfortunately, in order to sustain this illusion you must adhere to a monolithic conception of humanity. Need I say more?


Well in order to sustain the "illusion" of individual rights one must adhere to a monolithic view of humanity also. I don't see the point.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> Well in order to sustain the "illusion" of individual rights one must adhere to a monolithic view of humanity also. I don't see the point.


I get SanAntone's point (I think, which is that "we are all exactly the same"). I'm not so sure I get yours. Would you explain? Thanks.

(Sorry..."Peace")


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> I get SanAntone's point (I think, which is that "we are all exactly the same"). I'm not so sure I get yours. Would you explain? Thanks.
> 
> (Sorry..."Peace")


My point is obvious: we don't all monolithically share the same taste (as if this has to be said). And yet, some will quibble.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> My point is obvious: we don't all monolithically share the same taste (as if this has to be said). And yet, some will quibble.


The 20th century was one of great cultural upheaval, including in the arts, and I think some people yearn for a return to what they think was a more serene and stable era. It's become clear that certain classical music offers one avenue for such people and is even sometimes explicitly marketed to them. The last remaining classical radio station in NYC, WQXR, is now almost entirely devoted to lyrical, melodious (usually)18th and 19th century "classical hits" (Barber's Adagio for Strings makes the cut too), and continually boasts of its "relaxing" music. This pitch, of soothing and relaxing music in stressful times, was never part of the programming when I was growing up. Rather, it was standard for the entirely different "easy listening" or "adult contemporary" format (that I detested).

The essentialist fallacies we see repeated so endlessly here and in other threads show that in significant part TC, like WQXR, is a refuge for such people, where they can comfort each other and validate each other's tastes. The problem is their hostility to those with different tastes, whom they see as intruders, or those who would challenge their fallacies.

The fallacy lies in seeking validation for one's aesthetic tastes by claiming they are somehow based on universal rational principles. But thousands of years of human experience shows that aesthetic tastes are not based on universal rational principles, at least not entirely. So a live and let live attitude is much more productive than endlessly pronouncing music one happens not to like is "loud atonal screeching".


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> My point is obvious: we don't all monolithically share the same taste (as if this has to be said). And yet, some will quibble.


Yes, it is, I got your point, but as you were making a point about what someone else believes etc...


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> ..The essentialist fallacies we see repeated so endlessly here and in other threads show that in significant part TC, like WQXR, is a refuge for such people, where they can comfort each other and validate each other's tastes. The problem is their hostility to those with different tastes, whom they see as intruders, or those who would challenge their fallacies.


For once, I'd like to see evidence of this occurring with any significance on TC during present times. The repetition of this premise is far more frequent than its actual occurrence.


----------



## arpeggio

DaveM said:


> For once, I'd like to see evidence of this occurring with any significance on TC during present times. The repetition of this premise is far more frequent than its actual occurrence.


Of course it is not as bad as it use to be.

Current moderators do a much better job of controlling the narrative.

But five or more years ago thinks could get really nasty.


----------



## DaveM

arpeggio said:


> Of course it is not as bad as it use to be.
> 
> Current moderators do a much better job of controlling the narrative.
> 
> But five or more years ago thinks could get really nasty.


But it keeps being mentioned as if it is a problem of the present. Repeated mentioning of it only poisons the well of discourse. This thread has been going on and on with many side turns, many posters and many different ideas and, for the most part, with a few exceptions, it has been reasonably cordial.

What troubles me most is the premise that was stated that implies that those who prefer more 'traditional' classical music have a de facto 'hostility to those with other tastes, whom they would see as intruders'. I don't see that anywhere as an ongoing problem. Let's move on and try to be friends more than adversaries.


----------



## fluteman

arpeggio said:


> Of course it is not as bad as it use to be.
> 
> Current moderators do a much better job of controlling the narrative.
> 
> But five or more years ago thinks could get really nasty.


Actually, the nastiness continues. But that isn't a big concern for me. I do think posts complaining about music one doesn't like are not the best posts. Most of the time TC is a great forum for positive, informative posts, but any mention of certain sorts of music tends to bring out the complaints.


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> I get SanAntone's point (I think, which is that "we are all exactly the same"). I'm not so sure I get yours. Would you explain? Thanks.
> 
> (Sorry..."Peace")


I'm referring to traits and characteristics that humans have in common. No, tastes aren't "monolithic", but they aren't always wildly divergent either. The convergence of a lot of different tastes is what's interesting.


fluteman said:


> The fallacy lies in seeking validation for one's aesthetic tastes by claiming they are somehow based on universal rational principles. But thousands of years of human experience shows that aesthetic tastes are not based on universal rational principles, at least not entirely.


 Presented, of course, as a universal rational principle. We're fortunate to have such knowledgeable -- and humble -- people to set us straight.


arpeggio said:


> But five or more years ago thinks could get really nasty.


Well from what I see, these days it's "your team" that reaches for those ad hominems first...and apparently without consequences. Which is fine. Why rely on moderators to "control the narrative" anyway?


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> Well, you say this as if I don't agree.


I'm not sure what we agree on and what we disagree on. I was prompted to respond because you think that you would be "bringing it back on topic" by providing a definition, as if the discussion of other related matters was off-topic.



BachIsBest said:


> The point of providing the dictionary definition is not to present it as the one true definition of beauty but merely to point out that whatever it is, beauty, if it exists at all, is a property of the thing that is beautiful. To say otherwise is to not use the word beauty in a way that corresponds to how it is used in the English language, its dictionary definition, and the common understanding of the word.


I'm not sure that this says anything other than "whatever beauty is, it's beauty as defined in Merriam Webster." (which maybe expert in American English, but not in British English, which is the version of beauty I'm most accustomed to )

That may get us back on topic, (if posting vids of pop songs is what you thought was 'off-topic') but it doesn't get us any further forward. Only on our way back round to where we'd been before.

In response to eljr, you wrote:



BachIsBest said:


> If you argue only the pleasurable response exists, then you have removed beauty from the equation.


I'm reminded of some of the basic physics I remember from school. If you remove _either _bulb or battery from an electric circuit, the electricity won't flow. You need _both_.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> I'm referring to traits and characteristics that humans have in common. No, tastes aren't "monolithic", but they aren't always wildly divergent either. The convergence of a lot of different tastes is what's interesting.


So, it would be a monolithic view of humanity to think that we're all different?

See _Life of Brian_.


----------



## janxharris

BachIsBest said:


> The point of providing the dictionary definition is not to present it as the one true definition of beauty but merely to point out that whatever it is, beauty, if it exists at all, is a property of the thing that is beautiful. To say otherwise is to not use the word beauty in a way that corresponds to how it is used in the English language, its dictionary definition, and the common understanding of the word.


Rather, doesn't this establish that there is beauty in a thing only for individuals that perceive (what they would describe as) beauty, in it? The naysayers view should, also, be respected. The object is potentially both ugly and beautiful...and, perhaps, everything in between.

Of course, 'things' held to be beautiful by a significant number of persons have something worthy of note - but other objects may potentially have as much beauty, even if it is recognised by fewer individuals.


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> So, it would be a monolithic view of humanity to think that we're all different?


"We're all different"? What does that mean? That each individual human being is as different from one another as they are from sea slugs?


----------



## eljr

BachIsBest said:


> I'm not sure what to say? I'm glad you outgrew philosophy? Are you attempting to equate philosophy and conspiracy theories?
> 
> You make a strong point here.
> 
> Then define truth. Although you are not interested in philosophy (you seem to outright disdain it) I can assure you that when you present your simple and obvious definition of truth, you will become very famous amongst philosophers.
> 
> To try and understand your point: if nobody finds something beautiful, it doesn't matter its colour, shape, or form? But surely colour, shape, and form aren't independent of beauty (or, to yield temporarily to your point of view, the causing of pleasure through perception) and therefore this statement is a bit fallacious, no? If you assume an object is not beautiful, then surely this implies the colour, shape, and form are not such to create beauty.
> 
> Right. So when the dictionary says beauty refers to the qualities of an object, it actually is saying it doesn't refer to the qualities of an object (through an implication) and to say it does is just twisting words.
> 
> To be frank, when the dictionary definition is "the qualities in a person or a thing that give pleasure to the senses or the mind" and I say that beauty therefore refers to the qualities in a person or a thing and you say the definition actually implies that beauty isn't about the qualities in a person or a thing, I'm pretty sure I'm not the one twisting definitions.
> 
> Finally, there is a reason that aesthetics, as a subject, is not a science. Although the brain's response to beauty is certainly an interesting subject, beauty itself is not really the domain of hard science. To "avoid the science" in a conversation that isn't about science, and doesn't really involve much science at all, is hardly a cardinal sin.
> 
> Peace be to you too. :tiphat:


Thanks for the reply.
I should show more restraint as dreamers can add much to civilization, it is not that any endeavor is valueless. 
I am simply not a practitioner of pseudoscience or pseudophilosophy i.e. ********.


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> I should show more restraint as dreamers can add much to civilization, it is not that any endeavor is valueless.
> I am simply not a practitioner of pseudoscience or pseudophilosophy i.e. ********.


Are you kidding? You're in this forum to discuss the products of dreamers. Otherwise you'd be hanging out exclusively in a neuroscience forum.


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> Are you kidding? You're in this forum to discuss the products of dreamers. Otherwise you'd be hanging out exclusively in a neuroscience forum.


You make a very good point, hence my apology and acknowledgement.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I'd say either both or neither. When it appeals to the listener there is something in the music itself that makes it so.


----------



## SanAntone

Phil loves classical said:


> I'd say either both or neither. When it appeals to the listener there is something in the music itself that makes it so.


It has to be both since we know beauty exists.

Beauty exists in music in potential but requires a human perceiver in order for it to be realized in the real world.

So the poll was not constructed very well, IMO.


----------



## 59540

Phil loves classical said:


> I'd say either both or neither. When it appeals to the listener there is something in the music itself that makes it so.


Yes, which was my opinion from the beginning, 60-some-odd pages ago. In those 60-some-odd pages what we've had is "it's all in your head" absolutists wrestling with a "those who say European classical music is the ultimate in perfection and beauty" strawman.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> Yes, which was my opinion from the beginning, 60-some-odd pages ago. In those 60-some-odd pages what we've had is "it's all in your head" absolutists wrestling with a "those who say European classical music is the ultimate in perfection and beauty" strawman.


And much else besides. The "wrestling" hasn't all been between (or about) straw men.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> The 20th century was one of great cultural upheaval, including in the arts, and I think some people yearn for a return to what they think was a more serene and stable era. It's become clear that certain classical music offers one avenue for such people and is even sometimes explicitly marketed to them. The last remaining classical radio station in NYC, WQXR, is now almost entirely devoted to lyrical, melodious (usually)18th and 19th century "classical hits" (Barber's Adagio for Strings makes the cut too), and continually boasts of its "relaxing" music. This pitch, of soothing and relaxing music in stressful times, was never part of the programming when I was growing up. Rather, it was standard for the entirely different "easy listening" or "adult contemporary" format (that I detested).
> 
> The essentialist fallacies we see repeated so endlessly here and in other threads show that in significant part TC, like WQXR, is a refuge for such people, where they can comfort each other and validate each other's tastes. The problem is their hostility to those with different tastes, whom they see as intruders, or those who would challenge their fallacies.
> 
> The fallacy lies in seeking validation for one's aesthetic tastes by claiming they are somehow based on universal rational principles. But thousands of years of human experience shows that aesthetic tastes are not based on universal rational principles, at least not entirely. So a live and let live attitude is much more productive than endlessly pronouncing music one happens not to like is "loud atonal screeching".


I think most serious listeners listen to CM because it has a long history and a development that they admire. Following that development is entertaining and satisfying (as the appreciation of any technical subject would be) if not enlightening. There's also the narrative and what it does for people when they're listening. They can use the metaphors to expand their thoughts and ideas. And many other reasons. It's music they know they can come back to and there will be more to hear in it. Entertainment music falls short in all these categories.

Of course if you don't care about these categories or your culture has somehow inhibited you or prevented you, then that's another tangent. And so if you want to study audiences (or study humans in general) that's a whole separate subject.

I think it's irrelevant to talk about a radio station that was only trying to stay on the air and continue to pay its employees. That's all about money.


----------



## Luchesi

janxharris said:


> Rather, doesn't this establish that there is beauty in a thing only for individuals that perceive (what they would describe as) beauty, in it? The naysayers view should, also, be respected. The object is potentially both ugly and beautiful...and, perhaps, everything in between.
> 
> Of course, 'things' held to be beautiful by a significant number of persons have something worthy of note - but other objects may potentially have as much beauty, even if it is recognised by fewer individuals.


If we list all the things that we find beautiful in some music and them reduce them down to more fundamental elements, would an alien lifeform also see why we think they're beautiful? I think there are aspects which are universally understood (if the aliens are close enough to us in their development).


----------



## janxharris

Luchesi said:


> If we list all the things that we find beautiful in some music and them reduce them down to more fundamental elements, would an alien lifeform also see why we think they're beautiful? I think there are aspects which are universally understood (if the aliens are close enough to us in their development).


Probably - but it's what we then infer that's the important bit isn't it?


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> I think most serious listeners listen to CM because it has a long history and a development that they admire. Following that development is entertaining and satisfying (as the appreciation of any technical subject would be) if not enlightening. There's also the narrative and what it does for people when they're listening. They can use the metaphors to expand their thoughts and ideas. And many other reasons. It's music they know they can come back to and there will be more to hear in it. Entertainment music falls short in all these categories.
> 
> Of course if you don't care about these categories or your culture has somehow inhibited you or prevented you, then that's another tangent. And so if you want to study audiences (or study humans in general) that's a whole separate subject.
> 
> I think it's irrelevant to talk about a radio station that was only trying to stay on the air and continue to pay its employees. That's all about money.


This is what I got from your post:

Classical music is the greatest music ever made and ever will be made. Those people who are somehow inhibited or prevented from appreciating Classical music are missing out on something very valuable.

And that non-Classical music is only done to make money.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> I think it's irrelevant to talk about a radio station that was only trying to stay on the air and continue to pay its employees. That's all about money.


The entire classical music business is "all about money", whether it's Tchaikovsky or Boulez. As an insider, I can assure you that you can't even get grants from government or non-profit programs intended to support contemporary music without proving you can consistently get a paying audience to cover a significant part of your operating expenses. The same is true for performances of Beethoven and Tchaikovsky symphonies by major orchestras, which don't anywhere near cover their operating expenses, even with their substantial audience revenues, without large subsidies.

Anything that gets professionally performed by multiple performers in multiple venues over a number of years has succeeded in attracting an audience. Unfortunately, traditional "common practice" classical music, including Beethoven and Tchaikovsky, no longer has enough of an audience to support a single New York City radio station, even a non-profit "listener supported" one, as WQXR now is, without resort to an "easy listening" marketing strategy that I can't see doing much good in the long term.


----------



## parlando

clumsy post—see below


----------



## parlando

Woodduck said:


> I don't know what the OP meant by "beauty," or whether anything specific was intended. But what you've described is simply pleasure. The experience of pleasure is a broader phenomenon than the perception of beauty, if the latter term is to have any useful meaning. We don't call everything that gives us pleasure beautiful; the word is sometimes used used in that loosest sense, but if that's all we mean by it there isn't much to discuss. The really interesting question remains: what do we mean by the _aesthetic_ quality/sensation/sense of beauty?


Something verging on the erotic, in the sub specie aeternitatis manner?


----------



## BachIsBest

Forster said:


> I'm not sure what we agree on and what we disagree on. I was prompted to respond because you think that you would be "bringing it back on topic" by providing a definition, as if the discussion of other related matters was off-topic.


Knowing TC, I was aware all efforts to stay on topic are futile. 



Forster said:


> I'm not sure that this says anything other than "whatever beauty is, it's beauty as defined in Merriam Webster." (which maybe expert in American English, but not in British English, which is the version of beauty I'm most accustomed to )
> 
> That may get us back on topic, (if posting vids of pop songs is what you thought was 'off-topic') but it doesn't get us any further forward. Only on our way back round to where we'd been before.


One doesn't actually have to use Merriam-Websters (though your comment did make me smile), but another user also posted a definition from dictionary.com. Regardless, I haven't seen a definition of beauty that doesn't refer to beauty as a quality of an object, which is the point.

As a Candian, I'm fluent in an unholy blend of American and British English ;-).



Forster said:


> I'm reminded of some of the basic physics I remember from school. If you remove _either _bulb or battery from an electric circuit, the electricity won't flow. You need _both_.


Well, if you remove the bulb and reconnect the wires, the current will still flow. But that is definitely off-topic.


----------



## BachIsBest

eljr said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> I should show more restraint as dreamers can add much to civilization, it is not that any endeavor is valueless.
> I am simply not a practitioner of pseudoscience or pseudophilosophy i.e. ********.


Could you please not call me a practitioner of "pseudoscience or pseudophilosophy i.e. ********" with absolutely no provided evidence. If you wish to accuse me of practising bad philosophy, perhaps you could at least write a sentence or two explaining my flawed philosophy rather than just lobbing tomatoes and expletives at my posts without addressing any of my arguments.

Finally, there is no pseudoscience in my post. There are not even any claims about science.


----------



## Roger Knox

Josquin13 said:


> It's both. That's the whole point. Something special is communicated and received. Our minds, hearts, & imagination are stimulated, by what we hear. Though we can argue or agree about what exactly it was that's been communicated and about what it meant to us on a personal level.


It's both indeed, and each of us is different, with different brains and experiences, and different roles such as composer, performer, listener. I wonder if music is an "it," any more than is love, or play.


----------



## parlando

fluteman said:


> The entire classical music business is "all about money", whether it's Tchaikovsky or Boulez. As an insider, I can assure you that you can't even get grants from government or non-profit programs intended to support contemporary music without proving you can consistently get a paying audience to cover a significant part of your operating expenses. The same is true for performances of Beethoven and Tchaikovsky symphonies by major orchestras, which don't anywhere near cover their operating expenses, even with their substantial audience revenues, without large subsidies.
> 
> Anything that gets professionally performed by multiple performers in multiple venues over a number of years has succeeded in attracting an audience. Unfortunately, traditional "common practice" classical music, including Beethoven and Tchaikovsky, no longer has enough of an audience to support a single New York City radio station, even a non-profit "listener supported" one, as WQXR now is, without resort to an "easy listening" marketing strategy that I can't see doing much good in the long term.


I've been listening to CM on radio in NYC long enough to remember the earlier QXR and even the commercial WNCN. Further, I remember "Music till Dawn" in San Francisco and Washington DC. If you try WKCR from Columbia University at the right hours you will not hear politically correct jazz but CM. Moreover, at 87.7 FM (a Chinese language station), you may catch Chinese artists performing CM from time to time. This proves nothing except that the audience for CM is now and always has been an effing minority. Hurray for us! There is shelf space for every product that SELLS. If it doesn't sell, well, as they say, go figure... or play musique concrete of your choice in your dwelling.

However, for a real treat for bored ears, try WNYE 91.5 at the right hours for Cosmos FM, a completely Greek language program that plays currently popular Greek music, some of which (not all) has the most bewitching rhythms this side of Thessaloniki and the moon. Nothing, nothing like it. Anywhere. At all. Middle of the early afternoon. Get up and circle dance. They invented it you know. They actually did.

You want Boulez? Ok, lots of neat people don't. Polyrhythms? I can listen to the Rite of Spring once a decade, two decades. Disharmony can be sexy in certain situations--but it don't SELL. I prefer The Firebird. Ariadne auf Naxos? I prefer Capriccio. Hey, to each their own. Just don't be a Kommisar that demands that we all must adore XYZ and hate Khachaturian.

If I've misspelled or misnumbered WNYE, I will be back to fix.

Friendship to all.


----------



## fluteman

parlando said:


> I've been listening to CM on radio in NYC long enough to remember the earlier QXR and even the commercial WNCN. Further, I remember "Music till Dawn" in San Francisco and Washington DC. If you try WKCR from Columbia University at the right hours you will not hear politically correct jazz but CM. Moreover, at 87.7 FM (a Han Mandarin language station), you may catch Chinese artists performing CM from time to time. This proves nothing except that the audience for CM is now and always has been an effing minority. Hurray for us! There is shelf space for every product that SELLS. If it doesn't sell, well, as they say, go figure... or play musique concrete of your choice in your dwelling.
> 
> However, for a real treat for bored ears, try WNYE 91.5 at the right hours for Cosmos FM, a completely Greek language program that plays currently popular Greek music, some of which (not all) has the most bewitching rhythms this side of Thessaloniki and the moon. Nothing, nothing like it. Anywhere. At all. Middle of the early afternoon. Get up and circle dance. They invented it you know. They actually did.
> 
> You want Boulez? Ok, lots of neat people don't. Polyrhythms? I can listen to the Rite of Spring once a decade, two decades. Disharmony can be sexy in certain situations--but it don't SELL. I prefer The Firebird. Ariadne auf Naxos--great recording--still, I prefer Capriccio. Hey, to each their own. Just don't be a Kommisar that demands that we all must adore XYZ and hate Khachaturian.
> 
> If I've misspelled or misnumbered WNYE, I will be back to fix.
> 
> Friendship to all.


Of course, I'm all too familiar with the old WNCN, Columbia's WKCR, which still does the Bach marathon at the end of each year, and even WNYE, which has to have featured some of the weirdest material ever broadcast on a radio station. John Schaefer's wonderful New Sounds was a favorite on WNYC, and can still be heard at newsounds.org. Good to hear from a fellow voyager sailing over the radio waves. I didn't mean to imply that good music isn't still out there to be heard, just that some deeper digging is needed.


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> Well, if you remove the bulb and reconnect the wires, the current will still flow. But that is definitely off-topic.


Not if we keep music in mind when we consider the analogy. What would be the point of a wire that simply connects the terminals of a battery? That would be the music played in an enclosed room with no audience. If the music was played by an orchestra, fine, they are the audience, but if by a machine, no-one can perceive the beauty.

At any rate, analogies are only intended to work in a simplistic way, and analysing an analogy only adds to the sense of futility after 60+ pages on the original question.


----------



## saboteur

Of course, it's in music. That's why you get goosebumps from a good melody and nausea from a bad one.


----------



## Chilham

:lol: ..............................


----------



## SanAntone

saboteur said:


> Of course, it's in music. That's why you get goosebumps from a good melody and nausea from a bad one.


Who's the "you?" A different "you" might get goose bumps from a "good melody" where your "you" won't; and who feels nausious instead.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> Who's the "you?" A different "you" might get goose bumps from a "good melody" where your "you" won't; and who feels nausious instead.


Inducing nausea through the use of "bad melodies" is the idea behind infrasonic weapons. I recall reading about experiments conducted by the Russian military. Acoustic weapons in general have been used in actual police and military applications, including by the American military in Iraq.

https://phr.org/our-work/resources/health-impacts-of-crowd-control-weapons-acoustic-weapons/

It seems this thread has taken a rather sinister turn.


----------



## parlando

BachIsBest said:


> Well, if you remove the bulb and reconnect the wires, the current will still flow. But that is definitely off-topic.


No it won't flow. But that's my scientific opinion.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Zuhxhdnelvjfhwnksjhchdj


----------



## 59540

parlando said:


> No it won't flow. But that's my scientific opinion.


Of course not. The "current" is all in the bulb's brain.


----------



## BachIsBest

fluteman said:


> Inducing nausea through the use of "bad melodies" is the idea behind infrasonic weapons. I recall reading about experiments conducted by the Russian military. Acoustic weapons in general have been used in actual police and military applications, including by the American military in Iraq.
> 
> https://phr.org/our-work/resources/health-impacts-of-crowd-control-weapons-acoustic-weapons/
> 
> It seems this thread has taken a rather sinister turn.


But how can this be? As we have learned from many members, it's all personal taste. What if the enemy troops find those sounds as pleasing as inspiring as I find Bach?


----------



## fbjim

BachIsBest said:


> But how can this be? As we have learned from many members, it's all personal taste. What if the enemy troops find those sounds as pleasing as inspiring as I find Bach?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...iminals-away/2011/10/11/gIQAgDqPEQ_story.html


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...iminals-away/2011/10/11/gIQAgDqPEQ_story.html


Interesting...did you read the story?


> Like many things in classical music, these endeavors have entered the realm of conventional wisdom without being adequately studied. Installing speakers in a public space to play classical music usually involves some degree of physical improvement to the area and an increased police presence. How, then, can you determine that classical music alone is responsible for improving conditions? ...
> 
> But the idea of classical music as a force for good fits right in with the widespread image - among classical music lovers, at least - of this art form's exalted purpose. Classical music is often presented as a panacea. It can calm patients during surgery. It can socialize inner-city children and turn them into brilliant musicians (witness the El Sistema training program in Venezuela, which spawned conductor Gustavo Dudamel and a half-dozen other rising young stars). It can make you smarter (the so-called Mozart effect, which led to an unfortunate wave of bowdlerized music-for-babies CDs and videos starting in the 1990s). And now, it can fight crime, fulfilling its traditional elitist role by separating all of us good people who love classical music from the great unwashed, who flee like cartoon villains from the very sound of it.


----------



## fbjim

i thought it was a very interesting piece on how the context in which music is placed affects our perception of that place, and of the music, including whether or not it is "beautiful"!


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> i thought it was a very interesting piece on how the context in which music is placed affects our perception of that place, and of the music, including whether or not it is "beautiful"!


It's also interesting in music's effect on something other than one individual brain. It's about its effect on many brains at the same time. That convergence is what's interesting to me, and what is really the heart of the matter. A pianist or choir member in Seoul or Beijing very well may love the music of Bach just as much as I do and for the same reasons. What are those reasons?


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> It's also interesting in music's effect on something other than one individual brain. It's about its effect on many brains at the same time.


One might call this the social aspect of music, even.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> One might call this the social aspect of music, even.


If by "social" you mean shared aesthetic appreciation, sure. It's the elements of and reasons for that shared love and appreciation that I'm interested in. I don't think it can be explained away as just sociopolitical.


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> But how can this be? As we have learned from many members, it's all personal taste. What if the enemy troops find those sounds as pleasing as inspiring as I find Bach?


It's not "all personal taste". I don't believe anyone in this thread has argued that, only that whatever mechanism is at work, it involves subjective perceptions which allows for differences in what audiences take to be beautiful.


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> It's not "all personal taste". I don't believe anyone in this thread has argued that, only that whatever mechanism is at work, it involves subjective perceptions which allows for differences in what audiences take to be beautiful.


Isn't that just saying the same thing with different words? Personal taste, subjective perceptions. What hasn't been answered is what accounts for perceptions held in common across a fairly wide audience. When that wide audience is itself "multicultural", the usual sociopolitical explanations (cultural imperialism and the rest) don't really do it for me.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> Isn't that just saying the same thing with different words? Personal taste, subjective perceptions. What hasn't been answered is what accounts for perceptions held in common across a fairly wide audience.


No it isn't. And several posters cited the notion of intersubjectivity, allowing for the recognition that some pieces are found to be beautiful by many many people.


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...iminals-away/2011/10/11/gIQAgDqPEQ_story.html


Great article. Of course, Schubert piano trios don't always come with such peaceful intentions. Witness the climactic scene from the The Mechanic, a movie about a battle between two professional hit men. As I keep saying, context is all.


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> No it isn't. And several posters cited the notion of intersubjectivity, allowing for the recognition that some pieces are found to be beautiful by many many people.


Yes but that's more descriptive to me than explanatory.


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> Yes but that's more descriptive to me than explanatory.


Well, as I think you yourself said, we don't really know, so explanatory...in any definitive sense...is beyond us all.


----------



## BachIsBest

Forster said:


> It's not "all personal taste". I don't believe anyone in this thread has argued that, only that whatever mechanism is at work, it involves subjective perceptions which allows for differences in what audiences take to be beautiful.


I think we more or less agree then. I believe certain pieces of music are beautiful, but to perceive them as such certainly human perception comes into play. What one person finds beautiful is certainly a combination of factors, but the idea it is all personal taste (and unless I am worn, there are members who are arguing for this), is what I am arguing against.

What is telling, is that if you look at any culture around the world, in any language, and ask them if they ever find a sunset beautiful, the response is virtually unanimous. This isn't intersubjectivity, as these vastly different people from all walks of life have never met nor been influenced by one another; rather, the best, and easiest explanation, is that the sunset is beautiful.


----------



## fbjim

I think people are talking past each other to an extent, as "personal taste" isn't going to be entirely "personal" but influenced by a person's experiences and environment. No man is an island, and all that, which is where intersubjectivity and the concept of socially-informed aesthetic values come in. 

Where "personal" comes into it, I think, is that while a person's environment has great influence on their concept of aesthetic norms, morals, philosophy etc- at the end of it, the final arbiter on whether art affects someone remains the person themselves.


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> I think we more or less agree then. I believe certain pieces of music are beautiful, but to perceive them as such certainly human perception comes into play. What one person finds beautiful is certainly a combination of factors, but the idea it is all personal taste (and unless I am worn, there are members who are arguing for this), is what I am arguing against.
> 
> What is telling, is that if you look at any culture around the world, in any language, and ask them if they ever find a sunset beautiful, the response is virtually unanimous. This isn't intersubjectivity, as these vastly different people from all walks of life have never met nor been influenced by one another; rather, the best, and easiest explanation, is that the sunset is beautiful.


A sunset is a slice of nature; music is the product of human cultures. We appreciate the sunset for different reasons. Someone from Africa might prefer, and find more "beautiful," his native music (which often has social meaning and religious/ritualistic purpose) instead of Beethoven (which has entertainment meaning).


----------



## Forster

Re sunset...and allegedly beautiful weather. Global warming has yet to be taken on board at the subconscious level. In the UK, we're still obsessed with having sunny weather and not rain.

Context is everything.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

SanAntone said:


> A sunset is a slice of nature; music is the product of human cultures. We appreciate the sunset for different reasons. Someone from Africa might prefer, and find more "beautiful," his native music (which often has social meaning and religious/ritualistic purpose) instead of Beethoven (which has entertainment meaning).


Does Beethoven not have meaning beyond "entertainment"? I would contend his music has philosophical / spiritual / intellectual significance, at least to some.


----------



## joen_cph

The very principle of structured sounds and sound-making seem to be enjoyed by many species:

_"Do Animals Like Music? - Find out their favorite type (based on the available research)."_
https://medium.com/creatures/do-animals-like-music-de00c0d8fc27

"_Against the conventional wisdom that music is a uniquely human phenomenon, recent and ongoing research shows that animals actually do share our capacity for it. But rather than liking classical or rock, Snowdon, an animal psychologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has discovered that animals march to the beat of a different drum altogether. They enjoy what he calls "species-specific music": tunes specially designed using the pitches, tones and tempos that are familiar to their particular species_."
https://www.livescience.com/33780-animal-music-pets.html

_A biological debate: is birdsong music?_
https://whyy.org/segments/biological-debate-birdsong-music/


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> I think people are talking past each other to an extent, as "personal taste" isn't going to be entirely "personal" but influenced by a person's experiences and environment. No man is an island, and all that, which is where intersubjectivity and the concept of socially-informed aesthetic values come in.
> 
> Where "personal" comes into it, I think, is that while a person's environment has great influence on their concept of aesthetic norms, morals, philosophy etc- at the end of it, the final arbiter on whether art affects someone remains the person themselves.


Leonard Meyer, whom I've mentioned repeatedly, has a good discussion, including of (his terms) universal "laws", culture-specific "rules" and musician-specific "strategies". All of that comes into play in how art is perceived.


----------



## BachIsBest

Forster said:


> Re sunset...and allegedly beautiful weather. Global warming has yet to be taken on board at the subconscious level. In the UK, we're still obsessed with having sunny weather and not rain.
> 
> Context is everything.


Right, because elsewhere sunny and +25 degrees Celcius is considered terrible weather.


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> A sunset is a slice of nature; music is the product of human cultures. We appreciate the sunset for different reasons. Someone from Africa might prefer, and find more "beautiful," his native music (which often has social meaning and religious/ritualistic purpose) instead of Beethoven (which has entertainment meaning).


I do not deny the role culture and cultural knowledge has in music appreciation. We don't consider Western science wrong because it is baffling to someone from Africa with no education. Although I think you may be exaggerating the gulf between cultures here (I found some Japanese music haunting and beautiful the first time I ever heard it), you also seem to be ignoring the fact that many people from outside a certain culture very much appreciate that culture's music upon learning about it. One, of course, needs proper understanding, the point of the sunset example is to show that in a case where there is near-universal understanding, there is near-universal agreement on the fact that the sunset is beautiful


----------



## 59540

.,...........................................delete


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> A sunset is a slice of nature; music is the product of human cultures. We appreciate the sunset for different reasons. Someone from Africa might prefer, and find more "beautiful," his native music (which often has social meaning and religious/ritualistic purpose) instead of Beethoven (which has entertainment meaning).


The Beethoven Missa Solemnis and Mass in C may be seen as more than entertainment. Sometimes I think I've arrived in the wrong forum and realized it is the Music From Around The World Appreciation forum.


----------



## 59540

DaveM said:


> The Beethoven Missa Solemnis and Mass in C may be seen as more than entertainment. Sometimes I think I've arrived in the wrong forum and realized it is the Music From Around The World Appreciation forum.


Yeah I'd say that understanding of Beethoven is pretty....shallow there.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> The Beethoven Missa Solemnis and Mass in C may be seen as more than entertainment. Sometimes I think I've arrived in the wrong forum and realized it is the Music From Around The World Appreciation forum.


Yes, but isn't the point that people in other cultures or even many people in our culture don't necessarily like Beethoven as much as other music. I think my son would prefer music from several genres over Beethoven. Beethoven's music is beautiful in your brain and in mine, but I would guess that it is not beautiful in perhaps most people's brains.

Without the proper exposure (i.e. brain training) much music is likely not well received.


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> I do not deny the role culture and cultural knowledge has in music appreciation. We don't consider Western science wrong because it is baffling to someone from Africa with no education. Although I think you may be exaggerating the gulf between cultures here (I found some Japanese music haunting and beautiful the first time I ever heard it), you also seem to be ignoring the fact that many people from outside a certain culture very much appreciate that culture's music upon learning about it. One, of course, needs proper understanding, the point of the sunset example is to show that in a case where there is near-universal understanding, there is near-universal agreement on the fact that the sunset is beautiful


I don't see the analogy between appreciating a sunset and appreciating music, to me it is a false analogy. And it seems to avoid the point if you are claiming that given proper acculturation anyone from anywhere can learn to appreciate Beethoven. While that might be true, although I have my doubts, it is entirely beside the point. It doesn't prove that beauty is inherent in a piece of music if you teach someone that it is in fact a beautiful piece of music. A nice little tautology.

I don't have a dog in the hunt if the prey is Western Classical music is the greatest music ever created and it is unquestionably beautiful - which anyone, from any culture, will easily admit once they have sufficient exposure to it.

To me that is an absurd premise, and one fraught with baggage I do not wish to explore.


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> Yes, but isn't the point that people in other cultures or even many people in our culture don't necessarily like Beethoven as much as other music. I think my son would prefer music from several genres over Beethoven. Beethoven's music is beautiful in your brain and in mine, but I would guess that it is not beautiful in perhaps most people's brains.
> 
> Without the proper exposure (i.e. brain training) much music is likely not well received.


It might not have been that beautiful in mine either until I was exposed to it. The point is this is a classical music forum, but a common theme that seems to be hammered quite a bit is Classical Music Is No Better Than Any Other, ad nauseam, and often from people whose understanding of classical music doesn't exactly seem to be particularly deep. After a while it seems like officially-sanctioned trolling, and not really worth the bother.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> Yes, but isn't the point that people in other cultures or even many people in our culture don't necessarily like Beethoven as much as other music. I think my son would prefer music from several genres over Beethoven. Beethoven's music is beautiful in your brain and in mine, but I would guess that it is not beautiful in perhaps most people's brains.
> 
> Without the proper exposure (i.e. brain training) much music is likely not well received.


I understand the point. How could I not. I don't know how many times the preference of someone from Africa has been mentioned.  Besides that, I think it's a given that anyone who is into classical music already knows how much of a niche it is and doesn't need to be reminded how many people prefer other genres and how many different cultures prefer their own music. To me, that having been acknowledged, there isn't much left to discuss on that subject. (Digressing, I'm still amazed at how much classical music is found to be beautiful by so many Chinese and Japanese minds.)

I can't help but add that I don't know why this thread has been used by some to periodically slap us around for theoretically not appreciating the music of other cultures as if we are little children who need some splaining. I believe there is something special about CM of the CPT period. I think it was an amazing period of music of great beauty, complexity and majesty and I know it will never happen again. I don't make comparisons with music of other cultures because I don't know much about it. And I don't feel the slightest obligation to learn about it, contrary to what a few posters imply.

When I read the OP, while it wasn't specific, I assumed that since this is a classical music forum, that was the music in question.


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> It might not have been that beautiful in mine either until I was exposed to it. The point is this is a classical music forum, but a common theme that seems to be hammered quite a bit is Classical Music Is No Better Than Any Other, ad nauseam, and often from people whose understanding of classical music doesn't exactly seem to be particularly deep. After a while it seems like officially-sanctioned trolling, and not really worth the bother.


I think there are two issues being discussed here. One is whether a high percentage of people, in general, would find any particular music, such as classical, beautiful. Given that so few people listen to classical in the culture where it is most prevalent, I would guess that most people in the world do not find classical music nearly as beautiful as you or I do. To me that makes sense since most people's brains are not trained or conditioned to enjoy classical music. That makes me believe that the beauty in classical music comes from neural processes in the brain that have been trained on classical themes. I think that's true of any music.

The other issue is whether classical music is better than other types of music. To be honest, I've been reading posts on TC for over 10 years and do not see that view being hammered into the forum ad nauseum. In fact I would guess that most people on TC do believe classical is better in some sense than other music. I do, but I don't feel that's particularly important. Possibly your belief that "Classical Music Is No Better Than Any Other" seems like officially sanctioned trolling indicates either a bias in your reading of TC posts or a misunderstanding of trolling. It's simply a view of some members here. Why the fuss?


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> I don't see the analogy between appreciating a sunset and appreciating music, to me it is a false analogy. And it seems to avoid the point if you are claiming that given proper acculturation anyone from anywhere can learn to appreciate Beethoven. While that might be true, although I have my doubts, it is entirely beside the point. It doesn't prove that beauty is inherent in a piece of music if you teach someone that it is in fact a beautiful piece of music. A nice little tautology.
> 
> I don't have a dog in the hunt if the prey is Western Classical music is the greatest music ever created and it is unquestionably beautiful - which anyone, from any culture, will easily admit once they have sufficient exposure to it.
> 
> To me that is an absurd premise, and one fraught with baggage I do not wish to explore.


Well, I'm not sure whether Western Classical music is the greatest music in the world, or whether there really is such a thing as the greatest music in the world. I'm pretty confident that much of Western Classical music is quite beautiful, but I'm not sure whether that's the sort of thing one can establish unquestionably. In any case, you seem to draw absurdly exaggerated conclusions and implications from my posts, and I think the discussion could be improved if you respond to what I wrote rather than what you assume I think.

I'm not trying to draw a direct analogy between the appreciation of music and the appreciation of a sunset. Rather, the sunset example demonstrates that the human conception of what is beautiful is not entirely dependent upon culture, individual experience, or intersubjectivity, as some here seem to claim.

My claim about teaching people from other cultures about Western Classical music is that one would teach them about the music (this could be entirely intuitive as many members here, myself included, learned to appreciate the music through repeated listening before learning any music theory), and then said student would learn to appreciate the beauty in much of Western Classical music. I would also believe much the same thing about traditional Japanese music, of which I am currently woefully ignorant.


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> The other issue is whether classical music is better than other types of music. To be honest, I've been reading posts on TC for over 10 years and do not see that view being hammered into the forum ad nauseum. In fact I would guess that most people on TC do believe classical is better in some sense than other music. I do, but I don't feel that's particularly important. Possibly your belief that "Classical Music Is No Better Than Any Other" seems like officially sanctioned trolling indicates either a bias in your reading of TC posts or a misunderstanding of trolling. It's simply a view of some members here. Why the fuss?


I've seen it often enough to disagree with some of the sentiments behind it and to get rapped across the knuckles for "negativity and trolling" for doing so. Shall I copy and paste the official indictment? :lol:


----------



## BachIsBest

mmsbls said:


> Given that so few people listen to classical in the culture where it is most prevalent, I would guess that most people in the world do not find classical music nearly as beautiful as you or I do.


I would posit that beauty isn't what many people look for when they choose what music to listen to.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> I understand the point. How could I not. I don't know how many times the preference of someone from Africa has been mentioned.  Besides that, I think it's a given that anyone who is into classical music already knows how much of a niche it is and doesn't need to be reminded how many people prefer other genres and how many different cultures prefer their own music. To me, that having been acknowledged, there isn't much left to discuss on that subject. (Digressing, I'm still amazed at how much classical music is found to be beautiful by so many Chinese and Japanese minds.)
> 
> I can't help but add that I don't know why this thread has been used by some to periodically slap us around for theoretically not appreciating the music of other cultures as if we are little children who need some splaining. I believe there is something special about CM of the CPT period. I think it was an amazing period of music of great beauty, complexity and majesty and I know it will never happen again. I don't make comparisons with music of other cultures because I don't know much about it. And I don't feel the slightest obligation to learn about it, contrary to what a few posters imply.


I generally agree with your comments on classical music. To me it's beautiful, profound, and moving unlike other music I know. I don't feel the need or desire to learn about other types of music, and that's perfectly fine.



DaveM said:


> When I read the OP, while it wasn't specific, I assumed that since this is a classical music forum, that was the music in question.


Most people on TC naturally view classical music as the subject of posts on the general forum. This particular thread seems a bit more general, so when subjects such as philosophy, neuroscience, and other cultures arose, they seemed to fit. I think the main reason to bring up other cultures' music was to show that classical music, but really any music, is not necessarily considered beautiful by other people. If that is true, then the idea of beauty being resident in the music itself is less easily defended.

Personally, I think there are several differing concepts of the OP being discussed. I'm not sure exactly what the OP had in mind although I thought I did before seeing the extent of the thread discussion. I don't think the question raised in the OP is valid for only classical music, and I believe the answer is the same for any type of music (however one chooses to answer the question).


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> I'm not trying to draw a direct analogy between the appreciation of music and the appreciation of a sunset. Rather, the sunset example demonstrates that the human conception of what is beautiful is not entirely dependent upon culture, individual experience, or intersubjectivity, as some here seem to claim.


The analogy fails for me because the way we appreciate the beauty in a sunset and how we perceive beauty in music are two distinct experiences which I do not see sharing anything from which to draw an analogy.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> The Beethoven Missa Solemnis and Mass in C may be seen as more than entertainment. Sometimes I think I've arrived in the wrong forum and realized it is the Music From Around The World Appreciation forum.


What do you think abou this?:
Contemporary Music Subforum


----------



## RogerWaters

SanAntone said:


> The analogy fails for me because the way we appreciate the beauty in a sunset and how we perceive beauty in music are two distinct experiences which I do not see sharing anything from which to draw an analogy.


Lover 1: "My Love is like bright red rose"

Lover 2:"That analogy fails for me because the way we love and the way a rose blooms are two distinct things which I do not see sharing anything from which to draw an analogy"

Lover 1: .....


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> What do you think abou this?:
> Contemporary Music Subforum


I can tell you one thing about it: I'd never go there. I've had enough in this general forum to turn me off of it for a while.


----------



## RogerWaters

The idea that people only like Beethoven cause they are 'conditioned' to do so, and that, with enough effort, anyone from around the world might like Beethoven - therefore proving there are no aesthetic universals but only power or institutions/culture operating on blank-slate mailability, is a curious one.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> What do you think abou this?:
> Contemporary Music Subforum


I think that the decision should be made by those who favor the music and want their own sub forum. And of course, if the ownership and admin thinks it's a good idea. That said, I want everyone to feel welcome on the General Forum.


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> The analogy fails for me because the way we appreciate the beauty in a sunset and how we perceive beauty in music are two distinct experiences which I do not see sharing anything from which to draw an analogy.


Right. That's why in every language I know anything about (admittedly, not all of them) it would be common to describe beautiful music and a beautiful sunset using the same word. Now why you see nothing in common with these experiences, when the linguistic evidence would point to the fact the vast majority of humanity finds much in common between these two things, I don't know.


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> I would posit that beauty isn't what many people look for when they choose what music to listen to.


Which brings us back to what "beauty" in music is. If not "beauty", what are they looking for in the music they choose to listen to?



dissident said:


> The point is this is a classical music forum, but a common theme that seems to be hammered quite a bit is Classical Music Is No Better Than Any Other, ad nauseam,


This is a classical music forum, yes. And the overwhelming majority of threads are about CM, what is liked, what is listened to, who's the best (M or one of the 3 B's, ad nauseam) and so on. Most CM listeners also appreciate other music and, unsurprisingly, want to talk about that too. Some of us on both sides of the "CM is the one and only" divide are equally frustrated when clashes between viewpoints occur that seem to trash the others' likes.

That this thread has been able to continue for almost 70 pages without too much frustration seems to me a tribute to the difficulty of the subject and to people NOT resorting to trashing.


----------



## EdwardBast

BachIsBest said:


> Right. That's why in every language I know anything about (admittedly, not all of them) it would be common to describe beautiful music and a beautiful sunset using the same word. Now why you see nothing in common with these experiences, when the *linguistic evidence* would point to the fact the vast majority of humanity finds much in common between these two things, I don't know.


It could just be evidence that "beauty" is so vague a term that it can apply to anything nice or pleasant or pleasurable. And if you really think the term is meaningful and there is "much in common between [the beauty of a sunset and beautiful music]," then you should be ready and able to tell us what they have in common. Well, what do they have in common?


----------



## hammeredklavier

RogerWaters said:


> Lover 1: .....


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> The Beethoven Missa Solemnis and Mass in C may be seen as more than entertainment. Sometimes I think I've arrived in the wrong forum and realized it is the Music From Around The World Appreciation forum.


How often does one put on a Beethoven recording for religious purposes? Even the Missa Solemnis?


----------



## hammeredklavier

RogerWaters said:


> Lover 1: "My Love is like bright red rose"
> Lover 2:*"That analogy fails for me because the way we love and the way a rose blooms are two distinct things which I do not see sharing anything from which to draw an analogy"*
> Lover 1: .....


Actually at the cringey moment of silence, Lover 2 would finally speak in embarrassment:








(Yep, it's just how ridiculous the *idea* is)


----------



## fbjim

yet another tangent because we don't have enough of those


The discussion of classical music and Asia brought something to mind- One thing I've heard a lot (especially with east Asian cultures and them adopting westernization) is that westerners and east Asians have different ideas on "importing" culture. This is getting into stuff I am not an expert on, and I don't want this to become a national stereotype discussion, but what I've frequently heard is that east Asians have a "snobbish" attitude toward importing culture- i.e. they like importing the "Best", or most elevated stuff, which is why Japan produces whisky in the Scottish tradition, and why there's a handful of towers modeled after the Eiffel Tower in Japan. I knew this back in my vintage bicycle days as well- they idolized Italian racing bikes and French touring bikes, and produced their own models based on those.

Westerners, however, seem to prioritize the concept of "authenticity" when engaging with foreign culture- a lot of people traveling to a foreign country seem to place emphasis on wanting to see "the real country"- I see this a lot in discussions on the consumption of things like world music, and even world cuisine, where the idea of importing a cultural product like music, a food dish, or literature can be judged based on how "authentic" the experience is. "Authenticity" itself seems like a popular concept and has probably been discussed on aesthetic grounds very frequently. 

This is obviously not a hard-and-fast rule- but during westernization, I think you do see an attitude of "let's import the best stuff" from art, to consumer goods, to business practices, and even with politics, with regards to Asian countries adopting parliamentary systems.


----------



## BachIsBest

Forster said:


> Which brings us back to what "beauty" in music is. If not "beauty", what are they looking for in the music they choose to listen to?


Obviously a wide variety of factors; excitement, personal image, dance, clever lyrics, etc. I mean, surely if you compiled your list of the most beautiful music, and then compiled your list of your favourite music, the two would read at least a bit differently. It's ultimately hard to compile an extensive list of why people listen to certain music, but I know from speaking to fans of things other than classical music that when I ask them why they like one of their preferred genres beauty doesn't really come up.


----------



## fbjim

Forster said:


> Which brings us back to what "beauty" in music is. If not "beauty", what are they looking for in the music they choose to listen to?


I didn't think it mattered that much because "beauty" can reasonably be substituted for most any aesthetic evaluation like "excitement", "joy" or "emotion" without really changing the conclusion.


----------



## BachIsBest

EdwardBast said:


> It could just be evidence that "beauty" is so vague a term that it can apply to anything nice or pleasant or pleasurable. And if you really think the term is meaningful and there is "much in common between [the beauty of a sunset and beautiful music]," then you should be ready and able to tell us what they have in common. Well, what do they have in common?


Well, it's then vague, and vague in a virtually identical way, across many languages. I would consider this unlikely to have happened through happenstance.

Now, you are going to kill me for this, but the thing the two have in common is their beauty. Asking to describe what these two things have in common beyond beauty is like asking to describe the commonalities between a logical truth and a truth that's been verified empirically beyond any inkling of reasonable doubt beyond the fact that they are both true.

Finally, I don't think beautiful is regularly used to describe mildly pleasant things, except when it's used as an overstatement.


----------



## BachIsBest

fbjim said:


> I didn't think it mattered that much because "beauty" can reasonably be substituted for most any aesthetic evaluation like "excitement", "joy" or "emotion" without really changing the conclusion.


No, they can't. The thing these words all have in common is that they all have very positive connotations. If you believe that saying "that music is beautiful" is really just a fancy way of saying "I like that music", then I suppose all the statements would be the same as they just all say "I like that music"; in fact, why don't we forgo writing anything about the music we like, beyond that we like (maybe even throw in a star rating about how much we like it).

To the rest of humanity that believes one can meaningfully describe music beyond "I like it", then saying the music is exciting is clearly not the same as saying the music is beautiful.


----------



## Forster

Beauty might be on a continuum from mild pleasure to ecstasy, but for me, it's all part and parcel of what I get out of music, whether it's emotional or intellectual pleasure.

Other terms...like exciting...can be used as synonyms for beautiful, or perhaps elaborations.


----------



## mmsbls

EdwardBast said:


> It could just be evidence that "beauty" is so vague a term that it can apply to anything nice or pleasant or pleasurable. And if you really think the term is meaningful and there is "much in common between [the beauty of a sunset and beautiful music]," then you should be ready and able to tell us what they have in common. Well, what do they have in common?


In other threads on beauty, many made this point (i.e. beauty is too vague a term). Personally I use beauty to describe music, math, physics, people, paintings, etc. so finding the common thread for all those objects would be somewhat difficult. The closest I can find is a feeling I have when I listen to some music, think about certain physics, or look at some people or paintings. The feeling combines extreme enjoyment coupled with a sort of wonder that something can be so moving. Given that I view beauty as something similar when experiencing certain sensory inputs (e.g. hearing music, seeing people) and when I think about concepts (e.g. Maxwell's equations in physics), I naturally view beauty as manifest in the brain.


----------



## fbjim

BachIsBest said:


> No, they can't. The thing these words all have in common is that they all have very positive connotations. If you believe that saying "that music is beautiful" is really just a fancy way of saying "I like that music", then I suppose all the statements would be the same as they just all say "I like that music"; in fact, why don't we forgo writing anything about the music we like, beyond that we like (maybe even throw in a star rating about how much we like it).
> 
> To the rest of humanity that believes one can meaningfully describe music beyond "I like it", then saying the music is exciting is clearly not the same as saying the music is beautiful.


I don't mean those words mean the same thing, I mean that the conclusion of whether aesthetic evaluations are an innate quality don't change based on what is being evaluated (excepting specific cases where someone is looking for something concrete in the music, like its use of counterpoint). It would be strange to consider beauty an innate part of music, but not consider "joy" or "pathos" to be.


----------



## 59540

The logic underpinning this is as "beautiful" as that of a mathematical equation:





And Bach's music is full of this.


----------



## fluteman

EdwardBast said:


> It could just be evidence that "beauty" is so vague a term that it can apply to anything nice or pleasant or pleasurable. And if you really think the term is meaningful and there is "much in common between [the beauty of a sunset and beautiful music]," then you should be ready and able to tell us what they have in common. Well, what do they have in common?


Here are three pieces of music I consider to be stunningly beautiful: Pictures at an Exhibition (Modest Mussorgsky), Petrouchka (Igor Stravinsky) and Notations (Pierre Boulez). These aren't chosen randomly. The influence of the first on the second, and that of the second on the third, are clear. No music theory or history expertise needed. You don't even need to listen to them to know they arise from a common musical tradition. Just look at the videos.

But that's just me. I grew up in a family of classical musicians. As a toddler, I was sitting under the music stands in the living room listening to the string quartets of Haydn, Mozart, Schubert, Schumann and Brahms played live. At the age of four, I saw Disney's Fantasia and was overwhelmed, especially by the music of Stravinsky and Debussy. My first piano teacher, who was the wife of Swiss composer, conductor and pianist Ernst Levy, started me on Book I of Bartok's Mikrokosmos.

Yes, others can do and listen to and appreciate similar things, even starting as adults, and even if they are Chinese. But most don't and won't. They grow up and live in different cultures, environments and soundscapes. They end up with musical tastes that differ from mine. That is the reality of human existence. Unless someone not only learns about, but embraces, the cultural and musical traditions of Mussorgsky, Stravinsky and Boulez, he or she will never detect any beauty in their music.

I find it especially ludicrous that some here who insist beauty is inherent in music also insist there is beauty in Mussorgsky, and perhaps even Stravinsky, whereas the music of Boulez is an abomination foisted upon us by a conspiracy of critics and academicians, even to the point of suggesting that it isn't really "classical", and should be shunted to a specialized subforum.

IMHO, people who make comments like that are the ones who do not know what classical music is.


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> A pianist or choir member in Seoul or Beijing very well may love the music of Bach just as much as I do and for the same reasons. What are those reasons?


I thought you had no interest in neuroscience?


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> I thought you had no interest in neuroscience?


So neuroscientifically there is something in Bach's music that triggers the same reaction in brains that developed in widely different cultures?


----------



## BachIsBest

fbjim said:


> I don't mean those words mean the same thing, I mean that the conclusion of whether aesthetic evaluations are an innate quality don't change based on what is being evaluated (excepting specific cases where someone is looking for something concrete in the music, like its use of counterpoint). It would be strange to consider beauty an innate part of music, but not consider "joy" or "pathos" to be.


No, it wouldn't be, as joy is an emotion the listener feels, beauty is a quality of the music. I mean, these are just the definitions of the words. When we say music is joyful, we are saying it causes joy; whether or not this is due to a specific quality of the music is not the point of this thread.


----------



## BachIsBest

Forster said:


> Beauty might be on a continuum from mild pleasure to ecstasy, but for me, it's all part and parcel of what I get out of music, whether it's emotional or intellectual pleasure.
> 
> Other terms...like exciting...can be used as synonyms for beautiful, or perhaps elaborations.


Language is pointless if we don't use words to mean what they mean. Exciting is not a synonym for beauty, it never has been, and to say it is, is wrong.


----------



## EdwardBast

BachIsBest said:


> Now, you are going to kill me for this, but the thing the two have in common is their beauty.


I think murder might be an overreaction - but pointing out that this is a tautology seems a reasonable response.

This illustrates a more general problem in this thread. _Where_ the beauty is is an easy question answered numerous times above. The difficult and more interesting question is the more basic one: _What_ is the beauty in music? Answering where it is before anyone addresses what it is is pointless.


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> Language is pointless if we don't use words to mean what they mean. Exciting is not a synonym for beauty, it never has been, and to say it is, is wrong.


Then what are _you _saying beauty is?

(I did say 'or elaborations' - by which I mean an explanation of what it is I find beautiful.)


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> How often does one put on a Beethoven recording for religious purposes? Even the Missa Solemnis?


How often do people put on a recording of a Mass with a Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei with no religious purpose? Do you know?


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> How often do people put on a recording of a Mass with a Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei with no religious purpose? Do you know?


That was a legitimate question, not a rhetorical one. But it should be fairly obvious that one does not have to be Catholic to listen to a mass recording, and that many do listen to them for entertainment - including live performances in a classical concert context.


----------



## fluteman

BachIsBest said:


> Language is pointless if we don't use words to mean what they mean. Exciting is not a synonym for beauty, it never has been, and to say it is, is wrong.


Adjectives are rarely perfect synonyms, but beautiful and exciting are close. An illustration directly from a thesaurus: beautiful = stunning = sensational = exciting.

Perhaps your narrow definition of "beauty" is a reflection of relatively narrow aesthetic tastes. What should we take from your pronouncement that those who prefer a broader definition are "wrong"?


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> That was a legitimate question, not a rhetorical one. But it should be fairly obvious that one does not have to be Catholic to listen to a mass recording, and that many do listen to them for entertainment - including live performances in a classical concert context.


It's not the composer's fault if some listeners mis-hear or misuse what they wrote though. I don't think the Missa solemnis was intended to accompany garden parties and wine tastings.


----------



## BachIsBest

EdwardBast said:


> I think murder might be an overreaction - but pointing out that this is a tautology seems a reasonable response.
> 
> This illustrates a more general problem in this thread. _Where_ the beauty is is an easy question answered numerous times above. The difficult and more interesting question is the more basic one: _What_ is the beauty in music? Answering where it is before anyone addresses what it is is pointless.





Forster said:


> Then what are _you _saying beauty is?
> 
> (I did say 'or elaborations' - by which I mean an explanation of what it is I find beautiful.)


As I have explained previously in this thread, I believe "beauty", like "goodness" or "truth", is a word that describes a notion that is fundamental in the sense that it can not be defined through other words in a non-circular fashion. To ask "what is beauty" is a very good question that many people have grappled with; however, I have no more the answer to that question than I do the answer to "what is truth". Despite the inability of anyone to define "truth" in a philosophically satisfactory way, everyone, based on their general life experience, seems to have an intuitive grasp of what truth is. "Beauty", is similar.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> It's not the composer's fault if some listeners mis-hear or misuse what they wrote though. I don't think the Missa solemnis was intended to accompany garden parties and wine tastings.


Many classical pieces are enjoyed out of their original intended context - this is just part of how the evaluation of art changes over time. Given the popularity of some sacred works, I think it's fairly clear that there is a large audience for listening to a Requiem mass or a Te Deum as entertainment, and not in a sacred context.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> Many classical pieces are enjoyed out of their original intended context - this is just part of how the evaluation of art changes over time. Given the popularity of some sacred works, I think it's fairly clear that there is a large audience for listening to a Requiem mass or a Te Deum as entertainment, and not in a sacred context.


Which sometimes might betray an ignorance as to what a Requiem and Te Deum are. I don't think we'd ever classify Tibetan chant as "entertainment".


----------



## fluteman

Just from the last page or two of this thread, I've learned that those (like me) for whom beauty encompasses excitement are "wrong", and those who (like me) listen to Beethoven's Missa Solemnis for mere enjoyment or entertainment are "mis-hearing" the music.

I don't know how I could have missed these basic truths all my life. As they are so starkly self-evident I won't be asking for proof of any kind.


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> As I have explained previously in this thread, I believe "beauty", like "goodness" or "truth", is a word that describes a notion that is fundamental in the sense that it can not be defined through other words in a non-circular fashion. To ask "what is beauty" is a very good question that many people have grappled with; however, I have no more the answer to that question than I do the answer to "what is truth". Despite the inability of anyone to define "truth" in a philosophically satisfactory way, everyone, based on their general life experience, seems to have an intuitive grasp of what truth is. "Beauty", is similar.


That's fine. Maybe you won't mind if some of us have a more mundane view of the attributes of "beauty", since it's all up for grabs.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> Which sometimes might betray an ignorance as to what a Requiem and Te Deum are. I don't think we'd ever classify Tibetan chant as "entertainment".


Possibly? I guess you could consider the programming of string quartets never intended for public performance a "betrayal" as well. The programming of classical sacred music as entertainment is pretty much established in the classical performance tradition, however- I'm not aware of too many people who write angry letters when an orchestra plays the Mozart Requiem in a concert setting.


----------



## fluteman

dissident said:


> I don't think we'd ever classify Tibetan chant as "entertainment".


I don't see how anyone who isn't Tibetan, or at least familiar with their culture and religion, could view it as anything else.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> That was a legitimate question, not a rhetorical one. But it should be fairly obvious that one does not have to be Catholic to listen to a mass recording, and that many do listen to them for entertainment - including live performances in a classical concert context.


Read your original post. It suggests that people would be unlikely to listen to Beethoven for religious purposes. You're the one who suggested an extreme position, not me.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> Read your original post. It suggests that people would be unlikely to listen to Beethoven for religious purposes. You're the one who suggested an extreme position, not me.


When you see the Missa Solemnis evaluated, how often do you see it evaluated based on musical content versus how well it fulfills its functional role in a mass setting?


----------



## BachIsBest

fluteman said:


> Just from the last page or two of this thread, I've learned that those (like me) for whom beauty encompasses excitement are "wrong", and those who (like me) listen to Beethoven's Missa Solemnis for mere enjoyment or entertainment are "mis-hearing" the music.


Beauty is a quality of a thing, excitement is an emotion. You are wrong if you think (as you previously claimed) that these are synonyms, and you are also wrong if you think beauty encompasses excitement.


----------



## BachIsBest

Forster said:


> That's fine. Maybe you won't mind if some of us have a more mundane view of the attributes of "beauty", since it's all up for grabs.


It's not all up for grabs any more than the definition of truth is all up for grabs.

Ultimately, we can, of course, just disagree.


----------



## 59540

fluteman said:


> I don't see how anyone who isn't Tibetan, or at least familiar with their culture and religion, could view it as anything else.


But you'd be the first to object to such a characterization.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> Possibly? I guess you could consider the programming of string quartets never intended for public performance a "betrayal" as well. ...


What string quartets would those be? The B Minor Mass and Art of Fugue probably weren't meant for public performance either. That doesn't mean I'd be correct to call them "entertainment".


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> When you see the Missa Solemnis evaluated, how often do you see it evaluated based on musical content versus how well it fulfills its functional role in a mass setting?


You're just being evasive. You suggested what you did. Own up to it.

And just for the record, I never said or insinuated that there aren't a lot of people who don't have a religious motive to listen to those works.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> When you see the Missa Solemnis evaluated, how often do you see it evaluated based on musical content versus how well it fulfills its functional role in a mass setting?


More often than not I see the two aspects discussed at the same time.


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> Beauty is a quality of a thing, excitement is an emotion. You are wrong if you think (as you previously claimed) that these are synonyms, and you are also wrong if you think beauty encompasses excitement.


But that is the point of dispute: is beauty a quality of a thing?


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> It's not the composer's fault if some listeners mis-hear or misuse what they wrote though. I don't think the Missa solemnis was intended to accompany garden parties and wine tastings.


"Even as early as the 19th Century the mass was already popularly referred to as the "Coronation Mass". The nickname grew out of the misguided belief that Mozart had written the mass for Salzburg's annual celebration of the anniversary of the crowning of the Shrine of the Virgin. The more likely explanation is that it was one of the works that was performed during the coronation festivities in Prague, either as early as August 1791 for Leopold II, or certainly for Leopold's successor Francis I in August 1792. (There is a set of parts dating from 1792, and the same parts were probably used the year before.) It seems that Mozart must have seen the chance to be represented at the coronation festivities in 1791, not only with La clemenza di Tito, but also with a mass composition: he wrote from Prague requesting that the parts for his old Mass in C be sent to him there. He was held in very high regard in Prague: The Marriage of Figaro had been a smash hit there, and they had commissioned Don Giovanni. It seems likely therefore that the city would have taken on the mass as its own, and the nickname would have grown from there.
http://www.choirs.org.uk/prognotes/Mozart Cornonation Mass.htm
Certainly the music itself is celebratory in nature, and would have fitted a coronation or Easter Day service perfectly. The soloists are continually employed either as a quartet, in pairs or in solo lines that contrast with the larger forces of the choir. The most stunning examples are the central hushed section of the Credo, and later when the Hosanna section of the Benedictus is well under way, the quartet begins the piece again, seemingly in the wrong place! Perhaps the most obvious reason for the mass's popularity in Prague in 1791/2 was the uncanny similarity between the soprano solo Agnus Dei and the Countess's aria Dove sono from Figaro which had been so successful there in the 1780's."


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> You're just being evasive. You suggested what you did. Own up to it.
> 
> And just for the record, I never said or insinuated that there aren't a lot of people who don't have a religious motive to listen to those works.


Own up to what? Asking a question about how often people put on recordings of Beethoven Masses for the purpose of religious worship?

I have no idea what you are accusing me of, so no, I won't own up to it.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> .............,,long quote........


Yeah...Coronation or Easter festivities. So? And what does that have to do with the Missa solemnis?


----------



## fluteman

BachIsBest said:


> Beauty is a quality of a thing, excitement is an emotion. You are wrong if you think (as you previously claimed) that these are synonyms, and you are also wrong if you think beauty encompasses excitement.


That's an interesting post for two reasons. First, because it is you who is wrong on the English usage point, not me, as I was able to demonstrate after consulting an English language thesaurus for about two minutes. You seem not to understand that synonyms seldom are perfect and meanings seldom exact. But (slightly) more interestingly, because so you and so many others here appear to believe that aesthetic tastes, or what one experiences from music, can ever be matters of absolute right or wrong.

Your and other's insistence on viewing these things as absolutes seems to have stripped you of your ability to understand ordinary English words, much less music, and forced you into some bizarre conclusions.


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> That's an interesting post for two reasons. First, because it is you who is wrong on the English usage point, not me, as I was able to demonstrate after consulting an English language thesaurus for about two minutes. You seem not to understand that synonyms seldom are perfect and meanings seldom exact. But (slightly) more interestingly, because so you and so many others here appear to believe that aesthetic tastes, or what one experiences from music, can ever be matters of absolute right or wrong.
> 
> Your and other's insistence on viewing these things as absolutes seems to have stripped you of your ability to understand ordinary English words, much less music, and forced you into some bizarre conclusions.


I find beauty can encompass many things other than the superficial understanding of beauty, i.e. pretty sounds. If a piece of music excites my mind, I might refer to it as beautiful. Also, if it moves me, if it is memorable, if there's something surprising about it, if it interests me, i.e. gets my imagination and mind moving - it is beautiful. If it gets my body moving, yep, beautiful.

The odd thing is that usually the music people say is beautiful, e.g. Tchaikovsky, does none of those things to me.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> In other threads on beauty, many made this point (i.e. beauty is too vague a term). Personally I use beauty to describe music, math, physics, people, paintings, etc. so finding the common thread for all those objects would be somewhat difficult. The closest I can find is a feeling I have when I listen to some music, think about certain physics, or look at some people or paintings. The feeling combines extreme enjoyment coupled with a sort of wonder that something can be so moving. Given that I view beauty as something similar when experiencing certain sensory inputs (e.g. hearing music, seeing people) and when I think about concepts (e.g. Maxwell's equations in physics), I naturally view beauty as manifest in the brain.


Beauty is conceived of in the brain of the composer or painter, and then it's encoded into a score. So the beauty's in the score (and in that composer's memory). Where else would it be?


----------



## mmsbls

Forster said:


> But that is the point of dispute: is beauty a quality of a thing?


I do believe that the OP essentially is asking whether beauty is a quality of a thing (Is beauty in the music or elsewhere?)

As I mentioned earier, I believe that beauty is more closely related to emotions than a quality of something. For me, beauty has to do with the wonder I experience when I feel something so moving. That wonder of something so moving seems like an emotion experienced inside my brain rather than something associated with an object.

I do think that beauty is distinct from pure excitement.


----------



## mmsbls

Luchesi said:


> Beauty is conceived of in the brain of the composer or painter, and then it's encoded into a score. So the beauty's in the score (and in that composer's memory). Where else would it be?


I would say the beauty exists in the composer's brain and is communicated to the listener's brain using a score and sound waves that interact with the listener's brain. So beauty would exist in both brains.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> I would say the beauty exists in the composer's brain and is communicated to the listener's brain using a score and sound waves that interact with the listener's brain. So beauty would exist in both brains.


Actually, it's only a flash in the brain. Can we say it exists. I don't think so. It's a flash of recognition of a pattern or a resolution, but what's there physically goes away within seconds or minutes. And the music is fleeting of course.


----------



## BachIsBest

fluteman said:


> That's an interesting post for two reasons. First, because it is you who is wrong on the English usage point, not me, as I was able to demonstrate after consulting an English language thesaurus for about two minutes. You seem not to understand that synonyms seldom are perfect and meanings seldom exact. But (slightly) more interestingly, because so you and so many others here appear to believe that aesthetic tastes, or what one experiences from music, can ever be matters of absolute right or wrong.
> 
> Your and other's insistence on viewing these things as absolutes seems to have stripped you of your ability to understand ordinary English words, much less music, and forced you into some bizarre conclusions.


What thesaurus has excitement as a synonym for beauty? I just consulted a couple of online ones and couldn't find any that do.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/beauty

https://www.google.com/search?q=synonyms+of+beauty&oq=synonyms+of+beauty&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i10l6j0i512l3.772j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/beauty

https://www.lexico.com/synonyms/beauty

Synonyms seldom are perfect, but excitement and beauty just aren't even close.


----------



## BachIsBest

Forster said:


> But that is the point of dispute: is beauty a quality of a thing?


Well yes, and that's precisely what is so silly.

Oxford Languages: "a combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight." (admittedly, this defines beauty as a combination of qualities)

Merriam-Webster: "the qualities in a person or a thing that give pleasure to the senses or the mind"

Cambridge: "the quality of being pleasing, especially to look at, or someone or something that gives great pleasure, especially when you look at it" (admittedly, the or here makes this one slightly vaguer)

Collins: "the combination of all the qualities of a person or thing that delight the senses and please the mind" (admittedly, this defines beauty as a combination of qualities)

In any case, to say that beauty is not in any sense a quality of the music itself clearly flies in contradiction of how the word is defined and used.


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> I find beauty can encompass many things other than the superficial understanding of beauty, i.e. pretty sounds. If a piece of music excites my mind, I might refer to it as beautiful. Also, if it moves me, if it is memorable, if there's something surprising about it, if it interests me, i.e. gets my imagination and mind moving - it is beautiful. If it gets my body moving, yep, beautiful.
> 
> The odd thing is that usually the music people say is beautiful, e.g. Tchaikovsky, does none of those things to me.


I'm just not sure what the point of the word beauty is if you just use it to say "I like that".


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> I'm just not sure what the point of the word beauty is if you just use it to say "I like that".


I wrote much more than "I like it." But I don't see the point in a philosophical definition of beauty.


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> I wrote much more than "I like it." But I don't see the point in a philosophical definition of beauty.


Yes. You wrote.



SanAntone said:


> I find beauty can encompass many things other than the superficial understanding of beauty, i.e. pretty sounds. If a piece of music excites my mind, I might refer to it as beautiful. Also, if it moves me, if it is memorable, if there's something surprising about it, if it interests me, i.e. gets my imagination and mind moving - it is beautiful. If it gets my body moving, yep, beautiful.


Forgive me, you do not say it means "I like that". But, by the above, is there any music you like that you would not call beautiful. At the end you quite literally wrote



SanAntone said:


> If it gets my body moving, yep, beautiful.


so is beauty just a description to be tossed around at any music that makes you want to dance? Does anyone use beauty to describe any music that just makes them want to dance other than you?


----------



## mmsbls

BachIsBest said:


> In any case, to say that beauty is not in any sense a quality of the music itself clearly flies in contradiction of how the word is defined and used.


I agree with your statement completely. But I still believe that beauty is more properly described as residing in the brain.

Dictionaries are not required to take into account subtle physical or philosophical ideas in order to create definitions, and people routinely use words in a general rather than technically correct way.

The definition of contact is "the state or condition of physical touching," but nothing physically touches. When I sit on a chair, the molecules in my pants are being electromagnetically repeled by the molecules in the chair such that no physical touching occurs.

When people say the sun rises in the sky, they are incorrect.

So definitions are useful but don't necessarily incorporate everything known about a word or concept.


----------



## fbjim

mmsbls said:


> I agree with your statement completely. But I still believe that beauty is more properly described as residing in the brain.
> 
> Dictionaries are not required to take into account subtle physical or philosophical ideas in order to create definitions, and people routinely use words in a general rather than technically correct way.
> 
> The definition of contact is "the state or condition of physical touching," but nothing physically touches. When I sit on a chair, the molecules in my pants are being electromagnetically repeled by the molecules in the chair such that no physical touching occurs.
> 
> When people say the sun rises in the sky, they are incorrect.
> 
> So definitions are useful but don't necessarily incorporate everything known about a word or concept.


i find it interesting as well that every definition specifically mentions that the specific quality is that it gives _pleasure_ to humans. so not some sort of irreducible, fundamental first order concept, but in fact a simple word to describe that it pleases our (or one's) aesthetic senses.


----------



## mmsbls

Luchesi said:


> Actually, it's only a flash in the brain. Can we say it exists. I don't think so. It's a flash of recognition of a pattern or a resolution, but what's there physically goes away within seconds or minutes. And the music is fleeting of course.


I'm not sure I understand what you mean. When someone listens, the recognition of a pattern, the sense of beauty, or the music itself may be fleeting, but neural connections may be strengthened such that one could remember the music and re-experience the beauty.


----------



## BachIsBest

fbjim said:


> i find it interesting as well that every definition specifically mentions that the specific quality is that it gives _pleasure_ to humans. so not some sort of irreducible, fundamental first order concept, but in fact a simple word to describe that it pleases our (or one's) aesthetic senses.


No, it describes that the thing has the quality that pleases our senses, not that it merely pleases our senses. That quality is what I think is such a hard thing to get at. The dictionary doesn't say what this quality is, only that it results in pleasuring the senses.


----------



## BachIsBest

mmsbls said:


> I agree with your statement completely. But I still believe that beauty is more properly described as residing in the brain.
> 
> Dictionaries are not required to take into account subtle physical or philosophical ideas in order to create definitions, and people routinely use words in a general rather than technically correct way.
> 
> The definition of contact is "the state or condition of physical touching," but nothing physically touches. When I sit on a chair, the molecules in my pants are being electromagnetically repeled by the molecules in the chair such that no physical touching occurs.
> 
> When people say the sun rises in the sky, they are incorrect.
> 
> So definitions are useful but don't necessarily incorporate everything known about a word or concept.


So yes, words and phrases aren't always used in a totally scientifically accurate sense. However, this is a bit different. Let's take your contact definition. To the best of our knowledge, everything is described by things called "fields". The fact we then observe what seem to be physical objects is then a bit of an illusion resulting from the various interactions of these underlying fields. As dictionaries don't assume you know quantum field theory, saying contact means "the state or condition of physical touching" is a very good approximation of reality for laymen.

In regards to the sun rising through the sky, it is a description of what is seen rather than what actually happens and as such it is entirely correct. I could say "the car faded away over the horizon", and it is clear that I am describing what I see, and not presenting a description of physical reality where the car literally fades away.

I think beauty would be quite different from either of these cases, as you are arguing that although a word is defined to be a property of an object, the word does not describe the object, but the subject perceiving that object.

Comparably, we may look at a similar sort of word "delicious", which Merriam-Webster puts down to be "affording great pleasure" or "appealing to one of the bodily senses especially of taste or smell". Here, there is no reference to the supposed qualities of the object, but only references to the subject. Thus, although delicious is used to describe food ("that meal was delicious"), I would be much more open to suggestions that deliciousness, as the word is used, is ultimately about the subject rather than the object.

All that being said, I don't think your position is untenable, just that if you take the position that beauty is not in the music, then it necessarily follows that there is no beauty.


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> I agree with your statement completely. But I still believe that beauty is more properly described as residing in the brain.
> 
> Dictionaries are not required to take into account subtle physical or philosophical ideas in order to create definitions, and people routinely use words in a general rather than technically correct way.
> 
> The definition of contact is "the state or condition of physical touching," but nothing physically touches. When I sit on a chair, the molecules in my pants are being electromagnetically repeled by the molecules in the chair such that no physical touching occurs.
> 
> When people say the sun rises in the sky, they are incorrect.
> 
> So definitions are useful but don't necessarily incorporate everything known about a word or concept.


Spoken like a true scientist. But language is a notoriously inexact science. Words aren't supposed to consistently have the same exact meaning in ordinary usage, and any good dictionary or thesaurus will reflect that. There is much nuance and variety, call it inconsistency if you like, in language that can only be understood and appreciated in the relevant context. Much like music.


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> Forgive me, you do not say it means "I like that". But, by the above, is there any music you like that you would not call beautiful. At the end you quite literally wrote


Sure. But beautiful is just one of the adjectives I might use for a piece of music I found sentimental or nostalgic. But there are several better words. If something was "pretty" beautiful might come to mind - but "pretty" music strikes me as superficial.



> so is beauty just a description to be tossed around at any music that makes you want to dance? Does anyone use beauty to describe any music that just makes them want to dance other than you?


Sure why not toss it around? I mean, I don't see any seriousness about any of this. I don't actually use the word very much since I think of it is a superficial thing to say about a piece of music.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> Sure. But beautiful is just one of the adjectives I might use for a piece of music I found especially moving and maybe sentimental or nostalgic.
> 
> Sure why not toss it around? I mean, I don't see any seriousness about any of this. I don't actually use the word very much since I think of it is a superficial thing to say about a piece of music.


In my days as a young tennis player I was watching my brother play one of the top junior players in our area. My brother was better than I was but not good enough to beat this kid. However, I remember watching my brother hit a perfect, down-the-line backhand winner, decisively winning that particular point. His opponent, a model of sportsmanship, watched it fly by, smiled, and said, "Beauty!"

So, a tennis shot can be beautiful. Yet, only a small subset of music can be? SMH.


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> In my days as a young tennis player I was watching my brother play one of the top junior players in our area. My brother was better than I was but not good enough to beat this kid. However, I remember watching my brother hit a perfect, down-the-line backhand winner, decisively winning that particular point. His opponent, a model of sportsmanship, watched it fly by, smiled, and said, "Beauty!"
> 
> So, a tennis shot can be beautiful. Yet, only a small subset of music can be? SMH.


In my years as a touring musician the word beautiful could be used for "okay" "nice" "wonderful" "fantastic" - depending upon the inflection it could also mean, "oh, wonderful" that is, "lousy."

We hardly ever described music as "beautiful," because as I said, it was a pretty weak word and did not capture what usually impressed us about someone's playing or the music we were hearing.


----------



## tdc

I bet this issue will finally be resolved any post now. Once we know the truth beyond any shadow of a doubt we can alert the scientific journals and make this thread a sticky.


----------



## BachIsBest

fluteman said:


> In my days as a young tennis player I was watching my brother play one of the top junior players in our area. My brother was better than I was but not good enough to beat this kid. However, I remember watching my brother hit a perfect, down-the-line backhand winner, decisively winning that particular point. His opponent, a model of sportsmanship, watched it fly by, smiled, and said, "Beauty!"
> 
> So, a tennis shot can be beautiful. Yet, only a small subset of music can be? SMH.


Beauty has a different meaning when used as a countable noun...


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> ..So, a tennis shot can be beautiful. Yet, only a small subset of music can be? SMH.











I'm trying hard, really hard...


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> Sure. But beautiful is just one of the adjectives I might use for a piece of music I found sentimental or nostalgic. But there are several better words. If something was "pretty" beautiful might come to mind - but "pretty" music strikes me as superficial.
> 
> Sure why not toss it around? I mean, I don't see any seriousness about any of this. I don't actually use the word very much since I think of it is a superficial thing to say about a piece of music.


For millennia, since at least the Greeks, philosophers, poets and artists have mulled over and taken beauty very, very, seriously. You can find quotes of many famous composers where they describe music, in a serious manner, as beautiful to express their sincere admiration for it; you can find other quotes or writing where they even provide opinions on beauty. In the famous story, where Beethoven sat at the piano hitting the deepest keys and said "Is it not beautiful?", was he not weeping over the loss of the beauty of music?

Tossing around, or calling something superficial, that which others take very, very, seriously, demonstrates a lack of respect for those others. Now, to you, I'm just some random guy on the internet and you have no real reason to afford me that level of respect, but surely, as an admirer of classical music, you have a level of respect of the great composers of the past and their art and would not so desecrate that which they took very seriously and often, at least partly, based their art around.

Or not.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> In my years as a touring musician the word beautiful could be used for "okay" "nice" "wonderful" "fantastic" - depending upon the inflection it could also mean, "oh, wonderful" that is, "lousy."
> 
> We hardly ever described music as "beautiful," because as I said, it was a pretty weak word and did not capture what usually impressed us about someone's playing or the music we were hearing.


That's the way language is. Maybe you've heard the NPR radio show From The Top, that features talented young classical musicians, and originally was hosted by Christopher O'Riley, a top classical pianist who often would accompany these teen-aged or younger superstars when they performed, as well as interview them.

Aside from being a great professional pianist, O'Riley is one funny guy. He was interviewing a young trumpet prodigy who was making his mark in both the classical and jazz worlds. Apparently this young man had met Wynton Marsalis, who said to him, "I've heard you're bad!" (Meaning, of course, very good in jazz speak). O'Riley turned this into a running joke. After this kid turned in a superb classical music performance, O'Riley deadpanned, "No question about it. You're bad."


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> Yeah...Coronation or Easter festivities. So? And what does that have to do with the Missa solemnis?


The Beethoven missa solemnis is written in a similar idiomatic vein, albeit much more expansive in scale and "Beethovenian" in character; (ie. the serene 'kyrie' and the jubilant 'Et vitam venturi'). Although the credo with its repeated two-note motif is more reminiscent of K.257 than K.317.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure I understand what you mean. When someone listens, the recognition of a pattern, the sense of beauty, or the music itself may be fleeting, but neural connections may be strengthened such that one could remember the music and re-experience the beauty.


I thought you would say that. The pathway will be reinforced, at least if you have enough experience with music. But I wouldn't find the pathway beautiful, I'm guessing.. The thing that's beautiful is not a thing that exists as electro-chemical traces in the brain (but there's nothing else 'existing' as 'beautiful' except the score).


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> I thought you would say that. The pathway will be reinforced, at least if you have enough experience with music. But I wouldn't find the pathway beautiful, I'm guessing.. The thing that's beautiful is not a thing that exists as electro-chemical traces in the brain (but there's nothing else 'existing' as 'beautiful' except the score).


What about music that has no score? What about music that's improvised as its being played or sung and is never played or sung again? The physical manifestation of music is sound waves, not a score.


----------



## mmsbls

BachIsBest said:


> I think beauty would be quite different from either of these cases, as you are arguing that although a word is defined to be a property of an object, the word does not describe the object, but the subject perceiving that object.


I don't think beauty describes the subject but rather the specific neural processes associated with the sense of beauty.



BachIsBest said:


> All that being said, I don't think your position is untenable, just that if you take the position that beauty is not in the music, then it necessarily follows that there is no beauty.


There's no question that people experience a perception of beauty, so beauty does exist. I understand that many (most?) people will not believe that or understand how beauty can exist as neural processes, but I have no problem with that possibility.


----------



## RogerWaters

Beauty does not describe the bloody neural processes! If it did, we’d say “what a beautiful neural process” when looking at a sunset.

Stop. We find things in the world beautiful. Not neural processes (unless you are a neuroscientist- but then the neural process is your sunset).

Now, this is perfectly consistent with beauty being a *subjective* quality (of the world!). Philosophers call it a ‘secondary’ quality to denote that the experience, with its accompanying quality, is shaped by the brain to a grater ‘amount’ than, say, the experience of size. Note, however, that has not been easy to give a theory of differing causal contributions (objective world vs brain) to experience .


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> Well yes, and that's precisely what is so silly.
> 
> Oxford Languages: "a combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight." (admittedly, this defines beauty as a combination of qualities)
> 
> Merriam-Webster: "the qualities in a person or a thing that give pleasure to the senses or the mind"
> 
> Cambridge: "the quality of being pleasing, especially to look at, or someone or something that gives great pleasure, especially when you look at it" (admittedly, the or here makes this one slightly vaguer)
> 
> Collins: "the combination of all the qualities of a person or thing that delight the senses and please the mind" (admittedly, this defines beauty as a combination of qualities)
> 
> In any case, to say that beauty is not in any sense a quality of the music itself clearly flies in contradiction of how the word is defined and used.


None refer explicitly to sound. All refer to "pleasing the senses" or "pleasure". Some refer to a collection of attributes (which you 'admit').

You're not going to convince me that your rejection of the explanation of what beauty means to other posters should be replaced by your own "I don't really know, but this is what dictionaries say."

As you say, there is always the option to just disagree.


----------



## Forster

RogerWaters said:


> Beauty does not describe the bloody neural processes! If it did, we'd say "what a beautiful neural process" when looking at a sunset.


No, we wouldn't, any more than we would stop referring to 'hot' coffee and instead use a description of the physical processes that distinguish 'hot'.

As for what philosophers have said in the past and what they say now, they're just philosophers, not final arbiters of what is and isn't.


----------



## RogerWaters

Forster said:


> No, we wouldn't, any more than we would stop referring to 'hot' coffee and instead use a description of the physical processes that distinguish 'hot'.


No idea what you mean here.



Forster said:


> As for what philosophers have said in the past and what they say now, they're just philosophers, not final arbiters of what is and isn't.


Look at a dictionary. Beauty is a (subjective) quality of things In the world, not neural processes.

I brought up philosophers as they are people who have thought about the difference between primary and secondary qualities, what on earth is your problem with that? Who else has thought about it as systematically?

Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary/secondary_quality_distinction


----------



## Forster

RogerWaters said:


> No idea what you mean here.


Never mind. I don't need to elaborate on a pointless side issue.



RogerWaters said:


> Look at a dictionary. Beauty is a (subjective) quality of things In the world, not neural processes.


I already did and as we can all see, dictionary definitions are inadequate to the task of explaining what we experience beyond a vague statement about things that give us pleasure (but not excitement, apparently).

I assume, since you're exhorting others to read, you've already read what "the philosophers" have had to say on this issue, and also found that they don't agree either.

But it makes for interesting reading nevertheless.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/beauty/


----------



## RogerWaters

Forster said:


> Never mind. I don't need to elaborate on a pointless side issue.
> 
> I already did and as we can all see, dictionary definitions are inadequate to the task of explaining what we experience beyond a vague statement about things that give us pleasure (but not excitement, apparently).
> 
> I assume, since you're exhorting others to read, you've already read what "the philosophers" have had to say on this issue, and also found that they don't agree either.
> 
> But it makes for interesting reading nevertheless.
> 
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/beauty/


Nowhere in that Stanford article is it posited that beauty is used solipsistically to denote a property of our inner experience as opposed to a property of what it is we are experiencing. The Stanford article is mostly an exploration of what things in the world can correctly be called beautiful.

To say that dictionaries are not the correct arbiters about the use of words is extremely bizarre and somewhat pig-headed. You have some special knowledge of what people are doing with a word when they use it, to which plebeian convention is blind?


----------



## mmsbls

RogerWaters said:


> Beauty does not describe the bloody neural processes! If it did, we'd say "what a beautiful neural process" when looking at a sunset.


I don't think beauty describes the neural processes, and I don't think the neural processes are beautiful. I think beauty _is_ a set of neural processes. We're completely unaware of our neural processes, so of course we don't reference them when we experience beauty or pain or confusion or water.



RogerWaters said:


> Stop. We find things in the world beautiful. Not neural processes (unless you are a neuroscientist- but then the neural process is your sunset).


We do find things beautiful. It is simpler to refer to music as beautiful or to a face as beautiful than to reference extremely complex neural processes that arise following the external sensory inputs from sound or a picture of a face. I've given some of my reasons for believing that beauty exists inside people's brains and not in external objects. I don't expect most people to agree with me, and that's fine.


----------



## RogerWaters

mmsbls said:


> I don't think beauty describes the neural processes, and I don't think the neural processes are beautiful. I think beauty _is_ a set of neural processes.


Less wrong but still wrong. Beauty is not a set of neural processes. Beauty is different things to different people. Beauty is facial symmetry and a fertile waste-to-hip ratio to some. Beauty is Bachian counterpoint to others. What *gives rise* to different people's dispositions to find this or that thing beautiful is, proximately, certain neural processes, and ultimately, cultural conditioning, learning and evolution.


----------



## Forster

RogerWaters said:


> Nowhere in that Stanford article is it posited that beauty is used solipsistically to denote a property of our inner experience as opposed to a property of what it is we are experiencing. The Stanford article is mostly an exploration of what things in the world can correctly be called beautiful.


Stanford article:



> All plausible accounts of beauty connect it to a pleasurable or profound or loving response, even if they do not locate beauty purely in the eye of the beholder.


Dictionaries are certainly an authority on what words mean, but they cannot definitively explain the application of words to our experiences. Hence the problem with a definition that allows us to take "pleasure" to mean so many different things that it's pretty useless in setting out what is and isn't allowed to be counted as pleasure.

I'll thank you not to call me pig-headed.


----------



## RogerWaters

Of course all accounts of beauty connect it to a subjective response! Every judgement whatsoever one might make (that something is beautiful, hot, large, boring, veering off topic) is connected to a subjective response. Judgements need subjects to make them! But this doesn’t settle the matter of *reference*. This doesn’t mean beauty is used to refer to the response as opposed to the thing in the world to which that response is, well, a RESPONSE!


----------



## Forster

RogerWaters said:


> Of course all accounts of beauty connect it to a subjective response!


"All _plausible _accounts."


----------



## eljr

RogerWaters said:


> Beauty does not describe the bloody neural processes! If it did, we'd say "what a beautiful neural process" when looking at a sunset.
> 
> Stop. We find things in the world beautiful. Not neural processes (unless you are a neuroscientist- but then the neural process is your sunset).


ROTFLMAO! (my amusement is at your expressed frustration, nothing more, certainly not your views)

Not romantic enough?

Obviously it's the object that triggers the response but so can MDA 

The bottom line is, beauty is a word we use when a certain pathway is activated WITHIN US. Whatever the cause. An object or an ingestion. A sight, a sound. A texture, a smell. It's all within us.

There is no beauty in any object.

As the object we see is only the reflections of light not the actural object. by your reasoning, the light is what is beautiful not the object. That is what physically touches us. 
Same with sound. It is the soundwaves you champion as beautiful nothing more. 
IMHO, that is silly.

It's a refusal to accept life objectively. Preferring to stay within pleasing constructs we have created. This is normal and natural. This is a neural response. The brain is lazy and it prefers not to revisit established though processes.

Honest, it seems to me we all agree on just what beauty is. What we don't agree on is how we define it.

The romantic and the realist at odds not cause and effect.


----------



## eljr

BachIsBest said:


> Well yes, and that's precisely what is so silly.
> 
> Oxford Languages: "a combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight." (admittedly, this defines beauty as a combination of qualities)
> 
> Merriam-Webster: "the qualities in a person or a thing that give pleasure to the senses or the mind"
> 
> Cambridge: "the quality of being pleasing, especially to look at, or someone or something that gives great pleasure, especially when you look at it" (admittedly, the or here makes this one slightly vaguer)
> 
> Collins: "the combination of all the qualities of a person or thing that delight the senses and please the mind" (admittedly, this defines beauty as a combination of qualities)
> 
> In any case, to say that beauty is not in any sense a quality of the music itself clearly flies in contradiction of how the word is defined and used.


It is still all in the brain. :tiphat:

Seems you want to ignore what is it an object "pleases." That would be OUR BRAIN.


----------



## BachIsBest

mmsbls said:


> I don't think beauty describes the subject but rather the specific neural processes associated with the sense of beauty.


Yes, but describing the neural processes of the subject is describing a part of the subject.



mmsbls said:


> There's no question that people experience a perception of beauty, so beauty does exist. I understand that many (most?) people will not believe that or understand how beauty can exist as neural processes, but I have no problem with that possibility.


My issue with believing beauty exists as a neural process is that it is defined as a quality of an object. I actually don't think there is anything innately contradictory in thinking that beauty is essentially an illusion brought on by certain neural processes when we observe things like music, but I don't think this viewpoint allows for beauty, as it is defined and used, to exist.


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> The bottom line is, beauty is a word we use when a certain pathway is activated WITHIN US.


Again that's a description and not an explanation. *What* is it that's doing the triggering in so many different brains?


----------



## SanAntone

eljr said:


> ROTFLMAO! (my amusement is at your expressed frustration, nothing more, certainly not your views)
> 
> Not romantic enough?
> 
> Obviously it's the object that triggers the response but so can MDA
> 
> The bottom line is, beauty is a word we use when a certain pathway is activated WITHIN US. Whatever the cause. An object or an ingestion. A sight, a sound. A texture, a smell. It's all within us.
> 
> There is no beauty in any object.
> 
> As the object we see is only the reflections of light not the actural object. by your reasoning, the light is what is beautiful not the object. That is what physically touches us.
> Same with sound. It is the soundwaves you champion as beautiful nothing more.
> IMHO, that is silly.
> 
> It's a refusal to accept life objectively. Preferring to stay within pleasing constructs we have created. This is normal and natural. This is a neural response. The brain is lazy and it prefers not to revisit established though processes.
> 
> Honest, it seems to me we all agree on just what beauty is. What we don't agree on is how we define it.
> 
> The romantic and the realist at odds not cause and effect.


Would you find an analogy to color appropriate?

My crude understanding of color is this: Color does not exist in an object but is the result of the reflection of light and the frequencies of light waves being sensed by our optical system.

I could be wrong.


----------



## BachIsBest

Forster said:


> None refer explicitly to sound. All refer to "pleasing the senses" or "pleasure". Some refer to a collection of attributes (which you 'admit').


Well, hearing is a sense, so it would seem clear that sound could have the qualities of a thing that please hearing, no?



Forster said:


> You're not going to convince me that your rejection of the explanation of what beauty means to other posters should be replaced by your own "I don't really know, but this is what dictionaries say."
> 
> As you say, there is always the option to just disagree.


I think you've misunderstood me. I agree with the dictionaries, but I don't really know how to define "the qualities" that the definitions refer to, beyond the somewhat vague description of their effect. Like truth is defined as "the quality or state of being true", but really pinning down what "the quality" here is, beyond this circular definition, is nigh-impossible.


----------



## BachIsBest

eljr said:


> It is still all in the brain. :tiphat:
> 
> Seems you want to ignore what is it an object "pleases." That would be OUR BRAIN.


Well, only in so far as you can associate the brain with our conscious experiences . But, clearly, the object pleases a person (or animal, I dunno), so I get your point.

But this doesn't discount the fact that all the definitions provided define beauty as "the quality" or "the combination of qualities" of an object. Unless you apply some mental gymnastics, it's pretty hard to skirt around this fact and argue that beauty is not a quality of objects.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Would you find an analogy to color appropriate?
> 
> My crude understanding of color is this: Color does not exist in an object but is the result of the reflection of light and the frequencies of light waves being sensed by our optical system.
> 
> I could be wrong.


But we don't seem to be the only animals that can differentiate color. The light spectrum is still a thing. After a while a tree or anything else doesn't exist unless it's perceived.


----------



## Kreisler jr

The light spectrum is continuous but colors are quite distinct for us. And probably for other animals as well. 
I think it is a mistake to claim that explaining color vision by physics and physiology is "explaining away". The experience of colors does not go away if I can give an explanation of the "mechanics" behind it. And I'd claim that this appearance, the quality is the "essence" of the color, not the reductionist story.
The other position seems a fashionable disregard of actual experience, so in a way the opposite of how empiricism started. 

It's very similar with beauty. The experience doesn't go away, it's not random and it is "triggered" by properties of the objects perceived that are therefore called beautiful. 
Up to a point it is semantics but we usually distinguish between an act or content of a perception and the external object that causes it. (We need such distinctions to even understand what "illusions" are, namely (false) perceptive experiences without corresponding objects). If a red object appears purple in a certain light we clearly understand the difference between its real color and the apparent color. 
If we thought and perceived in the reductionist way some people here seem to believe is what "really really really" happens, this distinction between real and apparent would be nonsense. There would be no difference because the physics and physiology are just what they are and "purple optical cells/neurons" etc. activated would imply that the object was purple. If this was correct the object would literally change its color depending on the light (of course there fluorescent objects that do that but this is not the situation intended here). But we say that its appearance changes but it remains red. 

Beauty is more loaded and complicated because we have no such reasonably complete reductionist story as in the case of colors. But as I just argued, even in the case of colors the reduction does not really work, does not reflect what we actually experience and how we think and argue. So in the case of beauty we need to take experience seriously. The reductive stories might be interesting physiology but they are not aesthetics.


----------



## fluteman

dissident said:


> After a while a tree or anything else doesn't exist unless it's perceived.


For example, music doesn't exist unless it is perceived. So the necessary implication is, music can't be beautiful unless it is perceived.


----------



## eljr

BachIsBest said:


> Well, only in so far as you can associate the brain with our conscious experiences .


and this is but 5% of of our cognitive activity.

So this perception of beauty is really not much of anything.


----------



## EdwardBast

Oh jeez, what a mess ^ ^ ^ (referring to several pages of argumentation above) 

Beauty is a perceptual/aesthetic response in the brain to phenomena with certain qualities.

Beauty is also a suite of phenomena in the physical world that trigger a certain kind of perceptual/aesthetic response in the brain. 

Claims that beauty is in the brain or in the object are equally incomplete.


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> Again that's a description and not an explanation. *What* is it that's doing the triggering in so many different brains?


Medial orbito-frontal cortex lights up in brain scans. 
Ugly stimulated their motor cortex instead.

for your edification:








I can't offer a more definitive answer nor is one needed.

Asking questions is generally good. When done to excess it is merely disruptive. At some point one must absorb, at least in macro, What is said and join the discussion.


----------



## Roger Knox

EdwardBast said:


> Oh jeez, what a mess ^ ^ ^ (referring to several pages of argumentation above)
> 
> Beauty is a perceptual/aesthetic response in the brain to phenomena with certain qualities.
> 
> Beauty is also a suite of phenomena in the physical world that trigger a certain kind of perceptual/aesthetic response in the brain.
> 
> Claims that beauty is in the brain or in the object are equally incomplete.


True. And yes, much of the thread is a mess because people have been taken in by the original either/or poll.


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> Medial orbito-frontal cortex lights up in brain scans.
> Ugly stimulated their motor cortex instead.
> 
> for your edification:
> 
> I can't offer a more definitive answer nor is one needed.
> 
> Asking questions is generally good. When done to excess it is merely disruptive. At some point one must absorb, at least in macro, What is said and join the discussion.


So all that does is give the mechanics involved. Response to "ugly"? What's that? Wishing the question away doesn't make it go away.


----------



## 59540

Roger Knox said:


> True. And yes, much of the thread is a mess because people have been taken in by the original either/or poll.


Not those of us who said "both".


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> Not those of us who said "both".


Or didn't vote .


----------



## BachIsBest

EdwardBast said:


> Beauty is a perceptual/aesthetic response in the brain to phenomena with certain qualities.


No, beauty is those certain qualities which trigger that perceptual/aesthetic response in the brain.


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> Well, hearing is a sense, so it would seem clear that sound could have the qualities of a thing that please hearing, no?
> 
> I think you've misunderstood me. I agree with the dictionaries, but I don't really know how to define "the qualities" that the definitions refer to, beyond the somewhat vague description of their effect. Like truth is defined as "the quality or state of being true", but really pinning down what "the quality" here is, beyond this circular definition, is nigh-impossible.


Well I'm happy with what I've decided about beauty. If no-one else likes what I've proposed, I'm not going to lose sleep


----------



## eljr

BachIsBest said:


> No, beauty is those certain qualities which trigger that perceptual/aesthetic response in the brain.


You do sound determined, .


----------



## eljr

Forster said:


> Well I'm happy with what I've decided about beauty. If no-one else likes what I've proposed, I'm not going to lose sleep


If you did, if you did lose sleep over it, would it be in your brain or in the object that made you lose sleep over it?


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> So all that does is give the mechanics involved. Response to "ugly"? What's that? Wishing the question away doesn't make it go away.


Asking questions is generally good. When done to excess it is merely disruptive. At some point one must absorb, at least in macro, What is said and join the discussion.

peace


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> Oh jeez, what a mess ^ ^ ^ (referring to several pages of argumentation above)
> 
> Beauty is a perceptual/aesthetic response in the brain to phenomena with certain qualities.
> 
> Beauty is also a suite of phenomena in the physical world that trigger a certain kind of perceptual/aesthetic response in the brain.
> 
> Claims that beauty is in the brain or in the object are equally incomplete.


I think the subject is getting caught up in semantics and misunderstanding. The perception of beauty is in the brain which we have proof of from Pet Scans (as if there was any doubt).

However, there has to be something to perceive. Since we're talking about CM, I think the CPT era provides a great example. As it progressed, composers came up with increasingly incredibly beautiful works, particularly in the adagios/andantes and arias/duets of operas. It's as if there developed a blueprint for what kind of melodies (and the development thereof) would attract the majority of listeners, publishers and benefactors of the CPT period.

The fact that not everyone (who otherwise likes CPT era music) finds beauty in these works is irrelevant given that over decades to centuries so many of these works have stood the test of time as having a consensus of being judged beautiful. Not to mention that composers of this era were knowingly directly or indirectly addressing what they knew to be a target-rich environment i.e. they knew that a lot of brains would perceive particular works as being beautiful.

I could give many examples, but this one stands out. It is probably the most famous scene from one of the most famous movies, The Shawshank Redemption. Why was this music chosen? It had to be a work that the producers, directors and music directors believed had the sort of beauty that would be credible to the movie audience as being beautiful enough to entrance a prison yard full of prisoners (not to mention prison officials) looking up at the speakers.

And listen to the words spoken by the character played by Morgan Freeman. Would they have been put in the script if it wasn't likely that the audience would understand the profound meaning behind them?


----------



## fluteman

EdwardBast said:


> Oh jeez, what a mess ^ ^ ^ (referring to several pages of argumentation above)
> 
> Beauty is a perceptual/aesthetic response in the brain to phenomena with certain qualities.
> 
> Beauty is also a suite of phenomena in the physical world that trigger a certain kind of perceptual/aesthetic response in the brain.
> 
> Claims that beauty is in the brain or in the object are equally incomplete.


Yes. But the confusion endlessly prolonging this thread is not over whether there is some actual, objectively measurable physical stimulus acting on our brains and causing us to feel the aesthetic pleasure we call "beauty". Of course there is. The confusion is over the unavoidable and equally scientifically demonstrable and measurable fact that exactly the same physical stimulus can and will have very different impacts on different human brains. One person will perceive aesthetic beauty in it and and another will not.

And this is not because one person is better educated in what is "truly beautiful" than another. It is not the case that some things are "truly" or "inherently" beautiful such that everyone can and will see their beauty if only they study them carefully enough and learn enough about them. Thousands of years of human civilization have consistently demonstrated that this is not the case. Humans invariably organize themselves into distinct societies that have a unique set of cultural values, including aesthetic values. That too is objectively demonstrable fact.


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> Yes. But the confusion endlessly prolonging this thread is not over whether there is some actual, objectively measurable physical stimulus acting on our brains and causing us to feel the aesthetic pleasure we call "beauty". Of course there is. * The confusion is over the unavoidable and equally scientifically demonstrable and measurable fact that exactly the same physical stimulus can and will have very different impacts on different human brains. * One person will perceive aesthetic beauty in it and and another will not.
> 
> And this is not because one person is better educated in what is "truly beautiful" than another. It is not the case that some things are "truly" or "inherently" beautiful such that everyone can and will see their beauty if only they study them carefully enough and learn enough about them. Thousands of years of human civilization have consistently demonstrated that this is not the case. Humans invariably organize themselves into distinct societies that have a unique set of cultural values, including aesthetic values. That too is objectively demonstrable fact.


I tried to make this point a few times but somehow it never found any traction.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> I think the subject is getting caught up in semantics and misunderstanding. The perception of beauty is in the brain which we have proof of from Pet Scans (as if there was any doubt).


Sorry, I'm not quite clear about this. What is it that PET scans show?


----------



## RogerWaters

eljr said:


> ROTFLMAO! (my amusement is at your expressed frustration, nothing more, certainly not your views)
> 
> Not romantic enough?
> 
> Obviously it's the object that triggers the response but so can MDA
> 
> The bottom line is, beauty is a word we use when a certain pathway is activated WITHIN US. Whatever the cause. An object or an ingestion. A sight, a sound. A texture, a smell. It's all within us.
> 
> There is no beauty in any object.
> 
> As the object we see is only the reflections of light not the actural object. by your reasoning, the light is what is beautiful not the object. That is what physically touches us.
> Same with sound. It is the soundwaves you champion as beautiful nothing more.
> IMHO, that is silly.
> 
> It's a refusal to accept life objectively. Preferring to stay within pleasing constructs we have created. This is normal and natural. This is a neural response. The brain is lazy and it prefers not to revisit established though processes.
> 
> Honest, it seems to me we all agree on just what beauty is. What we don't agree on is how we define it.
> 
> The romantic and the realist at odds not cause and effect.


You make a lot of noise here but I don't think judgements of beauty are objective. I don't think beauty is in the external world in the sense that size, shape, and mass are.

This does not mean people find their own neural states beautiful as opposed to features of the external world.


----------



## RogerWaters

fluteman said:


> Yes. But the confusion endlessly prolonging this thread is not over whether there is some actual, objectively measurable physical stimulus acting on our brains and causing us to feel the aesthetic pleasure we call "beauty". Of course there is. The confusion is over the unavoidable and equally scientifically demonstrable and measurable fact that exactly the same physical stimulus can and will have very different impacts on different human brains. One person will perceive aesthetic beauty in it and and another will not.
> 
> And this is not because one person is better educated in what is "truly beautiful" than another. It is not the case that some things are "truly" or "inherently" beautiful such that everyone can and will see their beauty if only they study them carefully enough and learn enough about them. Thousands of years of human civilization have consistently demonstrated that this is not the case. Humans invariably organize themselves into distinct societies that have a unique set of cultural values, including aesthetic values. That too is objectively demonstrable fact.


Yawn. Thousands of years of civilisation have also shown great convergences.


----------



## eljr

DaveM said:


> I think the subject is getting caught up in semantics and misunderstanding. The perception of beauty is in the brain which we have proof of from Pet Scans (as if there was any doubt).


It was when I stated this early in the thread that the **** hit the fan.

So I would not be so sure that there is no doubt, at least here at TC.


----------



## eljr

RogerWaters said:


> You make a lot of noise here


Why, thank you... :tiphat:

It's funny how noise to one is can be a beautiful symphony to another, isn't it?

Maybe it's a matter of how one's brain interprets it?


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> Asking questions is generally good. When done to excess it is merely disruptive.


In other words, you don't know.  It's ok, I don't either.


eljr said:


> It was when I stated this early in the thread that the **** hit the fan.
> 
> So I would not be so sure that there is no doubt, at least here at TC.


Well there's really no debate that the brain perceives. Where it hits the fan is pointing out that there's a perceiver and a thing perceived.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> ..The confusion is over the unavoidable and equally scientifically demonstrable and measurable fact that exactly the same physical stimulus can and will have very different impacts on different human brains. One person will perceive aesthetic beauty in it and and another will not.


There is only confusion if one wishes to perseverate on this as if it is the overriding interesting issue rather than what is IMO the more interesting fact that within certain communities and cultures, there are stimuli that impact at lot of human brains in much the same way.


----------



## 59540

DaveM said:


> There is only confusion if one wishes to perseverate on this as if it is the overriding interesting issue rather than what is IMO the more interesting fact that within certain communities and cultures, there are stimuli that impact at lot of human brains in much the same way.


Not only within, but across very different cultures.


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> In other words, you don't know.


Of course we know the answer, albeit it be in macro.

I will not again be lead around like a domesticated farm animal with a ring in it's noise down endless corridors of fallacies is all.


----------



## adriesba

Beauty is a meaningless concept unless some subject with a brain exists to perceive beauty in something. Beauty is our brain's response to a stimulus. Hypothetically, if the world had been different, our species could have evolved to react to the same stimulus completely differently, so that we may have considered "ugliness" beautiful.

Also, how are there 76 pages in this thread already?


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> Of course we know the answer, albeit it be in macro.
> 
> I will not again be lead around like a domesticated farm animal with a ring in it's noise down endless corridors of fallacies is all.


No I think what you've been saying here is more micro than macro...it's the neural nuts and bolts but not the larger picture. It's trying to say that the micro and macro are ultimately the same thing. It's a "how" explanation and not a "why". We don't know the answer. And sorry, eljr, but like it or not "why" questions are part of being human.


----------



## hammeredklavier

eljr said:


> Asking questions is generally good. When done to excess it is merely disruptive. At some point one must absorb, at least in macro, What is said and join the discussion.


I actually like Dissident's thought-provoking, rhetoric questions. Apparently, some here find them inconvenient..


----------



## hammeredklavier

adriesba said:


> Also, how are there 76 pages in this thread already?


You should have joined us in it earlier


----------



## tdc

I don't think great music is just about being beautiful. That could be part of it, but it is too simplistic a description for me. Even if we are looking at the music of the greats like Bach or Mozart, 'beautiful' can be a descriptor sure, but at times their music is also ugly! That is what makes it better in my view. The yin and the yang, the alternation of consonance/dissonance. Music that never gets ugly would become boring and unbalanced. 

Sorry if this point has already been made, I haven't read all 76 pages.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> What about music that has no score? What about music that's improvised as its being played or sung and is never played or sung again? The physical manifestation of music is sound waves, not a score.


I don't know of any music that can't be scored, but if there are a few examples, they're so few that they're insignificant.


----------



## Captainnumber36

adriesba said:


> Beauty is a meaningless concept unless some subject with a brain exists to perceive beauty in something. Beauty is our brain's response to a stimulus. Hypothetically, if the world had been different, our species could have evolved to react to the same stimulus completely differently, so that we may have considered "ugliness" beautiful.
> 
> Also, how are there 76 pages in this thread already?


I'd just like to add that, even in this world, there are different views on what is accepted as beautiful. So it's subjective.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> I could give many examples, but this one stands out. It is probably the most famous scene from one of the most famous movies, The Shawshank Redemption. [etc]


This scene seems to represent more the cultural factors that fluteman talks about than offering any confirmation that CM must be beautiful because, in a fiction, an exercise yard full of cons all stood still and listened to Mozart. I suspect in a real yard, the cons would have a variety of reactions, not all positive.


----------



## Forster

adriesba said:


> Beauty is a meaningless concept unless some subject with a brain exists to perceive beauty in something. Beauty is our brain's response to a stimulus. Hypothetically, if the world had been different, our species could have evolved to react to the same stimulus completely differently, so that we may have considered "ugliness" beautiful.
> 
> Also, how are there 76 pages in this thread already?


Well, if you're not going to sample the 76 extensively, you'll never know. Unless you work out for yourself that simply answering a binary question is not the sole purpose of this thread.

Seeking discussions or seeking answers?


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> This scene seems to represent more the cultural factors that fluteman talks about than offering any confirmation that CM must be beautiful because, in a fiction, an exercise yard full of cons all stood still and listened to Mozart. I suspect in a real yard, the cons would have a variety of reactions, not all positive.


Well of course there would have to be a contrarian. Unfortunately, you miss the point that this work was carefully picked out to create a scene that was believable by the movie goers and it has been wildly successful for years after the year it was made. I know of no critique of the use of the Mozart work or the premise of it having an negative effect on the prisoners. Maybe I missed it.

In any event, the important moment in that scene were the words of Morgan Freeman. If you, and the 2 with Likes of your post missed it, you missed the whole point.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> Well of course there would have to be a contrarian. Unfortunately, you miss the point that this work was carefully picked out to create a scene that was believable by the movie goers and it has been wildly successful for years after the year it was made. I know of no critique of the use of the Mozart work or the premise of it having an negative effect on the prisoners. Maybe I missed it.
> 
> In any event, the important moment in that scene were the words of Morgan Freeman. If you, and the 2 with Likes of your post missed it, you missed the whole point.


Well, being a contrarian, I'm sure I did miss the whole point. Perhaps you could explain what point you are making that relates to what beauty is, where it is to be found and whether it is a universal. Maybe I'd get it then.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> I don't know of any music that can't be scored, but if there are a few examples, they're so few that they're insignificant.


Improvised music can't be scored, except perhaps in broad outline. In fact, as SanAntone pointed out many posts ago, no music can be scored completely and perfectly. Are you really unable to see that?

Doesn't this fact, i.e., that music can't be fully captured in a written score, suggest something to you? Doesn't the fact that the word "beauty" cannot be precisely and consistently defined, except as aesthetic pleasure in the perceiver, suggest something to you?

There are too many goldfish here who cannot see the bowl they are swimming in.


----------



## eljr

adriesba said:


> Beauty is a meaningless concept unless some subject with a brain exists to perceive beauty in something. Beauty is our brain's response to a stimulus. Hypothetically, if the world had been different, our species could have evolved to react to the same stimulus completely differently, so that we may have considered "ugliness" beautiful.
> 
> Also, *how are there 76 pages in this thread already?*


I have come to realize it's about romance.

It seems many find the clinical answer demeaning to the arts, which it is not.

It becomes an emotional imperative to defend the art.

It's not the case but we humans are not very rational and for the most part don't realize what our motivations are.

Peace


----------



## 59540

fluteman said:


> Improvised music can't be scored, except perhaps in broad outline. In fact, as SanAntone pointed out many posts ago, no music can be scored completely and perfectly. Are you really unable to see that?
> 
> Doesn't this fact, i.e., that music can't be fully captured in a written score, suggest something to you? Doesn't the fact that the word "beauty" cannot be precisely and consistently defined, except as aesthetic pleasure in the perceiver, suggest something to you?
> 
> There are too many goldfish here who cannot see the bowl they are swimming in.


I've heard Art of Fugue played on a piano, by a string ensemble, by a string quartet, even on partly-filled pop bottles. The sequences and combinations of tones are the same in all.


----------



## Captainnumber36

dissident said:


> I've heard Art of Fugue played on a piano, by a string ensemble, by a string quartet, even on partly-filled pop bottles. The sequences and combinations of tones are the same in all.


But all the details that make it an interpretation cannot ever be replicated on paper exactly or even from performance to performance. It's a beautiful thing, really! (think dynamics and tempo as examples).


----------



## 59540

Captainnumber36 said:


> But all the details that make it an interpretation cannot ever be replicated on paper exactly or even from performance to performance. It's a beautiful thing, really! (think dynamics and tempo as examples).


But those sequences and combinations remain the same. It's the same music whether performed on an organ, by an orchestra or by a guitar quartet.


----------



## Captainnumber36

dissident said:


> But those sequences and combinations remain the same. It's the same music whether performed on an organ, by an orchestra or by a guitar quartet.


But that's not everything that goes into a performance.


----------



## 59540

Captainnumber36 said:


> But that's not everything that goes into a performance.


But that's the sonic presentation of what's there foundationally. Different people and acting companies are going to recite/perform Shakespeare in different ways with different accents and stresses and costumes etc. But the words are still there on the paper.


----------



## Forster

Words and music are not the same. A guitar presentation and an organ presentation of the same score are not the same.


----------



## fbjim

Timbre is so foundational to music that there's works where the bulk of the development is entirely based on changes in timbre.


----------



## Captainnumber36

dissident said:


> But that's the sonic presentation of what's there foundationally. Different people and acting companies are going to recite/perform Shakespeare in different ways with different accents and stresses and costumes etc. But the words are still there on the paper.


So what point are you trying to make exactly? I agree the notes are written, as the words of shakespeare. But that's not everything that goes into the performance and has an impact on if an individual perceives it as beautiful or not.


----------



## fbjim

what _is_ true is that in classical music, we tend to credit the composer as the primary artist behind a piece. This is something of a convention, rather than something set in stone*, but works well with classical music and how we tend to study its history- we usually view it mostly as a history of composers, rather than a history of orchestras, or soloists.

*see: film where the director is- by convention- viewed as the primary artist despite the mass of people working on any given film


----------



## 59540

Captainnumber36 said:


> So what point are you trying to make exactly? I agree the notes are written, as the words of shakespeare. But that's not everything that goes into the performance and has an impact on if an individual perceives it as beautiful or not.


The point is that every performance of Bach or Shakespeare or whatever isn't some entirely new thing out of thin air. It's based on a foundation that in itself doesn't really change, except for maybe minor editorial things here and there. It's re-creation, not creation.


----------



## Captainnumber36

dissident said:


> The point is that every performance of Bach or Shakespeare or whatever isn't some entirely new thing out of thin air. It's based on a foundation that in itself doesn't really change, except for maybe minor editorial things here and there. It's re-creation, not creation.


I agree, but what does that have to do with beauty and appraising it?


----------



## SanAntone

Music is sound, so the instrument is a crucial element in the music. A score is an abstract representation of the music, but is not the music itself.

Music is only realized when it is performed on an instrument or by the human voice and we respond to the sound of the music as performed, not as displayed abstractly in the score (even those people who are able to hear the sounds in their mind's ear, will be imagining the sound of instruments).

So _The Art of Fugue_ played on an organ, or piano, or string quartet, or recorder ensemble, or marimba, all present unique iterations of the score, and the music realized will sound differently to us, and we will respond differently to it.

Or we should if we are sensitive listeners. I suppose someone who thinks it doesn't make a difference will not.


----------



## fbjim

The composer-as-primary-artist is also a convention very specific to classical music, though undoubtedly other genres of music have similar conventions- but in some genres, the performer is considered the prime artistic credit behind any performance- in fact I think this is actually more common than crediting the composer (or songwriter) 

It isn't even entirely true of classical music- we sometimes do listen specifically because we want to hear a certain soloist, or for an interpretation by a particularly romantic conductor.


----------



## arpeggio

I have been reading the latest rationalizations as applied to _The Art of the Fugue_.

Many years ago a arranger came up with a recording of "Jingle Bells" where each pitch was done by the bark of a dog.

Now if a person came up with an arrangement of _The Art of the Fugue_ with barking dogs, it might be funny, but I seriously doubt that most would find it beautiful.

After reading >1,000 posts, it still seems that the agenda of the bulk of the beauty in the music crowd is to come up with objective criteria to prove that the greatest classical music was composed in the 18th and 19th centuries.


----------



## Captainnumber36

arpeggio said:


> I have been reading the latest rationalizations as applied to _The Art of the Fugue_.
> 
> Many years ago a arranger came up with a recording of "Jingle Bells" where each pitch was done by the bark of a dog.
> 
> Now if a person came up with an arrangement of _The Art of the Fugue_ with barking dogs, it might be funny, but I seriously doubt that most would find it beautiful.
> 
> After reading >1,000 posts, it still seems that the agenda of the bulk of the beauty in the music crowd is to come up with objective criteria to prove that the greatest classical music was composed in the 18th and 19th centuries.


The beauty could be in the comedy.


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> The composer-as-primary-artist is also a convention very specific to classical music, though undoubtedly other genres of music have similar conventions- but in some genres, the performer is considered the prime artistic credit behind any performance- in fact I think this is actually more common than crediting the composer (or songwriter)
> 
> It isn't even entirely true of classical music- we sometimes do listen specifically because we want to hear a certain soloist, or for an interpretation by a particularly romantic conductor.


The fact that this comment even has to be made in a forum like TC, where entire sub-forums are entirely, or almost entirely, devoted to which recordings, which soloists, and/or which conductors are most favored, shows how ridiculous the debate in this thread is.


----------



## fbjim

fluteman said:


> The fact that this comment even has to be made in a forum like TC, where entire sub-forums are entirely, or almost entirely, devoted to which recordings, which soloists, and/or which conductors are most favored, shows how ridiculous the debate in this thread is.


To be charitable I think the different conventions of who the primary artist is behind a given piece of music between genres is something relatively easy to take for granted.

Like I said, it's a very useful convention in classical music because a lot of our study behind it involves the evolution of composition over time- so it just makes a lot of sense to have a composer-centric view of classical music.


----------



## 59540

arpeggio said:


> I have been reading the latest rationalizations as applied to _The Art of the Fugue_.
> 
> Many years ago a arranger came up with a recording of "Jingle Bells" where each pitch was done by the bark of a dog.
> 
> Now if a person came up with an arrangement of _The Art of the Fugue_ with barking dogs, it might be funny, but I seriously doubt that most would find it beautiful.
> ...


If not, what does it say: that the barking dogs were untalented, or that Bach's music was performed in an unsatisfactory way? It's the barking dogs' show after all, not Bach's. Following the reasoning, the barking dogs performance would be just as creative and legit as any other.


----------



## janxharris

dissident said:


> If not, what does it say: that the barking dogs were untalented, or that Bach's music was performed in an unsatisfactory way? It's the barking dogs' show after all, not Bach's.


It's come up before but may be appropriate now - what's your response to Stephen Hough's comment that he, 'didn't feel a deep connection with Bach's music.' (_Article by Richard Bratby in the Spectator_)


----------



## 59540

janxharris said:


> It's come up before but may be appropriate now - what's your response to Stephen Hough's comment that he, 'didn't feel a deep connection with Bach's music.' (_Article by Richard Bratby in the Spectator_)


That's Stephen Hough's opinion. I don't care. Substitute some composer that you do like. What's your response to the fact that you're both in a distinct minority among those who know anything about Bach's music? I mean, heck, there are even Chinese and Japanese who "get him". That's the question to be answered.


----------



## janxharris

dissident said:


> That's Stephen Hough's opinion. I don't care. Substitute some composer that you do like. What's your response to the fact that you're both in a distinct minority among those who know anything about Bach's music? I mean, heck, there are even Chinese and Japanese who "get him". That's the question to be answered.


It's an accepted fact that Bach is popular.

Hough find's no deep connection with his music, but you are nevertheless telling him he is wrong?


----------



## 59540

janxharris said:


> It's an accepted fact that Bach is popular.
> 
> Hough find's no deep connection with his music, but you are nevertheless telling him he is wrong?


How can I when I really can't specify with scientific certainty what it is in its entirety that makes Bach popular?


----------



## janxharris

dissident said:


> How can I when I really can't specify with scientific certainty what it is in its entirety that makes Bach popular?


But you nevertheless think it's possible to do so, in which case his opinion will be proven to be 'wrong'?


----------



## fbjim

was it this thread where someone posted that their mother described Bach as "a dog chasing it's own tail"- thought that was a funny way to describe fugual forms


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> If not, what does it say: that the barking dogs were untalented, or that Bach's music was performed in an unsatisfactory way? It's the barking dogs' show after all, not Bach's. Following the reasoning, the barking dogs performance would be just as creative and legit as any other.


if aesthetic pleasure/beauty/et al derives _entirely_ from the score, and that timbre (i.e. the instrumentation) does not materially change the work, then aesthetic pleasure should be maintained regardless of the instrumentation. the fact that this is not true suggests that one of those things, or both, are false.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> was it this thread where someone posted that their mother described Bach as "a dog chasing it's own tail"- thought that was a funny way to describe fugual forms


Not very well-informed though. A fugue is pretty linear. "A dog chasing its own tail" might be a better description of a rondo. I haven't yet listened to every single note that Bach wrote, but I've yet to hear anything that feels as if it wallows and has no sense of purpose. Bach's music has a sense of forward motion toward a resolution.


janxharris said:


> But you nevertheless think it's possible to do so, in which case his opinion will be proven to be 'wrong'?


I don't know if it's possible or not. Those who've brought up neuroscience seem to think so.


----------



## BachIsBest

janxharris said:


> It's an accepted fact that Bach is popular.
> 
> Hough find's no deep connection with his music, but you are nevertheless telling him he is wrong?


Of course he's not wrong for finding no deep connection to Bach's music. However, if he said that "Bach wrote music of shoddy quality" then he would be wrong.

I've never managed to find much of a connection to the musical impressionists. However, I recognise their innovation, their artistic goals, and the fact that they often met those goals; thus I conclude their art is of high quality, but just probably not for me right now. Actually, despite the ridiculous strawman thrown around that everyone who is arguing for the existence of beauty in the music is, in fact, arguing that 19th and 18th century tonal European classical music is the best music ever TM, I actually like the music of the second Vienesse school more than the impressionists.

Clarity note: just to be clear, by "the impressionists", I mean the largely French movement exemplified by Debussy and Ravel.


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> Of course he's not wrong for finding no deep connection to Bach's music. However, if he said that "Bach wrote music of shoddy quality" then he would be wrong.
> 
> I've never managed to find much of a connection to the musical impressionists. However, I recognise their innovation, their artistic goals, and the fact that they often met those goals; thus I conclude their art is of high quality, but just probably not for me right now. Actually, despite the ridiculous strawman thrown around that everyone who is arguing for the existence of beauty in the music is, in fact, arguing that 19th and 18th century tonal European classical music is the best music ever TM, I actually like the music of the second Vienesse school more than the impressionists.
> 
> Clarity note: just to be clear, by "the impressionists", I mean the largely French movement exemplified by Debussy and Ravel.


A perfectly reasonable post, and one I can agree with almost entirely.

Where we part ways is your apparent insistence that beauty is exclusively located in the music. Is that your view? Because I think it is more accurate to say that the concept of beauty is the nexus of the music and a person's sensory perception/mind. And it is subjective, i.e. "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" ...


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> A perfectly reasonable post, and one I can agree with almost entirely.
> 
> Where we part ways is your apparent insistence that beauty is exclusively located in the music. Is that your view? Because I think it is more accurate to say that the concept of beauty is the nexus of the music and a person's sensory perception/mind. And it is subjective, i.e. "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" ...


I fear our opinions may differ here. I think that beauty is a quality of the music that is then perceived by the listener. Obviously, personal taste, social factors, individual feelings, etc. are going to factor into the perception of the listener, but I don't think the perception of beauty is entirely subjective.

However, I don't want to turn this thread into another debate on subjectivity in music, so future posts should probably focus more on where the beauty resides (the question of the thread), than whether or not the perception of beauty is entirely subjective.


----------



## Roger Knox

adriesba said:


> Beauty is a meaningless concept unless some subject with a brain exists to perceive beauty in something. Beauty is our brain's response to a stimulus. Hypothetically, if the world had been different, our species could have evolved to react to the same stimulus completely differently, so that we may have considered "ugliness" beautiful.
> 
> Also, how are there 76 pages in this thread already?


It goes on and on because we don't have a clear way of dealing with "existents" such as music, or "concepts" such as beauty. For example, in a long entry on "music" in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, the author in the end declares an inability to define music. But I'm sure there've been music psychology studies on the experience of music as beautiful, which would be helpful.


----------



## fluteman

Roger Knox said:


> It goes on and on because we don't have a clear way of dealing with "existents" such as music, or "concepts" such as beauty. For example, in a long entry on "music" in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, the author in the end declares an inability to define music. But I'm sure there've been music psychology studies on the experience of music as beautiful, which would be helpful.


The New Harvard Dictionary of Music does not even include a definition of music.


----------



## BachIsBest

fluteman said:


> The New Harvard Dictionary of Music does not even include a definition of music.


"I don't know what music is"

-Ludwig van Beethoven


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> I fear our opinions may differ here. I think that beauty is a quality of the music that is then perceived by the listener. Obviously, personal taste, social factors, individual feelings, etc. are going to factor into the perception of the listener, but I don't think the perception of beauty is entirely subjective.
> 
> However, I don't want to turn this thread into another debate on subjectivity in music, so future posts should probably focus more on where the beauty resides (the question of the thread), than whether or not the perception of beauty is entirely subjective.


I don't see how we can avoid talking about subjectivity regarding beauty since as the musical object is perceived by our minds, we process the information in our brains and decide if we think it is pleasing to our ears or not, IOW a subjective response. This is what I think we mean, at least I do, when I say beauty resides in the mind.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> I don't see how we can avoid talking about subjectivity regarding beauty since as the musical object is perceived by our minds, we process the information in our brains and decide if we think it is pleasing to our ears or not, IOW a subjective response. This is what I think we mean, at least I do, when I say beauty resides in the mind.


A word such as "beauty" implies a value judgment. So the question can be viewed as whether any viewer, or at least any who is sufficiently well-educated and discerning, will understand and acknowledge the value, i.e., the beauty in something, or whether the judgment of beauty ultimately depends on each viewer's own value system.

The former approach implies an imposition of values on the viewer much in the manner of religious dogma. Indeed, powerful religious institutions such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church did impose musical values, the latter going so far as to ban secular music and instruments at one point.

The problem with that approach is, in the modern multi-cultural world, such religious or other dogmatic approaches seems more than a little archaic, arbitrary and absurd. Though many people are Roman Catholics, even more are not. Still others are Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist or agnostic.

So, where exactly does the authority to pronounce what is beautiful come from? Those who argue for it here repeatedly say that it must come from somewhere, without ever suggesting where. When pressed, they respond that the onus is on us to show it doesn't exist. And on and on we go.


----------



## neofite

progmatist said:


> I listen to music for substance, not beauty. Many of the atonal pieces I listen to are downright ugly by most people's standards.


Thank you for this partial explanation. I have often wondered why people listen to contemporary music, because most of it is indeed not beautiful, at least to my brain. But could you kindly elaborate on what you mean by "substance"? For example, is it a fascination with possible hidden mathematical algorithms defining the serialism components of much modern music, or the challenge of attempting to detect subtle motion in the glacial pace of some minimalist works, or perhaps just an endless search to see if some work embodies some new combination of percussion instruments?


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> A word such as "beauty" implies a value judgment. So the question can be viewed as whether any viewer, or at least any who is sufficiently well-educated and discerning, will understand and acknowledge the value, i.e., the beauty in something, or whether the judgment of beauty ultimately depends on each viewer's own value system.
> 
> The former approach implies *an imposition of values on the viewer much in the manner of religious dogma. *


A perception is not an imposition, unless we feel imposed upon by reality. _If_ beauty is perceived rather than merely attributed - or in addition to being attributed - it is not equivalent to religious belief.

The fact that we quite commonly come to perceive beauty where we didn't before by overcoming our ignorance, biases, or prejudices at least suggests that beauty is something transcending our particular personal values. We don't experience this opening up to beauty as an imposition of alien values, but as an enlargement of our own.


----------



## RogerWaters

fluteman said:


> A word such as "beauty" implies a value judgment. So the question can be viewed as whether any viewer, or at least any who is sufficiently well-educated and discerning, will understand and acknowledge the value, i.e., the beauty in something, or whether the judgment of beauty ultimately depends on each viewer's own value system.
> 
> The former approach implies an imposition of values on the viewer much in the manner of religious dogma. Indeed, powerful religious institutions such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church did impose musical values, the latter going so far as to ban secular music and instruments at one point.


What a strange theory and set of alternatives - If I can make any sense out of it.

It's as blunt as a piano and as sweepingly general as a pandemic.


----------



## Forster

Alternatively, we can just decide for ourselves what we find beautiful, without reference to anyone else's standards or authority, and discover that sometimes, many other people agree with us, and at others, we seem to be in a minority of one.

I might draw no other conclusion about "beauty" than taste is sometimes personal and sometimes universal.

End of.


----------



## Roger Knox

fluteman said:


> The New Harvard Dictionary of Music does not even include a definition of music.


It doesn't matter if it's a formal definition, only a clear understanding. For example, is the score music? Or, is only that which actually sounds, music? If you don't know where the "music" is, you won't know where the beauty is.


----------



## Forster

Woodduck said:


> The fact that we quite commonly come to perceive beauty where we didn't before by overcoming our ignorance, biases, or prejudices at least suggests that beauty is something transcending our particular personal values.


Or, wrt to music, simply that we've listened to it enough. Whilst I might once have proclaimed that I can't stand Mahler, when I gave enough time and attention to his Symphony No. 6, I found 'beauty' in it. I have yet to enjoy his other symphonies to the same extent, but my judgements about the 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 7th (to which I have given most time) are provisional. It's possible that I will never find as much 'beauty' in the others.

Finding beauty in music is not a binary matter, like a switch. Whilst sometimes it might feel like a light has suddenly gone on, it seems to me more of a gradual thing, both a growing and sometimes, a diminishing.


----------



## SanAntone

I've played along with this discussion because ... well, I really don't know why I've joined this discussion to the extent I have. I guess I just enjoy the clash of ideas, even if I'm not very interested in the subject.

But when I listen to Classical music, or any music, I never ask myself "is this beautiful," or say to myself, "wow, that was beautiful."

I am almost always asking myself, rhetorically, "is this interesting" ... "do I want to continue listening?" 

'Beauty" is not something I look for or even find interesting - especially the so-called beauty of some composers like Rachmaninoff or Tchaikovsky. Frankly, their works are often boring to me.

There are other qualities of a piece of music that I find more valuable than "beauty" - it is the same for people. How someone's mind works, their sense of humor, are much more important to me than their physical appearance. 

I guess I am surprised that the thread has gone on for so long and that it has caused such a heated discussion over something which I think of as a superficial aspect of music.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> I've played along with this discussion because ... well, I really don't know why I've joined this discussion to the extent I have. I guess I just enjoy the clash of ideas, even if I'm not very interested in the subject.
> 
> But when I listen to Classical music, or any music, I never ask myself "is this beautiful," or say to myself, "wow, that was beautiful."
> 
> I am almost always asking myself, rhetorically, "is this interesting" ... "do I want to continue listening?"
> 
> 'Beauty" is not something I look for or even find interesting - especially the so-called beauty of some composers like Rachmaninoff or Tchaikovsky. Frankly, their works are often boring to me.
> 
> There are other qualities of a piece of music that I find more valuable than "beauty" - it is the same for people. How someone's mind works, their sense of humor, are much more important to me than their physical appearance.
> 
> I guess I am surprised that the thread has gone on for so long and that it has caused such a heated discussion over something which I think of as a superficial aspect of music.


Beauty is definitely a thing for me, though not the only thing about music which I want to listen to over and over again.


----------



## 59540

fluteman said:


> The problem with that approach is, in the modern multi-cultural world, such religious or other dogmatic approaches seems more than a little archaic, arbitrary and absurd. Though many people are Roman Catholics, even more are not. Still others are Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist or agnostic.
> 
> So, where exactly does the authority to pronounce what is beautiful come from?


Bits and pieces of "postmodernist" philosophy are now imposed in the manner of religious dogma. It's "just so". The "authority to pronounce what is beautiful" resides where it always has: in the individual.


----------



## janxharris

BachIsBest said:


> I fear our opinions may differ here. I think that beauty is a quality of the music that is then perceived by the listener. Obviously, personal taste, social factors, individual feelings, etc. are going to factor into the perception of the listener, but I don't think the perception of beauty is entirely subjective.


Who do we ask to determine if a piece is beautiful or not? I know Hough has spoken of the greatness of Bach (so I am sure he would agree with you that his music isn't shoddy), but he clearly doesn't find it (or at least most of it) beautiful.


----------



## fluteman

Roger Knox said:


> It doesn't matter if it's a formal definition, only a clear understanding. For example, is the score music? Or, is only that which actually sounds, music? If you don't know where the "music" is, you won't know where the beauty is.


There is no formal definition, because there is no clear understanding, other than the sense of aesthetic pleasure we get from the sounds.  For example, you don't know where the "music" is. I know this because neither you nor anyone else here have been able to say where it is, except for those who correctly say it is in the neurological processes in our bodies.



Woodduck said:


> The fact that we quite commonly come to perceive beauty where we didn't before by overcoming our ignorance, biases, or prejudices at least suggests that beauty is something transcending our particular personal values.


Over and over you and others say something like this, repeating two fundamental fallacies. First, we do not quite commonly come to perceive beauty by overcoming ignorance, biases or prejudices. The ability to perceive beauty is the most natural and universal of human attributes. Only someone who is prejudiced and biased in favor of a particular set of cultural and aesthetic values would think that way.

Second, you say that beauty "must" be something that transcends our particular personal values. But you don't and can't say what that is, nor will you if this thread lasts a decade. This is unsurprising, as thousands of years of human experience have shown you to be incorrect in this regard. So much so that there is even a name for this fallacy in the literature of art history: The essentialist fallacy.


----------



## eljr

Forster said:


> Beauty is definitely a thing for me, though not the only thing about music which I want to listen to over and over again.


We use music much like we use drugs, to enhance our moods. All moods, from depression, celebration, those deep feeling of closeness we call love. Anyone want to discuss just what love is? That would be yet another can of worms pitting the romantic against the objectivist.

So I guess love must be an object, as music must be what is beautiful. Just what object is love?

See how the logic of the romantic collapses? 
They will need create another unique hypothesis for this and all responses we humans have in our brains.


----------



## eljr

SanAntone said:


> I've played along with this discussion because ... well, I really don't know why I've joined this discussion to the extent I have.


It sucks you in. I have left the thread several times and each time I see the threat title in "new posts" or "settings" I am torn. It's very much like a car wreck on the side of the road. It is unnaturally to not stare. Then when you do, you feel compelled to "help."


----------



## 59540

janxharris said:


> Who do we ask to determine if a piece is beautiful or not? I know Hough has spoken of the greatness of Bach (so I am sure he would agree with you that his music isn't shoddy), ...


Well then how is it "great" and "not shoddy"? Most of the anti-Bach people I've come across object to his religious faith. That's a totally extra-musical objection. It'd be like me disliking Mahler's or RVW's music because I'm not an agnostic.


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> It sucks you in. I have left the thread several times and each time I see the threat title in "new posts" or "settings" I am torn. It's very much like a train wreck on the side of the road. It is unnaturally to not stare. Then when you do, you feel compelled to "help."


That's kind of arrogant, eljr. "I have the truth so I have to stoop to these lowly ignorant mortals and help them out." You're as much in the dark as anybody else, whether you realize it or not.


----------



## janxharris

dissident said:


> Well then how is it "great" and "not shoddy"? Most of the anti-Bach people I've come across object to his religious faith. That's a totally extra-musical objection. It'd be like me disliking Mahler's or RVW's music because I'm not an agnostic.


I assume Hough would point to Bach's popularity and longevity...that he is recognising his achievements in general and noting the craftsmanship (which you alluded to in an earlier post) ...without actually connecting with it.

It's still a criticism though (with respect to his own mind).


----------



## 59540

janxharris said:


> I assume Hough would point to Bach's popularity and longevity...that he is recognising his achievements in general and noting the craftsmanship (which you alluded to in an earlier post) ...without actually connecting with it.
> 
> It's still a criticism though (with respect to his own mind).


There's that circularity again. What accounts for that longevity and popularity? What specifically about craftsmanship?


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> That's kind of arrogant, eljr..


and I truly tried to be good. It's just so black and white. 
Me, who insists there is no black and white, only shades of gray, in the world.

Yes, I can be too blunt. It is true, with age has came an intolerance for indulgences of others.

This is why I have made an effort to stay away from this thread. I have the same problem with cheap, mass produced cholate bars. If I see them...


----------



## fbjim

It's because arguing about music is an old tradition almost as enjoyable as music itself.


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> and I truly tried to be good. It's just so black and white.
> Me, who insists there is no black and white, only shades of gray, in the world.
> 
> Yes, I can be too blunt. It is true, with age has come an intolerance for indulgences of others.
> 
> This is why I have made an effort to stay away from this thread. I have the same problem with cheap, mass produced cholate bars. If I see them...


No, eljr, you're the one saying it's black and white. The 70-whatever page "train wreck" is the gray.


----------



## janxharris

dissident said:


> There's that circularity again. What accounts for that longevity and popularity? What specifically about craftsmanship?


...craftsmanship that manages to connect and be meaningful. Lots of modern piece are well-crafted - but they don't connect with as many people.

What's lacking in Bach's music for Hough and his ilk?


----------



## Forster

dissident said:


> There's that circularity again. What accounts for that longevity and popularity? What specifically about craftsmanship?


I don't think janxharris has to account for Hough's opinions, though I understand why they speculate.

Stephen Hough:



> Bach is arguably the greatest composer of them all. I am happy to acknowledge that. I admire him hugely and am dazzled by him. But I'm not personally touched. I am still waiting (longing) to be bitten by the bug.
> 
> In a way, it's like what you said about envying people of faith. I feel jealous of people who "get" Bach. The only Bach I've played in public are transcriptions, especially the Busoni transcription of the Chaconne.
> 
> One issue may be that I celebrate a certain chaos or irresolution in art, and I feel Bach is ultimately about order and the fact that everything gets resolved.


https://www.musicandliterature.org/features/2020/7/7/the-stephen-hough-interview


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> I don't think janxharris has to account for Hough's opinions, though I understand why they speculate.


In the same way I don't have to account for my own question which wasn't directed to you anyway. Janxharris assumed what Hough's opinion would be.


janxharris said:


> What's lacking in Bach's music for Hough and his ilk?


Neuroscientifically speaking, maybe it's the brain of the listener that's lacking and not Bach's music. Who knows. :tiphat:


----------



## janxharris

dissident said:


> Neuroscientifically speaking, maybe it's the brain of the listener that's lacking and not Bach's music. Who knows. :tiphat:


Either way, Bach's achievement in terms of popularity remains intact.

If we say that the beauty (or whatever essence it is that makes great music) is in the music itself, then we're finding fault with the unmoved listener.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> What accounts for that longevity and popularity?


We also have to keep in mind that 99% of "classical music listeners" out there only know Bach by stuff like "Air on the G string" and have minimal interest in 99% of what Bach wrote. I made the point in an earlier post, (I read your reply to it).


hammeredklavier said:


> Can we use this as an example to prove the superiority of common practice music? If not, why not?:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe there are lots of people who think this way about Bach, Mozart, Beethoven?:
> https://www.npr.org/sections/decept.../148769794/why-i-hate-the-goldberg-variations
> "Bach set out to write something less boring than one of the most boring pieces ever written. And he succeeded. If the Handel Variations are Last Year at Marienbad, the Goldbergs are Die Hard." -Pianist Jeremy Denk
> https://sequenza21.com/rosner.html
> "But in the classical era of music history, even the composers fail to meet my condition." -Composer Arnold Rosner


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> *It's not the composer's fault if some listeners mis-hear or misuse what they wrote though.* I don't think the Missa solemnis was intended to accompany garden parties and wine tastings.


Btw, is Denk mis-hearing or misusing what Bach wrote in the Goldberg variations?:
https://www.npr.org/sections/decept.../148769794/why-i-hate-the-goldberg-variations
"The capstone of these is the Quodlibet, with its good humor and generosity of spirit, reenacting (so they say) Bach family parties where they would mash up various tunes, dazzle each other with contrapuntal mastery. Now, the words of the tunes are perhaps jokes, references that we can probably no longer get; everyone has their own idea what it all means."


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> We also have to keep in mind that 99% of "classical music listeners" out there only know Bach by stuff like "Air on the G string" and have minimal interest in 99% of what Bach wrote. I made the point in an earlier post, (I read your reply to it).


Denk seems rather confused about the Goldberg Variations:

_'...Preternaturally happy, cheerful, perfect, organized, clean, boring, popular...'_


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> No, eljr, *you're the one saying it's black and white*. The 70-whatever page "train wreck" is the gray.


Yes it is. That is what I said, you are correct. My post was pointing out that it is rare I take such a firm stance as the world is shades of gray.

If one were to argue that 1+1=4 I would be compelled to be equally are firm.

That is how I see this. 1+1 is not 4.

Like I always say, you may have an opinion in the absence of fact, not in conflict with it. That is where things become black and white to me.

Early in the thread it was demanded of me that I show "beauty" in the brain. I did. And when I did posters here actually laughed. 
It was not recognized as beauty because the posters here wanted to see an actural image of flowers or musical notes in the brain. 
That is what "took" this thread where it is now. Had I not stood up, it would have meandered between the metaphysical and pseudo philosophy. 
So we have made some progress. When another poster, only a few pages ago, unaware I had already spoken to the PET scan did the same, no one took issue. We clearly still have much progress to be made but we have moved the goals posts, didn't we?

Also of interest, albeit, personal interest, I applaud the dreamer, the romantic, the philosopher. It is when he champions his ponderances as fact that I raise my back.

For example, I would never consult a block head such as myself for musical appreciation consultation. I run to romantics and philosophers for such guidance.


----------



## 59540

janxharris said:


> Denk seems rather confused about the Goldberg Variations:
> 
> _'...Preternaturally happy, cheerful, perfect, organized, clean, boring, popular...'_


Denk was being satirical. Read the whole series.


hammeredklavier said:


> We also have to keep in mind that 99% of "classical music listeners" out there only know Bach by stuff like "Air on the G string" and have minimal interest in 99% of what Bach wrote. I made the point in an earlier post, (I read your reply to it).


But you don't know that for sure. That "99%" is something that you just pulled out of thin air. If I remember correctly there was a packed stadium not all that long ago listening intently to Yo-yo Ma playing through the entire cycle of Bach cello suites...performances of which made Ma a star way back in the 80s. Plus you can't discount the, let's say, 99% (since we're going with that) of subsequent composers who would rank Bach at or near the top among composers, especially from the early twentieth century on.


----------



## janxharris

dissident said:


> Denk was being satirical. Read the whole series.


I read the whole article. I found it confusing.


----------



## 59540

janxharris said:


> I read the whole article. I found it confusing.


Well then I'm afraid I can't help you.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> Over and over you and others say something like this, repeating two fundamental fallacies.


Let's see whether they are either fallacies or fundamental...



> First, we do not quite commonly come to perceive beauty by overcoming ignorance, biases or prejudices.


Of course we do. This forum is filled with remarks to the effect that certain composers or works that were not appreciated have come to be so after further exposure or some change of perspective or life experience. Whether or not we perceive something as beautiful depends very much on context; we can find a thing beautiful in relation to some (internal or external) factors and not others, and as our context changes we see kinds or degrees of beauty we didn't see before.



> The ability to perceive beauty is the most natural and universal of human attributes.


I agree - or at least _one_ of the most...



> Only someone who is prejudiced and biased in favor of a particular set of cultural and aesthetic values would think that way.


Think what way? Aren't most people biased to some extent in favor of certain cultural and aesthetic values?



> Second, you say that beauty "must" be something that transcends our particular personal values. But you don't and can't say what that is, nor will you if this thread lasts a decade. This is unsurprising, as thousands of years of human experience have shown you to be incorrect in this regard. So much so that there is even a name for this fallacy in the literature of art history: The essentialist fallacy.


I didn't use the word "must," so why do you falsely quote me as using it? I'm trying to tread gently here. My exact statement was, _"The fact that we quite commonly come to perceive beauty where we didn't before by overcoming our ignorance, biases, or prejudices at least suggests that beauty is something transcending our particular personal values."_

You want to know what the "something" which we call beauty, and which transcends our particular values, is. Well, it's a number of things. It entails, or can entail variously, an immensity of both sensual and formal qualities, qualities which are capable of striking our consciousness as pleasing and normally - yes, _normally_ - do so. If someone would point out that almost anything is capable of doing that under the right circumstances, I would agree, with an emphasis on "almost." There are things no normal human being would call beautiful (Hannibal Lecter need not apply), but in most things we experience there is beauty to be found if we're clear enough to find it. Human beings normally find natural scenes beautiful - we even call them "scenes," as if they were works of art - but the wonders of form, color and living energy we experience in nature and call beautiful may seem less so if we fear being attacked by wild animals or ambushed by gangs of criminals. That condition would be an unfortunate loss of clarity, but if we can overcome the fear that blocks our perception we can experience the beauty in nature again.

As for the "essentialist fallacy": whether to say that something is called "beautiful" if we feel that it is, or that the thing is "beautiful" and simply waits for us to be ready to perceive its beauty, seems to me a false choice. Beauty, in its fullest sense, is something that arises when consciousness meets things outside it under conditions that allow those things to enhance consciousness. Things are called beautiful both because it's in the nature of mind to find beauty in things, and because it's in the nature of those things to arouse and heighten consciousness and, in doing so, give pleasure. We're just as correct in identifying a well-composed painting or musical work as beautiful as in saying that we do - or do not - find beauty in it.

Dogmatic objectivists and subjectivists may accuse me of fudging the difference between subject and object. The wonder of beauty - of aesthetic experience, of art - lies precisely in its capacity to allow us an experience of the unity beneath the duality.


----------



## eljr

Woodduck said:


> This forum is filled with remarks to the effect that certain composers or works that were not appreciated have come to be so after further exposure or some change of perspective or life experience. Whether or not we perceive something as beautiful depends very much on context; we can find a thing beautiful in relation to some (internal or external) factors and not others, and as our context changes we see kinds or degrees of beauty we didn't see before.


So then you agree, beauty is in our perception not in the object.

Good.


----------



## fbjim

I would say instead that the fact that we can learn to appreciate unfamiliar music shows not some sort of universalism, but simply that our personal aesthetic preferences are always open to change, expansion, or even contraction- how many of us can't stand music we used to love?


----------



## Woodduck

eljr said:


> So then you agree, beauty is in our perception not in the object.
> 
> Good.


Not good.

I reject a definition of beauty that assumes that duality.


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> I would say instead that the fact that we can learn to appreciate unfamiliar music shows not some sort of universalism, but simply that our personal aesthetic preferences are always open to change, expansion, or even contraction- how many of us can't stand music we used to love?


So you're saying that if I no longer care for Mozart's _Requiem_ it is no longer a beautiful work of music?


----------



## SanAntone

fbjim said:


> I would say instead that the fact that we can learn to appreciate unfamiliar music shows not some sort of universalism, but simply that our personal aesthetic preferences are always open to change, expansion, or even contraction- how many of us can't stand music we used to love?


I used to think my tastes in music were pretty well defined, but I have evolved to reject that idea and leave open the possibility that music that formerly had not been of interest to me might one day click. And I have intentionally delved into the music of composers for whom I previously had little tolerance.

Most recently I watched _Der Ring_ and was amazed at how much I enjoyed it. I've also made progress with the music of *Mahler* and *Bruckner.* These three composers used to turn me off and I had found them unlistenable. But today, I am enjoying revisiting their music.

I agree with you that this does not prove any kind of objective criteria within the music such as inherent beauty, but that we as Classical music lovers probably deep down do not want to have certain composers off limits and try again and again to hear their music and find what others have found.

Eventually, I expect that there will be fewer and fewer composers for whom I will say, "that's not for me." And for that I am grateul.


----------



## SanAntone

Woodduck said:


> So you're saying that if I no longer care for Mozart's _Requiem_ it is no longer a beautiful work of music?


Not for you and there are no doubt others for whom the work does nothing.


----------



## Woodduck

SanAntone said:


> Not for you and there are no doubt others for whom the work does nothing.


Is beauty in things determined _only_ by what they "do for us"? What do they have to do? And do they have to do it all the time?

I find it perfectly meaningful to say that an artist has created something beautiful even if his work doesn't "do" anything for me at the moment.


----------



## eljr

Woodduck said:


> Not good.
> 
> I reject a definition of beauty that assumes that duality.


LOL, eject it if you like, it is what it is.


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> Is beauty in things determined _only_ by what they "do for us"? What do they have to do? And do they have to do it all the time?
> 
> I find it perfectly meaningful to say that an artist has created something beautiful even if his work doesn't "do" anything for me at the moment.


I find this meaningful too, but only in terms of being able to view things through multiple critical/aesthetic contexts - we can say a work is beautiful yet banal, for instance - but this is simply an expression of different frameworks one might view music by simultaneously. This might sound complicated but most of us likely do this all the time without really thinking about it.

This doesn't preclude us being able to find the work ugly yet exciting because we got up on a weird side of the bed the next day, however.


----------



## mmsbls

My view of beauty existing in the brain comes from my belief that things such as ideas, concepts and minds (as different from brains) do not exist in some nebulous state but rather are physical objects. I don't think that beauty exists without a sentient being experiencing it so the location of that beauty must exist in the sentinent being's facility that interprets and analyzes sensory information (i.e. in humans - the brain). An external object can provide the stimulus for the experience of beauty through light waves, sound waves, etc. but does not contain beauty itself.

I think some people have found this thread frustrating, silly, even incomprehensible, but I have enjoyed seeing others' thought processes in discussing the subject. It's interesting that some are so certain of the correct answer while others are so certain the former are completely wrong. I do think varying and imprecise definitions have contributed to the conflict. Philosophers write articles with multi-page discussions to define terms, and while most generally get bogged down in such discourse, those attempts to articulate exactly the focus of a discussion can be necessary. On TC no one would have the patience to write, read, or create such definitions. 

Some have criticized TC as having no heated debates because of our Terms of Service (ToS). I view this thread as containing a series of long, fascinating heated debates that has remained almost exclusively within the ToS.


----------



## SanAntone

Woodduck said:


> Is beauty in things determined _only_ by what they "do for us"? What do they have to do? And do they have to do it all the time?
> 
> I find it perfectly meaningful to say that an artist has created something beautiful even if his work doesn't "do" anything for me at the moment.


If it is important to you to believe that some music or art has inherent beauty and those who do not perceive it are have some kind of deficit of appreciation, that's one way to think. But not how I think about it. Whether beauty is inherent or not is of absolutely zero interest to me. And to the degree people across centuries have thought some works beautiful is a minor historical observation, but not important IMO.


----------



## fbjim

To put it another way - even if you say a work is "beautiful but does nothing for me", you are still making an aesthetic evaluation and attempting to describe how a given work strikes your aesthetic sensibility. What I do not think you are doing is somehow separating an identification of the essence of beauty in the work with your subjective view on it.


----------



## fbjim

Here's another question - it seems to be somewhat assumed that beauty is some sort of positive quality, in the sense that it's said people are "finding the beauty" if they grow to appreciate a piece.

So what happens if they grow to dislike a piece? Did they "lose the beauty"? Or perhaps they "Found the banality", or "found the ugliness"?


----------



## mmsbls

Woodduck said:


> Is beauty in things determined _only_ by what they "do for us"? What do they have to do? And do they have to do it all the time?
> 
> I find it perfectly meaningful to say that an artist has created something beautiful even if his work doesn't "do" anything for me at the moment.


Let me ask this thought experiment. Imagine something created with no sentient beings to experience it. It could be a nature scene on a planet that many humans would find beautiful if they saw it, or it could be Mozart's Requiem without Mozart or anyone else having contributed to producing it (remember it's a thought experiment).

If no sentient beings existed anywhere to experience the thing, would it be beautiful? Or would it simply contain elements that would prduce the experience of beauty were an appropriate sentient being to sense it?


----------



## EdwardBast

mmsbls said:


> If no sentient beings existed anywhere to experience the thing, would it be beautiful? Or would it simply contain elements that would prduce the experience of beauty were an appropriate sentient being to sense it?


The concept of beauty has several meanings, one of which is "containing elements that would produce the experience of beauty were an appropriate sentient being to sense it." That's what the term means applied to objects. It also means what a sentient being experiences in an aesthetic response to such objects or phenomena. I don't get why people have trouble with this.


----------



## fbjim

EdwardBast said:


> The concept of beauty has several meanings, one of which is "containing elements that would produce the experience of beauty were an appropriate sentient being to sense it." That's what the term means applied to objects. It also means what a sentient being experiences in an aesthetic response to such objects or phenomena. I don't get why people have trouble with this.


For us to determine that would require us to make some sort of aesthetic evaluation, which would make us sentient observers. This is beginning to sound like quantum theory or something.


----------



## mmsbls

EdwardBast said:


> The concept of beauty has several meanings, one of which is "containing elements that would produce the experience of beauty were an appropriate sentient being to sense it." That's what the term means applied to objects. It also means what a sentient being experiences in an aesthetic response to such objects or phenomena. I don't get why people have trouble with this.


Definitions are important. If you define it in both those ways, then beauty exists both in the object and in the brain. I have no trouble with that. I define it differently so I get a different answer.


----------



## SanAntone

mmsbls said:


> Definitions are important. If you define it in both those ways, then beauty exists both in the object and in the brain. I have no trouble with that. I define it differently so I get a different answer.


Which is what I've been saying since the first page of this thread. Something in the music causes some listeners to hear what they might describe as beautiful. It is the symbiotic relationship of music and listener that produces the phenomena of beauty.

But not all listeners will hear it, so it isn't universal or obviously inherent.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> Definitions are important. If you define it in both those ways, *then beauty exists both in the object and in the brain*. I have no trouble with that. I define it differently so I get a different answer.


I don't read it that way. I think the 'appropriate sentient being' could mean someone who likes CPT music finding beauty in a CPT Adagio or someone who loves Renaissance art finding beauty in a work of Da Vinci. The beauty doesn't exist in the object per se; it only stimulates -is interpreted as beauty in- the brain of the 'appropriate sentient being'.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> I don't read it that way. I think the 'appropriate sentient being' could mean someone who likes CPT music finding beauty in a CPT Adagio or someone who loves Renaissance art finding beauty in a work of Da Vinci. The beauty doesn't exist in the object per se; it only stimulates -is interpreted as beauty in- the brain of the 'appropriate sentient being'.


I agree with you in that I think beauty exists in the brain. But if one accepts the definition, an object has beauty if it contains elements that would produce the experience of beauty were an appropriate sentient being to sense it, then beauty exists in the object. I'm not sure if you are saying that you simply don't accept that definition or if you are saying you do ot read EdwardBast's definition as meaning what I wrote.


----------



## fbjim

mmsbls said:


> I agree with you in that I think beauty exists in the brain. But if one accepts the definition, an object has beauty if it contains elements that would produce the experience of beauty were an appropriate sentient being to sense it, then beauty exists in the object. I'm not sure if you are saying that you simply don't accept that definition or if you are saying you do ot read EdwardBast's definition as meaning what I wrote.


I think the problem with your experiment is that to assume "an appropriate being, if one existed, would likely find it beautiful" is in itself an external aesthetic judgment, so we couldn't possibly say that the work exists without the presence of humans to aesthetically evaluate it.


----------



## Woodduck

eljr said:


> LOL, eject it if you like, it is what it is.


And it isn't what it isn't.

Any more profundities?


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> It's interesting that some are so certain of the correct answer while others are so certain the former are completely wrong.


Or maybe, ridiculous. Issues like this became a big deal in the early 20th century in our industrialized, high technology, multi-cultural, in a word, modern, society. A lot of comfortable assumptions many had lived by suddenly proved untenable.

In was in that context that a famous commentator said, "You might think Aesthetics is a science telling us what's beautiful - almost too ridiculous for words. I suppose it ought to include also what sort of coffee tastes well."

Here is the rest of that famous quote:

"I see roughly this - there is a realm of utterance of delight, when you taste pleasant food or smell a pleasant smell, etc., then there is a realm of Art which is quite different, though often you may make the same face when you hear a piece of music as when you taste good food. (Though you may cry at something you like very much.)
Supposing you meet someone in the street and he tells you he has lost his greatest friend, in a voice extremely expressive of his emotion. You might say: 'It was extraordinarily beautiful, the way he expressed himself.' Supposing you then asked: 'What similarity has my admiring this person with my eating vanilla ice and like it?' To compare them seems almost disgusting. (But you can connect them by intermediate cases.) Suppose someone says 'But this is a quite different kind of delight.' But did you learn two meanings of 'delight'? You use the same word on both occasions. There is some connection between these delights. Although in the first case the emotion of delight would in our judgement hardly count."

His point being, what is beautiful is whatever external object stimulates a pleasurable response within us. If you want to take an objective, scientific approach to aesthetics, you must examine the neurological process within our brains that produces this sensation of pleasure.


----------



## mmsbls

fbjim said:


> I think the problem with your experiment is that to assume "an appropriate being, if one existed, would likely find it beautiful" is in itself an external aesthetic judgment, so we couldn't possibly say that the work exists without the presence of humans to aesthetically evaluate it.


Are you refering to my thought experiment or to EdwardBast's definition? If my thought experiment, you can assume anything since it's a thought experiment. The work exists because the thought experiment says it does.


----------



## EdwardBast

SanAntone said:


> But not all listeners will hear it, so it isn't universal or obviously inherent.


It's (obviously) inherent but not universal. Don't see why people have trouble with that either.


----------



## SanAntone

EdwardBast said:


> It's (obviously) inherent but not universal. Don't see why people have trouble with that either.


There are certainly specific attributes inherent in a piece of music, which some people will interpret as "beautiful". But "beauty" is not inherent in the music; it is a description applied by some listeners, not all, to certain attributes in the music.


----------



## eljr

mmsbls said:


> an object has beauty if it contains elements that would produce the experience of beauty


Then everything, literally, has beauty as anything can, at least in theory, cause beauty to be experienced.

83 pages later and we come to find, all the world is beautiful! What a pleasant though.


----------



## fluteman

eljr said:


> Then everything, literally, has beauty as anything can, at least in theory, cause beauty to be experienced.
> 
> 83 pages later and we come to find, all the world is beautiful! What a pleasant though.


There's a song about that!


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> I agree with you in that I think beauty exists in the brain. But if one accepts the definition, an object has beauty if it contains elements that would produce the experience of beauty were an appropriate sentient being to sense it, then beauty exists in the object. I'm not sure if you are saying that you simply don't accept that definition or if you are saying you do ot read EdwardBast's definition as meaning what I wrote.


The latter. Again, semantics makes this discussion difficult. Let's try this: A person is attracted to a blooming rose which he/she says is beautiful. The whole process of the person seeing the rose and evaluating it as being beautiful depends on the brain. But none of this would happen without the rose as a stimulus. I think you and I are on the same page because as one from a scientific background I accept that the interpretation of beauty is in the brain.

But I think it's understandable that 'the layman' would probably say that 'of course the beauty is in that beautiful rose.' In fact, probably the majority of people would say that since they aren't thinking scientifically/biologically.


----------



## eljr

fluteman said:


> There's a song about that!


We should have turned to Ray Stevens on page one as he seems to have the definitive answer!


----------



## 59540

DaveM said:


> ...
> But I think it's understandable that 'the layman' would probably say that 'of course the beauty is in that beautiful rose.' In fact, probably the majority of people would say that since they aren't thinking scientifically/biologically.


But the question is what is it about the rose or the brain that causes so many different brains to react in the same way?


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> ...the brain that causes so many different brains to react in the same way?


Biology. Now dig beneath.


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> Biology. Now dig beneath.


Uh...yeah...but that doesn't answer it. You can't just say "well it's biology, case closed".


----------



## Woodduck

eljr said:


> Then everything, literally, has beauty as anything can, at least in theory, cause beauty to be experienced.


This isn't as absurd as it sounds. "Everything" is merely an overstatement.



> 83 pages later and we come to find, all the world is beautiful! What a pleasant though.


Any artist could have saved us the 83 pages, and wouldn't need to if we could see what he sees.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> But I think it's understandable that 'the layman' would probably say that 'of course the beauty is in that beautiful rose.' In fact, probably the majority of people would say that since they aren't thinking scientifically/biologically.


I agree "the layman" would use simpler language. In fact I use that language when I say, "That movement is beautiful", "Maxwell's equations are beautiful", or "She is beautiful." Describing the phenomenon in full scientific detail or even scientific shortcut would take too long.


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> But the question is what is it about the rose or the brain that causes so many different brains to react in the same way?


Maybe over the next hundreds or thousands of years, neuroscientists will be closing in on determining why external stimuli lead to such varied brain responses and what features of the environment coupled with genetic endowments result in similar outcomes.


----------



## mmsbls

Woodduck said:


> This isn't as absurd as it sounds. "Everything" is merely an overstatement.


Normally, this answer would seem somewhat silly, but here I think it's perfectly applicable.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> His point being, what is beautiful is whatever external object stimulates a pleasurable response within us.


This not only trivializes the idea of beauty ("it's beautiful" = "this feels good") but makes it completely unnecessary - which, given the enormous importance humans have attached to the experience and creation of beauty since the prehistoric caves of France, is an odd thing to do. The word certainly carries a number of meanings in common use, but mashing them all together and equating aesthetic experience with mere pleasure keeps us on the lowest level of understanding.



> If you want to take an objective, scientific approach to aesthetics, you must examine the neurological process within our brains that produces this sensation of pleasure.


I think examining the variety of things that have given rise to the idea of beauty, along with observing and listening to people as they describe their experience, would give us more useful information than examining the brain. What matters is understanding what people call beautiful and why they do it. It doesn't matter which neurons are firing.


----------



## DaveM

dissident said:


> But the question is what is it about the rose or the brain that causes so many different brains to react in the same way?


Yes I know.  I spent a fair amount of time addressing much the same subject when it comes to many CPT music listeners having a consensus about the beauty of certain CPT works.


----------



## EdwardBast

Woodduck said:


> I think examining the variety of things that have given rise to the idea of beauty, along with observing and listening to people as they describe their experience, would give us more useful information than examining the brain. What matters is understanding *what* people call beautiful and *why* they do it. It doesn't matter which neurons are firing.


Exactly. For the last thousand posts or so I've been thinking the where question is not a fruitful one until one has settled the question of What is beauty in music? and the corollary Why does it seem so? Any serious attempt to address these questions will obviate the where question.


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> Uh...yeah...but that doesn't answer it. You can't just say "well it's biology, case closed".


I left instructions for you to "dig beneath." 
You were advised where to look. 
I have no stamina to explore the evolution of human associations to the infinite degree that you would insist.


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> I left instructions for you to "dig beneath."
> You were advised where to look.
> I have no stamina to explore the evolution of human associations to the infinite degree that you would insist.


So I take that as yet another "I don't know". There's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> So I take that as yet another "I don't know". There's nothing wrong with that.


I respectfully ask you stop with the antagonizing fallacies.


----------



## BachIsBest

mmsbls said:


> Let me ask this thought experiment. Imagine something created with no sentient beings to experience it. It could be a nature scene on a planet that many humans would find beautiful if they saw it, or it could be Mozart's Requiem without Mozart or anyone else having contributed to producing it (remember it's a thought experiment).
> 
> If no sentient beings existed anywhere to experience the thing, would it be beautiful? Or would it simply contain elements that would prduce the experience of beauty were an appropriate sentient being to sense it?


So, I have an issue with your thought experiment. You implicitly assume that the nature scene itself exists even with no human beings to observe it.

In the 18th and 19th century, this probably would have been a reasonable assumption to make given current knowledge at the time. Essentially, the theories of nature that existed at the time, predicted future results by assuming the universe was running predictably and continuously in the background; for example, if I looked at a ball rolling down a hill and wanted to know how much further down the hill it got if I came back 30 seconds later, I will, of course, assume that the ball continues rolling down the hill in that 30 seconds.

This began to change in the 20th century. In essence, experiments were performed that seemed to suggest reality was fundamentally different when observers were watching it, than when they were not. The mathematical models that correctly predicted the results of these new experiments did so by assuming precisely that things were radically different when they were being observed than when they were not.

By the second half the 20th century, there was problems even with these new mathematical models. In essence, the "evolution" of things when they were not being observed made very little sense in the light of new evidence - even when the final predictions of what happens when these things were observed made sense. The solution then was to abandon the idea of creating a mathematical model that simulates a physical process from the start of the experiment to the end; instead, given the initial observation one should find a mathematical method of predicting the final observation without any mention of what goes on in-between.

Now there are serious attempts to model the entire universe as a series of observations. In other words, you assume the only thing that actually exists (at least mathematically) are a series of causally connected observation by observers. Whether or not this is the correct approach to yield a more complete understanding of physics, I don't know. However, I think we have reached the point where it seems probable that basing our understanding of things on what happens when there are no observers, is quite probably fallacious.


----------



## Forster

Woodduck said:


> You want to know what the "something" which we call beauty, and which transcends our particular values, is. Well, it's a number of things. *It entails, or can entail variously, an immensity of both sensual and formal qualities, qualities which are capable of striking our consciousness as pleasing *and normally - yes, _normally_ - do so. If someone would point out that almost anything is capable of doing that under the right circumstances, I would agree, with an emphasis on "almost." There are things no normal human being would call beautiful (Hannibal Lecter need not apply), but in most things we experience there is beauty to be found if we're clear enough to find it. *Human beings normally find natural scenes beautiful - we even call them "scenes," as if they were works of art *- but the wonders of form, color and living energy we experience in nature and call beautiful may seem less so if we fear being attacked by wild animals or ambushed by gangs of criminals. That condition would be an unfortunate loss of clarity, but if we can overcome the fear that blocks our perception we can experience the beauty in nature again.
> 
> As for the "essentialist fallacy": whether to say that something is called "beautiful" if we feel that it is, or that the thing is "beautiful" and simply waits for us to be ready to perceive its beauty, seems to me a false choice. Beauty, in its fullest sense, is something that arises when consciousness meets things outside it under conditions that allow those things to enhance consciousness. Things are called beautiful both because it's in the nature of mind to find beauty in things, and *because it's in the nature of those things to arouse and heighten consciousness and, in doing so, give pleasure*. We're just as correct in identifying a well-composed painting or musical work as beautiful as in saying that we do - or do not - find beauty in it.
> 
> Dogmatic objectivists and subjectivists may accuse me of fudging the difference between subject and object. The wonder of beauty - of aesthetic experience, of art - lies precisely in its capacity to allow us an experience of the unity beneath the duality.





Woodduck said:


> This not only trivializes the idea of beauty ("it's beautiful" = "this feels good") but makes it completely unnecessary - which, given the enormous importance humans have attached to the experience and creation of beauty since the prehistoric caves of France, is an odd thing to do. The word certainly carries a number of meanings in common use, but *mashing them all together and equating aesthetic experience with mere pleasure *keeps us on the lowest level of understanding.
> 
> I think examining the variety of things that have given rise to the idea of beauty, along with observing and listening to people as they describe their experience, would give us more useful information than examining the brain. What matters is understanding what people call beautiful and why they do it. It doesn't matter which neurons are firing.


I've put these two posts together in full, but highlighted the bits of interest to me. I'm not sure I'm any the wiser wrt to beauty in music. It's perhaps not surprising that we keep defaulting to the visual, since (I think) everyone here agrees that a rose and a sunset are 'beautiful', (even if there is a quibbling about what the term actually means and whether either can be 'beautiful' if no-one is there to see them).

Dissident asks what it is that makes so many brains agree on what is beautiful about some music. I'd ask why so many brains _disagree_. Either way, I think we're posing the same question, and we don't seem to get any further forward in identifying what Woodduck refers to as "qualities" - by which I assume he means the attributes of a piece (or 'music', generically?) that gives rise to something greater than 'mere' pleasure (fighting against the dictionary there, and a number of TC members, including me, that are happy with 'pleasure'.) But he doesn't go any further and begins with what is 'pleasing' - if that's not pleasure, I don't know what is.

So, what is this 'heightened consciousness' that is different from pleasure? And what are the qualities in music? Can we keep away from the visual?


----------



## Forster

eljr said:


> *We use music much like we use drugs, to enhance our moods. *All moods, from depression, celebration, those deep feeling of closeness we call love. Anyone want to discuss just what love is? That would be yet another can of worms pitting the romantic against the objectivist.
> 
> So I guess love must be an object, as music must be what is beautiful. Just what object is love?
> 
> See how the logic of the romantic collapses?
> They will need create another unique hypothesis for this and all responses we humans have in our brains.


I'm not this is true, at least, not all the time, and not necessarily the prime reason. As for the rest...I don't follow it at all.



janxharris said:


> Either way, Bach's achievement in terms of popularity remains intact.
> 
> If we say that the beauty (or whatever essence it is that makes great music) is in the music itself, then we're *finding fault *with the unmoved listener.


Not finding fault, just observing that some listeners don't find the beauty that others do.


----------



## Woodduck

Forster said:


> I've put these two posts together in full, but highlighted the bits of interest to me. I'm not sure I'm any the wiser wrt to beauty in music. It's perhaps not surprising that we keep defaulting to the visual, since (I think) everyone here agrees that a rose and a sunset are 'beautiful', (even if there is a quibbling about what the term actually means and whether either can be 'beautiful' if no-one is there to see them).
> 
> Dissident asks what it is that makes so many brains agree on what is beautiful about some music. I'd ask why so many brains _disagree_. Either way, I think we're posing the same question, and we don't seem to get any further forward in identifying what Woodduck refers to as "qualities" - by which I assume he means the attributes of a piece (or 'music', generically?) that gives rise to something greater than 'mere' pleasure (fighting against the dictionary there, and a number of TC members, including me, that are happy with 'pleasure'.) But he doesn't go any further and begins with what is 'pleasing' - if that's not pleasure, I don't know what is.
> 
> So, *what is this 'heightened consciousness' that is different from pleasure? *And what are the qualities in music? Can we keep away from the visual?


The heightened consciousness you're asking about is not pleasure, but it gives rise to pleasure. It's the level of perception which enables an artist (musical, visual or literary) to create a work, and which enables us to appreciate it. It's "heightened" because most people don't walk around with this level of awareness most of the time.

Stimulation by a work of art (or something else) to a higher-than-normal level of awareness - an acute consciousness of qualities and relationships - is largely responsible for the sort of pleasure we call "aesthetic," and we're apt to single out things that stimulate this sort of pleasure as "beautiful." In music, the necessary stimulus is caused in part by the music's internal relationships and the perceptual "sense" they make - by how well (comprehensibly, interestingly, strikingly, originally, playfully, expressively) they're organized or composed. Some qualities of composition which we perceive and enjoy, and which have long been identified as contributing to the sense of beauty, are variety within unity, movement contained in equipoise, expressive gesture, and the deployment and resolution of tension and ambiguity. Such qualities are expressible in all sensory modes as well as ideational structures, and can thus be perceived and enjoyed in all the arts.

That's all I have the energy for right now. Maybe it's a decent start on the challenging question of what people perceive as beautiful and why they do.


----------



## BachIsBest

Forster said:


> Dissident asks what it is that makes so many brains agree on what is beautiful about some music. I'd ask why so many brains _disagree_. Either way, I think we're posing the same question, and we don't seem to get any further forward in identifying what Woodduck refers to as "qualities" - by which I assume he means the attributes of a piece (or 'music', generically?) that gives rise to something greater than 'mere' pleasure (fighting against the dictionary there, and a number of TC members, including me, that are happy with 'pleasure'.) But he doesn't go any further and begins with what is 'pleasing' - if that's not pleasure, I don't know what is.


I may sound like a broken record, but here are some dictionary definitions of beauty.

Oxford Languages: "a combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight."

Merriam-Webster: "the qualities in a person or a thing that give pleasure to the senses or the mind"

Cambridge: "the quality of being pleasing, especially to look at, or someone or something that gives great pleasure, especially when you look at it"

Collins: "the combination of all the qualities of a person or thing that delight the senses and please the mind"

Although we clearly get the sense that beauty causes some sort of pleasure or delight, the dictionaries, not being philosophy books on beauty, refrain from specifying exactly what sort of pleasure of delight beauty causes beyond the obvious fact that it "aesthetic". Dictionary definitions of more complex terms are innately going to be vague. I don't think arguing the pleasure caused by beauty is a special sort really contradicts these definitions.

Funnily enough, what really contradicts these definitions is ignoring the fact that beauty is a quality, or a combination of qualities, of an object.


----------



## SanAntone

> Funnily enough, what really contradicts these definitions is ignoring the fact that beauty is a quality, or a combination of qualities, of an object.


How can beauty be a quality within the object if not everyone perceives it?

I think the quality referred to in the definitions is a quality we experience from some attributes of some music, e.g. "that pleases the aesthetic senses." Not everyone will find the same attributes pleasing, so I can't accept that you and others keep insisting that beauty reside in the object instead of our perceptive experience.


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> How can beauty be a quality within the object if not everyone perceives it?
> 
> I think the quality referred to in the definitions is a quality we experience from some attributes of some music, e.g. "that pleases the aesthetic senses." Not everyone will find the same attributes pleasing, so I can't accept that you and others keep insisting that beauty reside in the object instead of our perceptive experience.


This argument keeps coming up and it is a bit fallacious. Hopefully, you accept the concept of "truth". Now, everyone disagrees all the time on what is true. No matter what true statement you come up with, there are people who think it is false. This does not discount the notion of truth, just as differing perspectives on beauty does not discount the notion of beauty.


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> This argument keeps coming up and it is a bit fallacious. Hopefully, you accept the concept of "truth". Now, everyone disagrees all the time on what is true. No matter what true statement you come up with, there are people who think it is false. This does not discount the notion of truth, just as differing perspectives on beauty does not discount the notion of beauty.


Your analogies don't hold up but it is a way of avoiding dealing with the flaws in your logic. I deny the existence of beauty; just that it is not an inherent quality of the music. It is a response to the music by some people.

There is no way you can identify the quality in a piece of music which is "beauty." You can identify a *melody*, or a *harmonic or chordal progression*, or a *rhythmic phrase*. But you cannot locate and identify "beauty." "Beauty" is a response to those aspects of a piece of music, which _some_ people will agree are beautiful.


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> I may sound like a broken record, but here are some dictionary definitions of beauty.
> 
> Oxford Languages: "a combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight."
> 
> Merriam-Webster: "the qualities in a person or a thing that give pleasure to the senses or the mind"
> 
> Cambridge: "the quality of being pleasing, especially to look at, or someone or something that gives great pleasure, especially when you look at it"
> 
> Collins: "the combination of all the qualities of a person or thing that delight the senses and please the mind"
> 
> Although we clearly get the sense that beauty causes some sort of pleasure or delight, the dictionaries, not being philosophy books on beauty, refrain from specifying exactly what sort of pleasure of delight beauty causes beyond the obvious fact that it "aesthetic". Dictionary definitions of more complex terms are innately going to be vague. I don't think arguing the pleasure caused by beauty is a special sort really contradicts these definitions.
> 
> Funnily enough, what really contradicts these definitions is ignoring the fact that beauty is a quality, or a combination of qualities, of an object.


I was aiming at asking Woodduck to elaborate, which he has done.

With respect, I'm not sure your post does sound more than a broken record.


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> Your analogies don't hold up but it is a way of avoiding dealing with the flaws in your logic. I deny the existence of beauty; just that it is not an inherent quality of the music. It is a response to the music by some people.


Then please explain why, if beauty is a quality of an object, why everyone must perceive it with no disagreement? My younger brother loves entomology. Sometimes, he'll tell me things about insects, and even after he explains it, when we look at a real insect, only he perceives the given quality.

The point of the comparison is not that truth and beauty are the same, but that disagreement on something does not render it purely up to personal preference or only a quality of each individual mind. Your standard of beauty being a quality of, say, a Tchaikovsky ballet, is that everyone agrees it is beautiful and is able to perceive it, and yet, given your location, the population of your home country can't even agree on who won the last presidential election.

Finally, if you do think the analogy doesn't hold up, then please clarify why. Evidently, if I am using it, I think it does hold up, so if you wish to persuade me I'm mistaking, merely declaring it so is unlikely to do anything. Comparisons between beauty and truth can be traced back to at least the ancient Greeks and continue right up to today, so I hardly think it is obvious such comparisons are wrong.



SanAntone said:


> There is no way you can identify the quality in a piece of music which is "beauty." You can identify a *melody*, or a *harmonic or chordal progression*, or a *rhythmic phrase*. But you cannot locate and identify "beauty." "Beauty" is a response to those aspects of a piece of music, which _some_ people will agree are beautiful.


Despite this statement, a whole lot of people seem to be able to identify beauty in music. I agree that you can't identify it in the same way as a harmonic chordal progression, by just circling some notes and writing down precisely what it is, but this doesn't mean beauty isn't a quality in music.


----------



## fbjim

There are many issues with the analogy but the primary one I can think of is that a truth remains true if nobody believes it, but if everyone stopped believing something was beautiful, there would be no basis to claim it remains beautiful.


----------



## fbjim

Just a further question: if I disbelieve something which is true, most would consider me wrong, deluded, or otherwise in a state of objective logical sin.

What am I if I believe something to not be beautiful when others do? Conversely, if I believe something many believe to be ugly to posses beauty- say, a grimy city environment, what does that make the majority of the population? What if I was the only person to find something beautiful? Am I wrong, or is the rest of the world?


----------



## Woodduck

Why is it wrong to say that beauty, by every definition of the word (an important qualifier), can't reside in things unless everyone can perceive it? Is universal perceptibility a necessary condition for the existence of everything in the universe? Isn't it possible that people differ in what they can perceive, and that many things might influence this?

Just asking...


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> Then please explain why, if beauty is a quality of an object, why everyone must perceive it with no disagreement? My younger brother loves entomology. Sometimes, he'll tell me things about insects, and even after he explains it, when we look at a real insect, only he perceives the given quality.


I don't agree that beauty is a quality of an object, but a quality of perception of an object.



> The point of the comparison is not that truth and beauty are the same, but that disagreement on something does not render it purely up to personal preference or only a quality of each individual mind. Your standard of beauty being a quality of, say, a Tchaikovsky ballet, is that everyone agrees it is beautiful and is able to perceive it, and yet, given your location, the population of your home country can't even agree on who won the last presidential election.


I do not agree that truth and beauty are the same. The truth of a statement can be tested and proven, not so with beauty.



> Despite this statement, a whole lot of people seem to be able to identify beauty in music. I agree that you can't identify it in the same way as a harmonic chordal progression, by just circling some notes and writing down precisely what it is, but this doesn't mean beauty isn't a quality in music.


The fact that a number of people might agree that the same piece of music is beautiful only demonstrates that those people have similar taste in music. It is also true that a number of people will not agree. This is perfectly normal when describing a response to stimuli: some will find it pleasing, others not.

Why do they not all agree? I don't know. But it is a fact that the perception of beauty is a subjective response.


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> Why is it wrong to say that beauty, by every definition of the word (an important qualifier), can't reside in things unless everyone can perceive it? Is universal perceptibility a necessary condition for the existence of everything in the universe? Isn't it possible that people differ in what they can perceive, and that many things might influence this?
> 
> Just asking...


If we define beauty as the aspects of things which can produce aesthetic pleasure, we have created a semantic void, because any aspect can conceivably do that, meaning "beauty" doesn't exist except as a synonym of "aspect". This is probably my main problem with the contention that beauty is an inherent quality that is "perceived" and remains there whether the listener sees it or not.

Because of this, I find it much more meaningful to focus on the subjective aesthetic response itself.


----------



## fbjim

I also want to point out that humans constantly ascribe aspects to things that they clearly do not inherently have. For instance, we can ascribe human emotions like "happy" or "mournful" to inanimate objects (like art) because it is useful to do so. This is different from saying that those objects suddenly become capable of feeling and possessing human emotion.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> The heightened consciousness you're asking about is not pleasure, but it gives rise to pleasure. It's the level of perception which enables an artist (musical, visual or literary) to create a work, and which enables us to appreciate it. It's "heightened" because most people don't walk around with this level of awareness most of the time.
> 
> Stimulation by a work of art (or something else) to a higher-than-normal level of awareness - an acute consciousness of qualities and relationships - is largely responsible for the sort of pleasure we call "aesthetic," and we're apt to single out things that stimulate this sort of pleasure as "beautiful." In music, the necessary stimulus is caused in part by the music's internal relationships and the perceptual "sense" they make - by how well (comprehensibly, interestingly, strikingly, originally, playfully, expressively) they're organized or composed. Some qualities of composition which we perceive and enjoy, and which have long been identified as contributing to the sense of beauty, are variety within unity, movement contained in equipoise, expressive gesture, and the deployment and resolution of tension and ambiguity. Such qualities are expressible in all sensory modes as well as ideational structures, and can thus be perceived and enjoyed in all the arts.
> 
> That's all I have the energy for right now. Maybe it's a decent start on the challenging question of what people perceive as beautiful and why they do.


I don't think it is a start, much less a decent one, as your ideas go back at least to the early 17th century and have long since been found inadequate to the task at hand. Compare your idea of "a higher than normal level of awareness" to:

"Descartes draws a more general distinction between bare consciousness, or basic awareness, and a higher order consciousness in which the subject is not merely aware of some content, but is aware that it has the thought at the time it has it. In a letter for Arnauld (29 July 1648), Descartes explicitly distinguishes bare consciousness from reflection.

'I call the first and simple thoughts of infants direct and not reflective - for instance the pain they feel when some wind distends their intestines, or the pleasure they feel when nourished by sweet blood. But when an adult feels something, and simultaneously perceives that he has not felt it before, I call this second perception reflection, and attribute it to the intellect alone, in spite of its being so linked to sensation that the two occur together and appear to be indistinguishable from each other.'"

Hatfield, Transparency of the Mind: The Contributions of Descartes, Leibniz and Berkeley to the Genesis of the Modern Subject

You, Woodduck, and Millionrainbows were the two leading, died-in-the-wool proponents of Cartesian rationalism here at TC. You were both highly knowledgeable about a lot of music and both were able to explain its merits in articulate detail. Yet, you fought tooth and nail, and seemed not to be able to agree about anything when it came to music.

Why? I respectfully suggest it is because Cartesian rationalism has long since proved an insufficient tool for aesthetic analysis. That is why I keep citing the aesthetic philosophers Hume, Kant, Dewey, Wittgenstein, and Weitz, the art critic and historian Walter Jackson Bate, and the musicologists and musicians Leonard B. Meyer and Charles Rosen. They all begin their analyses by demonstrating (in a variety of contexts and ways) the unavoidable basic principle that mere rationalism is not enough to describe our aesthetic values.

You keep inviting us to bring this thread back to page 1 and restart it down your path. I respectfully decline your invitation, as, to quote a musician favored by Millionrainbows, I've seen that road before.


----------



## EdwardBast

SanAntone said:


> How can beauty be a quality within the object if not everyone perceives it?


Why need everyone perceive it? I don't understand why you think this is a valid objection or a coherent proposition.


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> I don't agree that beauty is a quality of an object, but a quality of perception of an object


But this is not how beauty is commonly defined or used. Why would you just redefine beauty?



SanAntone said:


> I do not agree that truth and beauty are the same. The truth of a statement can be tested and proven, not so with beauty.


First of all, no one has claimed beauty and truth are the same. Making a comparison to the two does not amount to claiming they are the same thing.

The truth of some statements can be tested, whereas others can not. E.g., the question "what happens in a universe where there are no observers", can never be tested, but everyone would surely agree that there is some true answer even if it is just "nothing". As far as proven, no scientific statement can be proven, so this is not a good standard of truth.



SanAntone said:


> The fact that a number of people might agree that the same piece of music is beautiful only demonstrates that those people have similar taste in music. It is also true that a number of people will not agree. This is perfectly normal when describing a response to stimuli: some will find it pleasing, others not.
> 
> Why do they not all agree? I don't know. But it is a fact that the perception of beauty is a subjective response.


I don't really disagree with anything here but the last line, and will only again note disagreement does not prove something is subjective. However, I would like to point out that the phrase "perception of beauty is a subjective response" is using beauty to refer to a quality of the object being perceived, rather than the perception .


----------



## fluteman

EdwardBast said:


> Why need everyone perceive it? I don't understand why you think this is a valid objection or a coherent proposition.


If one person perceives it and another doesn't, is it there or not?


----------



## Phil loves classical

SanAntone said:


> How can beauty be a quality within the object if not everyone perceives it?
> 
> I think the quality referred to in the definitions is a quality we experience from some attributes of some music, e.g. "that pleases the aesthetic senses." Not everyone will find the same attributes pleasing, so I can't accept that you and others keep insisting that beauty reside in the object instead of our perceptive experience.


I think that's an interesting statement. Beauty in a piece of music is not the same as its other qualities such as time signature, key, and those that are inherent in the music, and that anyone can determine.

I'll compare it to say a beautiful face (gender neutral, so nobody objects), where the eyes, nose and mouth are in the 'right place' and 'right shape'. It's not the fact that there are 2 eyes, above 1 nose and 1 mouth that makes it beautiful. The same with beautiful music that has a sense of rightness. And that rightness in one object doesn't appeal to everyone. But I think the qualities or ingredients of beauty still resides within the music or face, and is perceived by the listener or viewer. The sense of beauty is an inseparable interaction between the object and perceiver. The object is not beautiful on its own, but can have certain qualities that lead to being perceived beautiful.


----------



## fluteman

Phil loves classical said:


> I think that's an interesting statement. Beauty in a piece of music is not the same as its other qualities such as time signature, key, and those that are inherent in the music, and that anyone can determine.
> 
> I'll compare it to say a beautiful face (gender neutral, so nobody objects), where the eyes, nose and mouth are in the 'right place' and 'right shape'. It's not the fact that there are 2 eyes, above 1 nose and 1 mouth that makes it beautiful. The same with beautiful music that has a sense of rightness. And that rightness in one object doesn't appeal to everyone. But I think the qualities or ingredients of beauty still resides within the music or face, and is perceived by the listener or viewer. The sense of beauty is an inseparable interaction between the object and perceiver. The object is not beautiful on its own, but can have certain qualities that lead to being perceived beautiful.


The problem comes when you try to make rational sense of those qualities or find something universal in them.


----------



## EdwardBast

fluteman said:


> If one person perceives it and another doesn't, is it there or not?


This is supposed to be a serious hypothetical question? If so, I'm sorry I can't take it as one.

SanAntone seems to be asserting that if an aesthetic quality is not universally perceived then it doesn't exist. I'm just asking for clarification on why that makes sense to him. Do you have something to offer on this point?


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> But this is not how beauty is commonly defined or used. Why would you just redefine beauty?


None of your definitions say that beauty is in an object. They refer to "a quality". The only way this makes sense, IMO, is for this quality is not in the object (since it cannot be identified) but the quality of how we perceive the actual attributes in the music.



> First of all, no one has claimed beauty and truth are the same. Making a comparison to the two does not amount to claiming they are the same thing.


I don't think a meaningful comparison is possible since the two, truth and beauty, are different in kind not degree.



> The truth of some statements can be tested, whereas others can not. E.g., the question "what happens in a universe where there are no observers", can never be tested, but everyone would surely agree that there is some true answer even if it is just "nothing". As far as proven, no scientific statement can be proven, so this is not a good standard of truth.


If the truth of a statement cannot be proven then it is not true. It is a hypothesis.



> I don't really disagree with anything here but the last line, and will only again note disagreement does not prove something is subjective. However, I would like to point out that the phrase "perception of beauty is a subjective response" is using beauty to refer to a quality of the object being perceived, rather than the perception .


We all respond to attributes in a piece of music subjectively. There is a reason the statement "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is well known; because it is easily recognizable as a fact.


----------



## SanAntone

EdwardBast said:


> This is supposed to be a serious hypothetical question? If so, I'm sorry I can't take it as one.
> 
> SanAntone seems to be asserting that if an aesthetic quality is not universally perceived then it doesn't exist. I'm just asking for clarification on why that makes sense to him. Do you have something to offer on this point?


No I am not asserting that. I have repeatedly asserted that beauty is not _inherent _in a piece of music, or any object. Beauty exists, in our minds not the music.

The assessment of beauty is one _response_ to stimuli, e.g. music. The same music can produce the opposite response, so "beauty" is not in the music. Beauty is a quality we identify when we hear musical passages that bring us pleasure. These passages can be different for everyone. And just because two, twenty, or two million, people agree that a piece of music is beautiful does not make those subjective judgments proof that beauty is inherently in that piece of music. It just means that those people share similar taste in music.


----------



## Phil loves classical

fluteman said:


> The problem comes when you try to make rational sense of those qualities or find something universal in them.


Agree. Those attempts are bound to fail. Beauty invariably involves an attraction between an object and the perceiver. It doesn't exist in the object alone without that link, just as it can't only be in the receiver's mind.


----------



## arpeggio

BachIsBest said:


> I may sound like a broken record...


Welcome to the club. In another thread I was accused of being a 'broken chord'


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> None of your definitions say that beauty is in an object. They refer to "a quality". The only way this makes sense, IMO, is for this quality is not in the object (since it cannot be identified) but the quality of how we perceive the actual attributes in the music.


"the qualities *in a* person or a thing that give pleasure to the senses or the mind"



SanAntone said:


> I don't think a meaningful comparison is possible since the two, truth and beauty, are different in kind not degree.


Surely one can make meaningful comparisons between different kinds of things? If we could only make comparisons between things that are different in degrees, I feel our insight into the world would be rather anaemic (even by calling the insight anaemic, I'm drawing comparison between human thought and physical disease; things different in kind, rather than degree).



SanAntone said:


> If the truth of a statement cannot be proven then it is not true. It is a hypothesis.


Then no scientific statements are true. Science deals in empirical evidence, not proof. If the evidence is overwhelming, we then say it is a scientific truth.

Furthermore, I believe you misinterpreted my example. The example was to show how a statement that can never be proven true or false, or even empirically tested, should still have a truth value.



SanAntone said:


> We all respond to attributes in a piece of music subjectively. There is a reason the statement "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is well known; because it is easily recognizable as a fact.


Given you seem so stringent on proof, I'm going to have to ask for your proof here. Surely its not that people disagree, as this would rely on people being infallible.


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> I was aiming at asking Woodduck to elaborate, which he has done.
> 
> With respect, I'm not sure your post does sound more than a broken record.


At this point in a thread that has been going on this long with a number of the same posters contributing, isn't almost everybody's posts beginning to sound like a broken record?


----------



## fluteman

EdwardBast said:


> This is supposed to be a serious hypothetical question? If so, I'm sorry I can't take it as one.
> 
> SanAntone seems to be asserting that if an aesthetic quality is not universally perceived then it doesn't exist. I'm just asking for clarification on why that makes sense to him. Do you have something to offer on this point?


Well, the sound waves are certainly there. What one makes of them depends on a host of factors that cannot be predicted, at least not universally or invariably. In other words, particular aesthetic qualities (as opposed to physical features or qualities) will exist for some people, even many people, but not for all people, i.e., not universally. This is the point Morris Weitz makes in his famous essay, The Role of Theory in Aesthetics. A short, easy read. Forster liked it. Give it a try.



Phil loves classical said:


> Agree. Those attempts are bound to fail. Beauty invariably involves an attraction between an object and the perceiver. It doesn't exist in the object alone without that link, just as it can't only be in the receiver's mind.


Though, beauty can only be in the receiver's mind. I have entire concertos and string quartets committed to memory, and I can hear them "in my mind's ear" even without the sound waves. Beethoven certainly heard his music this way after he became completely deaf.


----------



## DaveM

The more I reflect about this ‘discussion’, the more I think that the answer is not as difficult as a number of posters are making it. 

Fact:
The human brain is the endpoint of the perception of beauty. No one can contest that any more than they can contest the fact that all 5 of our senses require a brain to interpret them.

Fact:
Within cultures and in some cases, across cultures and also within subsets of cultures, there are certain things within nature, among humans and in the arts where there is a consensus that they have qualities wherein they are perceived as beautiful.

How many people think that a rose is an ugly flower? Books are named after roses. There are sayings about roses.

How many people don’t see the beauty in a sunset?

How many people think that, in her prime, Elizabeth Taylor was ugly?

How many listeners of CPT music think that Beethoven’s Pathetique Adagio is not beautiful?

I could go on.

Those who will not be able to accept the second fact are those that, inexplicably, place the emphasis on the fact that some may disagree on the the beauty of some things. What in this world is ever 100%? So, where there is a consensus, again within a culture or across cultures or within subsets of cultures, that some things are perceived as being beautiful, why does the minority who don’t agree (on the beauty question) get to rule and why does the fact that some don’t agree result in some big problem regarding certain things (in these circumstances) being interpreted by many as being beautiful?


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> Those who will not be able to accept the second fact are those that, inexplicably, place the emphasis on the fact that some may disagree on the the beauty of some things. What in this world is ever 100%? So, where there is a consensus, again within a culture or across cultures or within subsets of cultures, that some things are perceived as being beautiful, why does the minority who don't agree get to rule and why does the fact that some don't agree result in some big problem regarding certain things being interpreted as beautiful?


This is the endpoint of the position that beauty is in inherent quality of music and why this has more or less become a proxy war for modern music (again). That if a popular canon exists, those who dislike works in it, or like works outside of it do not only have different musical tastes, but are objectively flawed in some way.


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> If we define beauty as the aspects of things which can produce aesthetic pleasure, we have created a semantic void, because any aspect can conceivably do that, meaning "beauty" doesn't exist except as a synonym of "aspect".
> 
> This is probably my main problem with the contention that beauty is an inherent quality that is "perceived" and remains there whether the listener sees it or not.


The semantics here are indeed difficult. I would not define beauty as an "aspect" of things, but rather as an "effect" certain aspects of things can produce on a mind capable of perceiving and reacting to them. Although you're right to say that virtually anything can produce an aesthetic response, this creates no semantic lacuna; it doesn't render the concept of beauty meaningless, much less leave beauty itself as a mere arbitrary attribution based on nothing but feelings determined by personal factors. What it does do is challenge us to understand how and why, and in what respect, a thing can be beautiful, and what qualities in things make the concept of beauty useful and necessary. A purely subjective theory of beauty poses no such challenges, or any others I can think of except perhaps to "know thyself."

Aesthetic qualities - the specific objects of interest in speaking of "beauty" - do exist. They, unlike beauty, are real characteristics of things both physical and mental, and virtually all things exhibit such characteristics. Viewed with interest and sensitivity - a sensitivity which seems to reside in the basic nature of human consciousness - they normally give some sort of pleasure unless some countervailing factor prevents this response. It appears that most people are at least potentially receptive to the effect of aesthetic qualities most of the time, and we all know people - including perhaps ourselves - who are constantly engaged in aesthetic appraisal, constantly and even compulsively judging the look and sound of things, a process that has no value or purpose beyond our extraction from it of some peculiar pleasure of the mind. What is it in things that so strangely compels our attention? What is it that we are appraising? What aspects and qualities of things are we noticing? What are the subconscious - but potentially conscious - criteria we use in judging that a picture on a wall is a good or poor choice for the room in which we're sitting, or that it ought to be hung an inch higher or lower, or over the couch rather than the mantel? And are these criteria based on nothing but "personal feelings" or "tastes," or are there larger and more universal principles, perhaps rooted in our physiology and cognitive structures, at work, guiding us toward a more satisfying - more "beautiful" - solution to a problem presented to our perceiving faculties?

These are meaningful questions. As an artist who has worked in several media, I've confronted them in the most immediate way possible, and the continuous, intimate and often difficult wrestling with perceptual qualities in pursuit of greater beauty has always been the primary basis and motivation for my thinking on aesthetics. The aesthetic problems that artists try to solve are real and are not mere matters of taste or preference. I would add that aesthetic responses are subtle and complex, and often contradictory. We can find beauty even in things we don't like on the whole; a thing can be beautiful from one point of view or in one context and not in another. It can even seem beautiful and ugly simultaneously, and there are intrinsic reasons for these responses. It's simplistic and mistaken to think that beauty arises only when we're overcome with pleasant feelings and vanishes when the feelings die. That may not be your position, but it's the logical implication of statements some have made. I suspect that those folk have never spent a tense and discouraging hour searching for just that note, color, line or word that would make the difference between vague, clumsy discordance and the harmonious rightness we call "beauty."


----------



## fbjim

BachIsBest said:


> "the qualities *in a* person or a thing that give pleasure to the senses or the mind"


For many reasons, including poetic license, rhetorical convenience and the fact that none of us like to play the philosophy of aesthetics when we talk about music, it is extremely common to ascribe aspects to art that they do not have. If art is "joyful" because it contains "aspects which provide aesthetic senses of joy", does that mean the art is capable of human emotion? Or is it a convenient way to express that the art provokes a joyful response in our selves?


----------



## Phil loves classical

fluteman said:


> Though, beauty can only be in the receiver's mind. I have entire concertos and string quartets committed to memory, and I can hear them "in my mind's ear" even without the sound waves. Beethoven certainly heard his music this way after he became completely deaf.


I'd argue that the music you committed to memory is already an object or form of one, although not physical. Just like those dirty pictures in one's mind.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> I don't think it is a start, much less a decent one, as your ideas go back at least to the early 17th century and have long since been found inadequate to the task at hand. Compare your idea of "a higher than normal level of awareness" to:
> 
> "Descartes draws a more general distinction between bare consciousness, or basic awareness, and a higher order consciousness in which the subject is not merely aware of some content, but is aware that it has the thought at the time it has it. In a letter for Arnauld (29 July 1648), Descartes explicitly distinguishes bare consciousness from reflection.
> 
> 'I call the first and simple thoughts of infants direct and not reflective - for instance the pain they feel when some wind distends their intestines, or the pleasure they feel when nourished by sweet blood. But when an adult feels something, and simultaneously perceives that he has not felt it before, I call this second perception reflection, and attribute it to the intellect alone, in spite of its being so linked to sensation that the two occur together and appear to be indistinguishable from each other.'"
> 
> Hatfield, Transparency of the Mind: The Contributions of Descartes, Leibniz and Berkeley to the Genesis of the Modern Subject
> 
> You, Woodduck, and Millionrainbows were the two leading, died-in-the-wool proponents of Cartesian rationalism here at TC. You were both highly knowledgeable about a lot of music and both were able to explain its merits in articulate detail. Yet, you fought tooth and nail, and seemed not to be able to agree about anything when it came to music.
> 
> Why? I respectfully suggest it is because Cartesian rationalism has long since proved an insufficient tool for aesthetic analysis. That is why I keep citing the aesthetic philosophers Hume, Kant, Dewey, Wittgenstein, and Weitz, the art critic and historian Walter Jackson Bate, and the musicologists and musicians Leonard B. Meyer and Charles Rosen. They all begin their analyses by demonstrating (in a variety of contexts and ways) the unavoidable basic principle that mere rationalism is not enough to describe our aesthetic values.
> 
> You keep inviting us to bring this thread back to page 1 and restart it down your path. I respectfully decline your invitation, as, to quote a musician favored by Millionrainbows, I've seen that road before.


Actual refutation of specific statements would be much more useful and impressive than irrelevant quotations, the name-dropping of philosophers, and the resurrection of Millionrainbows.

If you think I'm a "Cartesian rationalist" and that Millionrainbows was my companion in that philosophical trench, I don't think you understand me, or Descartes, or both of us. I won't speak for Millionrainbows.


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> Aesthetic qualities - the specific objects of interest in speaking of "beauty" - do exist. They, unlike beauty, are real characteristics of things both physical and mental, and virtually all things exhibit such characteristics. Viewed with interest and sensitivity - a sensitivity which seems to reside in the basic nature of human consciousness - they normally give some sort of pleasure unless some countervailing factor prevents this response.


I am not sure I agree with this. One odd thing I've noticed is the privileging of the aspect of beauty as a positive quantity, if that makes sense. One talks about finding the beauty, or discovering the beauty, or not seeing the beauty. But I think beauty is one of many aesthetic responses art can provoke, not all of which are positive. If I listen to the Fifth Symphony 100 times in a row and can't stand to listen to it anymore, few people would say I have "found the unbearable tedium" of Beethoven, or that Beethoven contains inherent aspects of "unbearable tedium" that need only wait for a properly informed listener to discover- instead they would probably say, rightly so, that the "unbearable tedium" is an aesthetic response that is informed by my subjective state of really rather wanting to listen to something else instead.

Now - beauty is a very pleasing response, so it makes rhetorical sense to try to "seek it out" in the sense that we tend to listen to music for entertainment and pleasure. But strictly speaking from a perception-response point-of-view, I do not see why it be treated any differently as any other subjective response we may have to music.

I think there is a divide between a detached analysis of subjective responses to music, and our language, which- because we want to listen to music to be entertained- understandably frames art consumption as a search for the positive.


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> "the qualities *in a* person or a thing that give pleasure to the senses or the mind"


Right. The qualities, not "beauty," are in the music. I have said it is the qualities, or attributes, in the music which we respond to and sometimes call them beautiful to the extent they give us pleasure.



> Then no scientific statements are true. Science deals in empirical evidence, not proof. If the evidence is overwhelming, we then say it is a scientific truth.


Fine. There is no empirical evidence to prove that beauty is inherent on a piece of music. And no overwhelming evidence other than we assess beauty subjectively.



> Given you seem so stringent on proof, I'm going to have to ask for your proof here. Surely its not that people disagree, as this would rely on people being infallible.


What are you asking me to prove? That people respond subjectively to music? Or that the statement, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is well known and recognized as a fact?


----------



## fluteman

Phil loves classical said:


> I'd argue that the music you committed to memory is already an object or form of one, although not physical. Just like those dirty pictures in one's mind.


Right! But are those pictures dirty? Or are they beautiful? As soon as my wife goes someplace else, I'll spend some quality time meditating on that.:lol:


----------



## fbjim

fbjim said:


> For many reasons, including poetic license, rhetorical convenience and the fact that none of us like to play the philosophy of aesthetics when we talk about music, it is extremely common to ascribe aspects to art that they do not have. If art is "joyful" because it contains "aspects which provide aesthetic senses of joy", does that mean the art is capable of human emotion? Or is it a convenient way to express that the art provokes a joyful response in our selves?


Actually just to expand on this- in language, it is _incredibly_ common that when something provokes a subjective emotional response, we ascribe that response to the object.*

We are not "wrong" when we do so because we all understand - consciously or not, what we are doing. My mother's cooking is nostalgic. The weather is dreary. The traffic is infuriating. I do not understand why we must privilege "beauty" in some way by saying - no - *this* time it is an aspect of the thing, and not the response, and I do not really think ancient Greek philosophy is a response to this without further explanation.

*someone who took a linguistics class probably knows the proper name for this use of language.


----------



## BachIsBest

fbjim said:


> For many reasons, including poetic license, rhetorical convenience and the fact that none of us like to play the philosophy of aesthetics when we talk about music, it is extremely common to ascribe aspects to art that they do not have. If art is "joyful" because it contains "aspects which provide aesthetic senses of joy", does that mean the art is capable of human emotion? Or is it a convenient way to express that the art provokes a joyful response in our selves?


"[E]xperiencing, causing, or showing joy" is the definition of joyful (from the same dictionary as that definition of beauty: Merriam-Webster). When we describe music by stating it is joyful, we are saying it causes joy (I think we agree here?).

"[T]he qualities in a person or a thing that give pleasure to the senses or the mind" is the definition of beauty. The definition is obviously and clearly different from the definition of joy, in that, when this word is used one is not just saying that music produces a certain effect (joy, in the case of joyfulness), but has a certain, specific, quality (or combination of qualities depending on what definition of used).

As much as some members seem to wish otherwise, I realise that words can be used in ways that do not literally match their definitions for many reasons. But what you are doing here, when quoting my definition, is to argue words are defined in the dictionary in ways they do not literally mean. The dictionary is the source for the common understanding of what words mean. One can argue dictionary definitions are not complete or overly general, but arguing they are literally incorrect, when so many different dictionaries agree, seems to be a bit of a fools errand.


----------



## fbjim

BachIsBest said:


> "[E]xperiencing, causing, or showing joy" is the definition of joy (from the same dictionary as that definition of beauty: Merriam-Webster). When we describe music by stating it is joyful, we are saying it causes joy (I think we agree here?).


What we are doing is anthropomizing*. Music is not a human being- so to ascribe the human emotion of "joy" to treat it as if it were capable of human emotion. It is an absurdity in a strictly literal sense, but makes perfect sense in everyday use, which is why a dictionary would certainly say that something can be "happy" if it causes (or- contains aspects which cause) human beings to feel happy.

This does not mean that when we are looking at objects in some sort of philosophical context, we therefore must concede that objects are actually capable of feeling human emotion.

*boy am i not spelling this correctly


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> You, *Woodduck*, and *Millionrainbows* were the two leading, died-in-the-wool *proponents of Cartesian rationalism* here at TC.


You said this a number of times before, but I've never got it. Whatabout 1996D (who always discussed things like the "good" and "evil" in music), for example? He wasn't one? How?


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> I am not sure I agree with this. One odd thing I've noticed is the privileging of the aspect of beauty as a positive quantity, if that makes sense.


That's not an odd thing. The very concept of beauty assumes the capacity and tendency to please the mind in some way.



> One talks about finding the beauty, or discovering the beauty, or not seeing the beauty. But I think beauty is one of many aesthetic responses art can provoke, not all of which are positive.


Certainly true. Almost anything can provoke a range of responses from positive to negative. Art is no exception.



> If I listen to the Fifth Symphony 100 times in a row and can't stand to listen to it anymore, few people would say I have "found the unbearable tedium" of Beethoven, or that Beethoven contains inherent aspects of "unbearable tedium" that need only wait for a properly informed listener to discover- instead they would probably say, rightly so, that the "unbearable tedium" is an aesthetic response that is informed by my subjective state of really rather wanting to listen to something else instead.


In what sense is tedium an "aesthetic response"? It sounds to me like the absence of one. The aesthetic qualities present in works of art do not force anyone to respond to them. And we will tire of anything and become desensitized from excessive exposure.



> Now - beauty is a very pleasing response, so it makes rhetorical sense to try to "seek it out" in the sense that we tend to listen to music for entertainment and pleasure. But strictly speaking from a perception-response point-of-view, I do not see why it be treated any differently as any other subjective response we may have to music.


We treat aesthetic responses differently because they are a unique sort of response. The mistake here is to lump aesthetic perception with all other sorts of perception, and the pleasure induced by aesthetic qualities with a general notion of "good feelings." My appreciation of a beautifully composed work of music doesn't appear and disappear with my momentary disposition to listen to it or not.


----------



## fbjim

I am on a phone and not particularly able to type a large response but I think negative responses are not the absence of a positive response. To say a work "lacks beauty" and that a work is "ugly" are two different things. In the same way, I don't think it's the same thing to say a work failed to engage us, versus saying a work specifically caused us to respond with a sense of tedium. 

In fact, they better be two different things because we'd have a severe problem if a work provokes different responses in people and therefore we must contend that a work somehow contains beauty and and a lack of beauty simultaneously.


E) also more to the point, we absolutely can be sensitized to respond more favorably to a piece under certain conditions, just as certain conditions can cause us to respond unfavorably. It can be something as concrete as learning to appreciate Schoenberg or as unknowable as just being in the right mood to listen to Mahler.


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> I am on a phone and not particularly able to type a large response but I think negative responses are not the absence of a positive response. To say a work "lacks beauty" and that a work is "ugly" are two different things.
> 
> In fact, they better be two different things because we'd have a severe problem if a work provokes different responses in people and therefore we must contend that a work somehow contains beauty and and a lack of beauty simultaneously.


You spoke of being tired of Beethoven's 5th, not of finding it ugly. To think a work beautiful and later to consider it actually ugly would certainly raise interesting questions, at least about the listener. My first question would be, "What did you mean when you said it was beautiful?"


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> You spoke of being tired of Beethoven's 5th, not of finding it ugly. To think a work beautiful and later to consider it actually ugly would certainly raise interesting questions, at least about the listener. My first question would be, "What did you mean when you said it was beautiful?"


I think the way we perceive things absolutely can change based on our moods. If we like someone, we're likely to focus on the aspects of that person which we view positively, but it we're in a mood where - for whatever reason, we are not inclined to do so, we can focus on the negative aspects and not be able to see the positive ones.

I think a detached view would say that both responses are "true", and that for an observer, beauty can absolutely exist or cease to exist based on our subjective state at the time. In fact, apart from focusing on positive or negative aspects, specific aspects of something can provoke both positive and negative responses depending on the observer, or the state of the same observer.


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> I think the way we perceive things absolutely can change based on our moods. If we like someone, we're likely to focus on the aspects of that person which we view positively, but it we're in a mood where - for whatever reason, we are not inclined to do so, we can focus on the negative aspects and not be able to see the positive ones.
> 
> I think a detached view would say that both responses are "true", and that for an observer, beauty can absolutely exist or cease to exist based on our subjective state at the time. In fact, apart from focusing on positive or negative aspects, specific aspects of something can provoke both positive and negative responses depending on the observer, or the state of the same observer.


I agree with these observations. I disagree only in being unwilling to say that beauty, fully understood, actually appears and disappears with the mood of the observer. To me this is a problem of definition. Beauty as commonly defined - "a feature of objects that makes these objects pleasant to the mind or senses," or something to that effect - includes unlike things we should take care to distinguish. Purely sensory qualities such as the timbre of instruments are very unlike the qualities of form in a musical composition, yet we attribute beauty to both as if the pleasure we experience on hearing the work makes them equivalent. Our response to the sound of an instrument is much like our taste in food, for which, as the saying goes, there's no accounting (although there are some tastes that indicate physiological harm and are probably disagreeable to all palates). Our response to qualities of composition, however, are far more complex and meaningful, reflecting and calling upon fundamental aspects of the way the human mind works. Personal taste is not irrelevant in responses to these complex artistic stimuli, but the brain recognizes, with great (mostly unconscious) skill and subtlety, when and how basic patterns and needs of cognition are being mirrored and satisfied (or not) by the object of contemplation. Artists in creating works are engaged in a constant search for such patterns - we might call them archetypes of consciousness - and cannot rest until they have achieved the highest degree of structural/perceptual comprehensibilty they can. This is the quest whether the product is the simplest hymn tune or the most complex symphony or opera, and the artist's success does not depend on whether or not a given observer perceives it.


----------



## Luchesi

fbjim said:


> if aesthetic pleasure/beauty/et al derives _entirely_ from the score, and that timbre (i.e. the instrumentation) does not materially change the work, then aesthetic pleasure should be maintained regardless of the instrumentation. the fact that this is not true suggests that one of those things, or both, are false.


No, Bach understood that the instruments he was composing for would sound good and spiritual because of his notes (phrases).


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> Improvised music can't be scored, except perhaps in broad outline. In fact, as SanAntone pointed out many posts ago, no music can be scored completely and perfectly. Are you really unable to see that?
> 
> Doesn't this fact, i.e., that music can't be fully captured in a written score, suggest something to you? Doesn't the fact that the word "beauty" cannot be precisely and consistently defined, except as aesthetic pleasure in the perceiver, suggest something to you?
> 
> There are too many goldfish here who cannot see the bowl they are swimming in.


So it's all riding on the accuracy and the faithfulness of the scores.


----------



## Luchesi

eljr said:


> So then you agree, beauty is in our perception not in the object.
> 
> Good.


It's only in the object (the thing-in-itself), because it's nowhere else. The fleeting snippets (of 'beauty) in the brain are just flashes. We can recall them but at that point they're in a different form (not the original sensory inputs). Music is ephemeral (understatement).


----------



## BachIsBest

fbjim said:


> What we are doing is anthropomizing*. Music is not a human being- so to ascribe the human emotion of "joy" to treat it as if it were capable of human emotion. It is an absurdity in a strictly literal sense, but makes perfect sense in everyday use, which is why a dictionary would certainly say that something can be "happy" if it causes (or- contains aspects which cause) human beings to feel happy.
> 
> This does not mean that when we are looking at objects in some sort of philosophical context, we therefore must concede that objects are actually capable of feeling human emotion.
> 
> *boy am i not spelling this correctly


We are saying the music is joyful, which is saying it is causing joy. Never are we saying the music is experiencing the emotion of joy. Again, definition of joy is "experiencing, causing, *or* showing joy". Clearly, in the case of music (although one might argue music can show joy as in express it), the "causing" part of the definition makes the most sense, so I'm not sure why you would argue as though this definition means the music is experiencing joy.


----------



## Luchesi

BachIsBest said:


> We are saying the music is joyful, which is saying it is causing joy. Never are we saying the music is experiencing the emotion of joy. Again, definition of joy is "experiencing, causing, *or* showing joy". Clearly, in the case of music (although one might argue music can show joy as in express it), the "causing" part of the definition makes the most sense, so I'm not sure why you would argue as though this definition means the music is experiencing joy.


We feel joy when we hear Mary Had A Little Lamb. We feel joy when we hear the last movement of the Italian Concerto (JsB). What's the connection? There's similarities (attractive to our musical brains) from the scores.


----------



## Forster

Woodduck said:


> judging that a picture on a wall is a good or poor choice for the room in which we're sitting, or that it ought to be hung an inch higher or lower, or over the couch rather than the mantel?


At the risk of sounding like a cracked record () I notice that you've slipped into the visual again. I happen to agree with your point about some subliminal rules about where to hand pictures on the wall, but IMO, that doesn't help with the analysis of beauty in music, which several posters seem determined to steer away from.

Bu then, I'm still struggling with the idea of "heightened awareness" being a thing. Is this something spiritual? Or merely an experience when one focuses on something - say, an emerging emotional response to _Das Rheingold_ - to the exclusion of all other sensory input? In other words, are we talking only of the 5 senses and the brain, or something ineffable?


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> The more I reflect about this 'discussion', the more I think that the answer is not as difficult as a number of posters are making it. [...]
> 
> why does the minority who don't agree (on the beauty question) get to rule


I think there's quite a few posters who think it's easy. Perhaps that's because we think we have the right answer and it's the other fella that's wrong? 

On your last point, I expect the minority don't want the majority to "rule" either.


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> I think there's quite a few posters who think it's easy. Perhaps that's because we think we have the right answer and it's the other fella that's wrong?
> 
> On your last point, I expect the minority don't want the majority to "rule" either.


But that's not the point. The 'minority' I'm referring to are the people, in general, who may not consider things to be perceived as having beauty when there is a consensus to the contrary. Some posters here keep repeating to the effect that because they exist, the consensus essentially means nothing.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> But that's not the point. The 'minority' I'm referring to are the people, in general, who may not consider things to be perceived as having beauty when there is a consensus to the contrary. Some posters here keep repeating to the effect that because they exist, the consensus essentially means nothing.


It is the point: you asked why the minority must rule. I offered an answer. An alternative answer is that who rules is not the point either.


----------



## Woodduck

Forster said:


> At the risk of sounding like a cracked record () I notice that you've slipped into the visual again. I happen to agree with your point about some subliminal rules about where to hand pictures on the wall, but IMO, that doesn't help with the analysis of beauty in music, which several posters seem determined to steer away from.
> 
> Bu then, I'm still struggling with the idea of "heightened awareness" being a thing. Is this something spiritual? Or merely an experience when one focuses on something - say, an emerging emotional response to _Das Rheingold_ - to the exclusion of all other sensory input? In other words, are we talking only of the 5 senses and the brain, or something ineffable?


The interesting thing is, when we talk about form in any of the arts we tend to use terms, images, analogies, and metaphors that "slip into the visual." We speak of pitches being "high" and "low," of singers' vibratos being "wide" or "narrow," of timbre being "dark" or "bright." I think we're heavily visual creatures who simply have a better vocabulary to describe visual phenomena than to describe relationships among sounds. I do see the legitimacy of wanting more specifically musical examples, but describing music without recourse to the visual (!) aid of scores is quite difficult, and there's a high probability of not being understood even when our descriptions are good.

All that aside, I merely asked, "What are the subconscious - but potentially conscious - criteria we use in judging that a picture on a wall is a good or poor choice for the room in which we're sitting, or that it ought to be hung an inch higher or lower, or over the couch rather than the mantel?" I could have asked "what are the criteria we use in judging that a slow movement needs to be followed by a scherzo, or that a piece needs an extended coda rather than a quick, decisive finish, or that a main theme in the major needs a contrasting theme in the relative minor rather than the subdominant, or that an oboe would be more appropriate than a clarinet in a solo passage - or any other of the innumerable questions creative artists must ask when trying to create a composition satisfying to the mind. My point is simply that there are principles, rooted in the laws of cognition, governing such choices and making some choices better than others, and that we recognize when good choices have been made and commonly call the results "beautiful."


----------



## Forster

Woodduck said:


> I think we're heavily visual creatures who simply have a better vocabulary to describe visual phenomena than to describe relationships among sounds.


Exactly so.



Woodduck said:


> I do see the legitimacy of wanting more specifically musical examples, but describing music without recourse to the visual (!) aid of scores is quite difficult, and there's a high probability of not being understood even when our descriptions are good.


And yet, if we don't try the difficult, all we end up with is shortcuts as we've seen here frequently, such as:

"We all agree a sunset is beautiful. Therefore beauty is inherent in things and universal (and we can readily carry this across the music)."



Woodduck said:


> I could have asked "what are the criteria we use in judging that a slow movement needs to be followed by a scherzo, or that a piece needs an extended coda rather than a quick, decisive finish, or that a main theme in the major needs a contrasting theme in the relative minor rather than the subdominant, or that an oboe would be more appropriate than a clarinet in a solo passage


You could have...and you just did. That gives us something to work with that is musical. Thanks.



Woodduck said:


> My point is simply that there are principles, rooted in the laws of cognition, governing such choices and making some choices better than others, and that we recognize when good choices have been made and commonly call the results "beautiful."


I agree that there are principles that artists use, consciously or subconsciously, in the creation of their work, but I'm beginning to doubt that the principles that apply to the visual arts are the same as applied to the musical, at least wrt to what is and isn't "beautiful". I'm also not sure that it necessarily carries across for the audience, which has not been through the same creative process and will not necessarily perceive the choices made by the composer. That is, the composer has said to themselves,

"Here I have arrived, after my journey of many choices, at what I believe to be a beautiful composition."

While the audience can only say:

"Here is the composition. I find it beautiful/not beautiful (or something else altogether, not on the beautiful/not beautiful continuum)."


----------



## DaveM

Forster said:


> It is the point: you asked why the minority must rule. I offered an answer. An alternative answer is that who rules is not the point either.


That circular reasoning goes nowhere. You're arguing just for the sake of arguing.


----------



## Forster

DaveM said:


> That circular reasoning goes nowhere. You're arguing just for the sake of arguing.


No, I disagree with your opinion and I say so. Just as I might not agree with Woodduck and say so. That's how these debates work, for me at any rate.

I'm sorry, but you lost me when you labelled me a contrarian, quite unreasonably, IMO. If you don't like my posts, you can always ignore them.


----------



## arpeggio

Forster said:


> I'm sorry, but you lost me when you labelled me a contrarian, quite unreasonably, IMO. If you don't like my posts, you can always ignore them.


A common rhetorical tactic is to accuse someone of being something negative in order to try to put them on the defensive.

I try not to respond to any remarks that accuse me of something I am not or appears to be unfair.

The best response is usually silence.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> But that's not the point. The 'minority' I'm referring to are the people, in general, who may not consider things to be perceived as having beauty when there is a consensus to the contrary. Some posters here keep repeating to the effect that because they exist, the consensus essentially means nothing.


I have always understood the word consensus to refer to a result that *all *can accept (or consent to or live with). But anyway in the case of perception (including perception of a quality like beauty) we are in the realm of psychology, a science that has shown repeatedly that what we think happens in our minds and brains is often actually not what is happening. Given this a majority - even a vast one - may often be likely to be wrong. I'm not taking sides in this debate but just wanted to post that your arguments in this post may not in themselves stand up.


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> At the risk of sounding like a cracked record () I notice that you've slipped into the visual again. I happen to agree with your point about some subliminal rules about where to hand pictures on the wall, but IMO, that doesn't help with the analysis of beauty in music, which several posters seem determined to steer away from.
> 
> Bu then, I'm still struggling with the idea of "heightened awareness" being a thing. Is this something spiritual? Or merely an experience when one focuses on something - say, an emerging emotional response to _Das Rheingold_ - to the exclusion of all other sensory input? In other words, are we talking only of the 5 senses and the brain, or something ineffable?


The concept of heightened awareness is a fundamental principle of Cartesian rationalism. It helps explain why some people see things as they "truly are" while others don't.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> I have always understood the word consensus to refer to a result that *all *can accept (or consent to or live with).


I've always understood the word consensus to mean a generally accepted or a majority opinion, not necessarily 'all'



> But anyway in the case of perception (including perception of a quality like beauty) we are in the realm of psychology, a science that has shown repeatedly that what we think happens in our minds and brains is often actually not what is happening. Given this a majority - even a vast one - may often be likely to be wrong.


Well, we've been down this road before haven't we..more than once. Okay so you don't believe that there is a consensus within any culture, across some cultures and in subsets of cultures that some things are perceived as having beauty. It's all just a big question mark. Also, I might point out that vast majorities may often be right.



> I'm not taking sides in this debate but just wanted to post that your arguments in this post may not in themselves stand up.


Well, you just did.


----------



## hammeredklavier

arpeggio said:


> A common rhetorical tactic is to accuse someone of being something negative in order to try to put them on the defensive


, which is not the conduct of a _Cartesian rationalist_ gentleman.


----------



## Waehnen

I cannot vote either way. There is no music without a receiving brain, really. Then again, when we have a receiving brain formed by our culture, there are musical pieces which _in general concensus _ carry more beauty than others. Take for example a slow movement of the Mozart clarinet concerto and then compare it with a musical piece which I just made up by recording a few cars speeding up passing by.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> The concept of heightened awareness is a fundamental principle of Cartesian rationalism. It helps explain why some people see things as they "truly are" while others don't.


This is illegitimate argumentation. The phrase "heightened awareness" was introduced here by me, not by Descartes. I would appreciate not having my words reinterpreted as someone else's "fundamental principles," and not being labeled (or libeled) a Cartesian, a rationalist, or anything else. The tactic of putting other members into convenient ideological boxes was a technique used by Millionrainbows, and I complained about it constantly, which did no good. I'd hoped to be free of the burden of having myself turned into a straw man.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> But that's not the point. The 'minority' I'm referring to are the people, in general, who may not consider things to be perceived as having beauty when there is a consensus to the contrary. Some posters here keep repeating to the effect that because they exist, the consensus essentially means nothing.


The consensus means what the consensus means - the literal fact that a majority of a given population care for a work of music. I don't think anyone has seriously contested this, or the validity of their, or any subjective evaluation of art. What is under contest is that this is proof that a majority view has objective validity reflected in some sort of inherent quality in the music, and that therefore those in the minority are wrong, or defective.


----------



## EdwardBast

Woodduck said:


> My point is simply that there are principles, rooted in the laws of cognition, governing such choices and making some choices better than others, and that we recognize when good choices have been made and commonly call the results "beautiful."


I'd like to pick up where Woodduck left off, but with the caveat that "principles rooted in the laws of cognition" doesn't quite get at the heart of the matter. I don't think the roots are in laws of cognition so much as in internalized stylistic competencies. Style is the codification of what is considered aesthetically apt or satisfying - or to use a looser stand-in term, beautiful - among a population of culturally interacting individuals (composers, performers, critics, scholars and listeners) of a certain time and place with respect to a particular body of music. Musical beauty is largely conventional and style specific. Much of what was considered beautiful in the Classical Era would have been incomprehensible or confusing to a Renaissance chorister - let alone to a traditional musician of Indonesia, Japan, India, or the American South. Yet there are undoubtedly some basic aesthetic values in music that are significantly cross-cultural if still far from universal. Euphony, for example, the smooth blending of different tones and timbres, is significantly cross-cultural, as heard in the favoring of certain harmonic intervals based on simple frequency ratios. Other broad cross-cultural values seem to be based on the kind of visual analogies and metaphors Woodduck began with. There's significant intersubjective and cross-cultural agreement on what constitutes a graceful line in the visual arts (smooth arc, trajectory, and rate of change in slope, consistent or gradually changing thickness, etc.) and this likely applies metaphorically to musical lines as well by analogy to the visual. Someone steeped in western classical music can recognize this kind of quasi-visual grace in melismatic middle eastern vocal lines or the pitch bends in the improvisation of a sirod player.

Whether such beautiful features are really specific to a given style (like 4-3 suspensions or cambiatas in Renaissance vocal music) or if they enjoy more universality like the examples cited above, such features are undoubtedly inherent in the music itself. They were put there by composers who understood the conventions for creating beauty in a given style with the full expectation that those same features would be understood or perceived in something like the same way by an audience of acculturated listeners. They are inherent but quite often style specific and therefore not universal.

The implications of this for the OP question are obvious. Musical beauty, subject to the conditions and limitations I've outlined, is inherent in musical works but requires acculturated and stylistically competent listeners to recognize and experience. It's both in the music and in the minds of those who perceive it, although in slightly different but complementary senses of the term.


----------



## fbjim

BachIsBest said:


> We are saying the music is joyful, which is saying it is causing joy. Never are we saying the music is experiencing the emotion of joy. Again, definition of joy is "experiencing, causing, *or* showing joy". Clearly, in the case of music (although one might argue music can show joy as in express it), the "causing" part of the definition makes the most sense, so I'm not sure why you would argue as though this definition means the music is experiencing joy.


You are mixing up cause and effect. We don't go "hmm, is it valid to ascribe human emotions to things - well, the dictionary shows it's OK, so hey". The dictionary says emotions can be applied to non-sentient things to say they convey an emotion because of our habit of ascribing emotions to non-human objects or concepts.

It isn't even limited to what objects make us feel- when we say "the sun is viciously beating down on us", we are not saying the sun is causing us to feel vicious, but something very different.

The rhetorical shorthand of ascribing emotions to objects to convey that us as humans create an association of emotion to concepts which don't inherently have them is common enough that it is taught in elementary school, usually along with the concept of metaphor.


----------



## fluteman

hammeredklavier said:


> , which is not the conduct of a _Cartesian rationalist_ gentleman.


Cartesian rationalism is mainly the work of two of history's greatest mathematicians, Descartes and Leibniz. The idea that art cannot be fully analyzed or described in mathematical or logical terms, as Descartes himself suggested could be done, at least with respect to music, in his Compendium Musicae (not published in his lifetime), is not obvious from casual examination.

In fact, it took about 180 years in evolution of thinking on the subject (1750s to 1930s) for western art scholars, critics, historians and philosophers to fully confront the problem. I've already said here that in my opinion, modern industry, science, technology and multi-culturalism made the ultimate resolution increasingly inevitable.

The more intelligent and articulate posts here reflect various stages along this path, beginning with the rationalist approach best articulated by Woodduck. At the end of this evolution in thinking are the professional musicians here like SanAntone, scientists like mmsbls, and others for whom rationalism has been completely superseded by empiricism, and all that empiricism implies.

Not that even the empiricists all think the same. SanAntone, though he may be light years smarter intellectually than I am, likely comes by his empiricism not as an intellectual exercise, but from the pragmatic stance that it is fundamentally necessary for him to function in the music world, both artistically and commercially.

OTH, mmsbls, as a physicist, performs an intellectual exercise with every analytical step he takes. He knows that empiricism is fundamental to his method of analyzing the world, and he ultimately will reject any proposition that isn't empirically supported, however slow, careful and methodical his arrival at his conclusions may be.

Pragmatists and scientists alike have long since rejected rationalism when it comes to aesthetics. As I've noted here, Ludwig Wittgenstein famously called the idea of applying "Science" (by which he meant rationalism) to aesthetics "too ridiculous for words." He approved of applying what today we would call social science or cultural anthropology to the question. No doubt he would approve of neuroscience too. As EdwardBast has pointed out, social scientists have come up with a term for their alternative approach -- intersubjectivity. The pragmatists have their champion in the American philosopher John Dewey, as in his 1936 book Art as Experience.

In this thread, we are trying to traverse the 280-plus years from the rationalists Descartes and Leibniz to the original empiricists Hume and Kant to the modern empiricists Dewey and Wittgenstein. It is slow going. I apologize for my occasional impatience. But there are books by famous writers that include thorough discussions of all of this.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> The consensus means what the consensus means - the literal fact that a majority of a given population care for a work of music. I don't think anyone has seriously contested this, or the validity of their, or any subjective evaluation of art.


Some do contest said validity by always pointing out that a minority may not agree. So, in CPT music, for instance, that there is a consensus that the Beethoven and Brahms violin concertos are among the greatest violin concertos has little or no significance to them because some may not like those works.



> What is under contest is that this is proof that a majority view has objective validity reflected in some sort of inherent quality in the music, and that therefore those in the minority are wrong, or defective.


That is a subject that goes round and round. However, fwiw, there has been agreement by some, including me, that within the framework of CPT music there are some inherent objective qualities in some works that make them revered by a majority. A minority is free to disagree. Whether they are wrong or 'defective' (a strange term here) is IMO irrelevant; these works stand on their own and stand the test of time.


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> Some do contest said validity by always pointing out that a minority may not agree. So, in CPT music, for instance, that there is a consensus that the Beethoven and Brahms violin concertos are among the greatest violin concertos has little or no significance to them because some may not like those works.
> 
> That is a subject that goes round and round. However, fwiw, there has been agreement by some, including me, that within the framework of CPT music there are some inherent objective qualities in some works that make them revered by a majority. A minority is free to disagree. Whether they are wrong or 'defective' (a strange term here) is IMO irrelevant; these works stand on their own and stand the test of time.


Yes, David Hume pointed that out in 1757. But "within the framework of CPT music" is the whole ballgame. And the framework of CPT music is culture specific, not universal. (In fact, it is specific to a culture that has largely disappeared, though still deeply appreciated by some, including me.) Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed that out in 1938. Moreover, if you read their work carefully, you see that David Hume and Sir Joshua Reynolds knew that too in the 18th century, despite some seemingly contradictory statements.


----------



## Enthusiast

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:



> Essential Meaning of consensus
> : a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group


The important difference with "majority" is that there is agreement.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> Cartesian rationalism is mainly the work of two of history's greatest mathematicians, Descartes and Leibniz. *The idea that art cannot be fully analyzed or described in mathematical or logical terms, as Descartes himself suggested could be done,* at least with respect to music, in his Compendium Musicae (not published in his lifetime), is not obvious from casual examination.


This is strawmanning. "Cartesian rationalism," which you here tell us asserts that art can be "fully analyzed or described in mathematical or logical terms," is not a philosophical position I've seen espoused by anyone here.



> In fact, it took about 180 years in evolution of thinking on the subject (1750s to 1930s) for western art scholars, critics, historians and philosophers to fully confront the problem. I've already said here that in my opinion, modern industry, science, technology and multi-culturalism made the ultimate resolution increasingly inevitable.
> 
> The more intelligent and articulate posts here reflect various stages along this path, beginning with *the rationalist approach best articulated by Woodduck. *


I believe this is the third time in two days I've had to go to the trouble of rejecting your characterizing my thinking as "rationalism." It's clear that you're unable to see the empirical foundation from which I argue. But even if you can't understand my objection to your analysis of my views, you should show some respect and quit trying to tell the rest of the forum what I think.



> At the end of this evolution in thinking are the professional musicians here like SanAntone, scientists like mmsbls, and others for whom rationalism has been completely superseded by empiricism, and all that empiricism implies.
> 
> Not that even the empiricists all think the same. SanAntone, though he may be light years smarter intellectually than I am, likely comes by his empiricism not as an intellectual exercise, but from the pragmatic stance that it is fundamentally necessary for him to function in the music world, both artistically and commercially.
> 
> OTH, mmsbls, as a physicist, performs an intellectual exercise with every analytical step he takes. He knows that empiricism is fundamental to his method of analyzing the world, and he ultimately will reject any proposition that isn't empirically supported, however slow, careful and methodical his arrival at his conclusions may be.
> 
> Pragmatists and scientists alike have long since rejected rationalism when it comes to aesthetics. As I've noted here, Ludwig Wittgenstein famously called the idea of applying "Science" (by which he meant rationalism) to aesthetics "too ridiculous for words." He approved of applying what today we would call social science or cultural anthropology to the question. No doubt he would approve of neuroscience too. As EdwardBast has pointed out, social scientists have come up with a term for their alternative approach -- intersubjectivity. The pragmatists have their champion in the American philosopher John Dewey, as in his 1936 book Art as Experience.
> 
> *In this thread, we are trying to traverse the 280-plus years from the rationalists Descartes and Leibniz to the original empiricists Hume and Kant to the modern empiricists Dewey and Wittgenstein. It is slow going. I apologize for my occasional impatience.* But there are books by famous writers that include thorough discussions of all of this.


If you're really convinced that you have fully understood everyone's thinking here and can neatly dispose of it by pasting academic labels on it, there may be no reasoning with you. I can only repeat what I had constantly to tell Millionrainbows: express your own views on the subject at hand and don't try to characterize the views of others.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> Some do contest said validity by always pointing out that a minority may not agree. So, in CPT music, for instance, that there is a consensus that the Beethoven and Brahms violin concertos are among the greatest violin concertos has little or no significance to them because some may not like those works.


The fact that the Beethoven violin concerto is acclaimed makes no difference to an *individual listener* if they do not like it. This is perhaps strongly put- a listener may be more inclined to like a piece if they know it's acclaimed as a masterpiece, or if they know it's by a famous composer, but a) all this demonstrates is that there are many factors to aesthetic response that are extramusical, and b) we still all have those acclaimed works or composers we dislike listening to.

This does not constitute "tyranny of the minority" except in a sense that one might have a desire to characterize the minority as objectively wrong in their tastes. Many of the emperical/subjective side have defined "objectively great" composers specifically as those who were historically acclaimed or influential, because historical acclaim and influence are as objective facts, or at least close enough. But this is not an aesthetic evaluation in the way beauty is. I can be objectively wrong if I say Wagner had no influence on music- I can be objectively wrong if I say most people find Mozart to be ugly, but I can't be objectively wrong if I say that *I* find Mozart ugly, because we have shifted to the realm of subjective evaluation. And this should have zero effect on those who like Mozart unless I'm excessively rude about it.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> If you're really convinced that you have fully understood everyone's thinking here and can neatly dispose of it by pasting academic labels on it, there may be no reasoning with you. I can only repeat what I had constantly to tell Millionrainbows: express your own views on the subject at hand and don't try to characterize the views of others.


Well, I certainly give up as to you. But I'm not the one 'neatly disposing' of anyone's position. The exact issues discussed in this thread (at least the legitimate, intelligently discussed ones, including those raised by you in your well-written and articulate posts) have been discussed and analyzed in painful detail by some of the greatest minds in western history over 180-plus years.

The "heightened awareness" you discuss (very well, by the way) is a concept directly from Descartes and Leibniz. That post was so detailed and well-written even I could understand it. If you haven't studied their works directly, you must at least had studied the work of those influenced by them, and they were important influences on western thinking until the early 20th century. You are obviously well versed in 18th and 19th century aesthetic thinking.

Without meaning to be pompous, rude or condescending, I'm trying to point out that there was a fundamental change in the way most people think about these things that began much earlier but crystalized in the early to mid-20th century. The debate in this thread very much breaks down along those lines.

In the end, what matters is not which way of looking at art is right or wrong, but which is more useful. In aesthetics, the practical trumps the theoretical. For example, when someone tries to apply a rigidly narrow definition of the word "beauty" that flies in the face of ordinary English usage, in my opinion that is an artifice that is not useful. Still, I owe BachIsBest an apology for calling him "wrong" in doing that, for, as Humpty Dumpty scornfully but correctly remarked, "Words mean what [we] want them to mean."

You can ignore or reject 20th-21st century thinking on aesthetics, and theoretically, I can't prove you wrong. However, that thinking so fundamentally underlies most of what goes on in our modern lives, far beyond music, that to ignore it would I think make it difficult to accept much of modern aesthetics, or much of modern life, I would think.

Edit: BTW, "I'll only repeat what I had to constantly tell Millionrainbows ...." Too funny. You and Millionrainbows are two peas in a pod. Anyone who rejects your reasoning is mischaracterizing it and setting up strawmen, and must stop, immediately! But I am not rejecting your reasoning. It had its centuries in the sun and vestiges of it remain, and so it must be respected. I am only reporting that an alternative view of aesthetics has largely proved more useful in the modern world, and I have given cites, quotes and bibliography.


----------



## BachIsBest

fbjim said:


> You are mixing up cause and effect. We don't go "hmm, is it valid to ascribe human emotions to things - well, the dictionary shows it's OK, so hey". The dictionary says emotions can be applied to non-sentient things to say they convey an emotion because of our habit of ascribing emotions to non-human objects or concepts.
> 
> It isn't even limited to what objects make us feel- when we say "the sun is viciously beating down on us", we are not saying the sun is causing us to feel vicious, but something very different.
> 
> The rhetorical shorthand of ascribing emotions to objects to convey that us as humans create an association of emotion to concepts which don't inherently have them is common enough that it is taught in elementary school, usually along with the concept of metaphor.


I didn't say the dictionary says its okay to ascribe human emotions to things. My point was, rather, that according to the dictionary when we say music is joyful we are never ascribing the emotion joy to the music; merely, we are saying it creates joy in ourself.

When you say "the sun is viciously beating down on us" you are personifying the sun, I realise this. When you say "the music is joyful", there is no personification, as the literal meaning of joyful can be causing joy.


----------



## Forster

The thing is fluteman, some people just want to discuss this for themselves. Where's the fun in being told that it was all worked out already by Famous Philosophers from 250 years ago?


----------



## Forster

Woodduck said:


> This is illegitimate argumentation. The phrase "heightened awareness" was introduced here by me, not by Descartes. I would appreciate not having my words reinterpreted as someone else's "fundamental principles," and not being labeled (or libeled) a Cartesian, a rationalist, or anything else. The tactic of putting other members into convenient ideological boxes was a technique used by Millionrainbows, and I complained about it constantly, which did no good. I'd hoped to be free of the burden of having myself turned into a straw man.


So, you were saying...heightened awareness...?


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> "I'll only repeat what I had to constantly tell Millionrainbows ...." Too funny. You and Millionrainbows are two peas in a pod.











" 



 "


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> The thing is fluteman, some people just want to discuss this for themselves. Where's the fun in being told that it was all worked out already by Famous Philosophers from 250 years ago?


I think it's fun to compare your ideas with the literature. It helps sharpen your own ideas and see where you really stand and why. I've already said, this ultimately isn't a simple matter of right or wrong, but rather of different ways of looking at the world. It also saves a whole lot of time and verbiage.

Didn't you read and enjoy the Weitz essay? Didn't that help you define and/or refine your own views?


----------



## EdwardBast

fluteman said:


> As EdwardBast has pointed out, social scientists have come up with a term for their alternative approach -- intersubjectivity. The pragmatists have their champion in the American philosopher John Dewey, as in his 1936 book Art as Experience.


I didn't point out the findings of social scientists. The term intersubjectivity is widely used in the three fields (musicology, music theory, and aesthetics) in which I've published. None of my work would implicate me as a "pragmatist," whatever that's supposed to mean, and all of it is radical in its aesthetic premises.

On another point, your attempt to paint Woodduck and a certain former member with the same brush is absurd. One of the two writes well and thinks clearly, the other was a BS artist. I'd apologize and move on.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> The tactic of putting other members into convenient ideological boxes was a technique used by Millionrainbows


Yeah, and btw, the way Fluteman described you and Millionrainbows in this thread ("You, Woodduck, and Millionrainbows were the two leading, died-in-the-wool proponents of Cartesian rationalism here at TC. You were both highly knowledgeable about a lot of music and both were able to explain its merits in articulate detail. Yet, you fought tooth and nail, and seemed not to be able to agree about anything when it came to music.") uncannily reminds me of the way Millionrainbows famously did you and Mahlerian in another thread. It's almost like déjà vu:


millionrainbows said:


> After reading some of the earlier exchanges between the long-lost member Mahlerian and Woodduck, and remembering Mahlerian's fondness for Schoenberg, and knowing Woodduck's fondness for Wagner, it doesn't surprise me that Woodduck would emerge as Mahler's most articulate critic, and Mahlerian as Mahler's most articulate supporter. Both of them know enough theory to be dangerous.


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> I think it's fun to compare your ideas with the literature. It helps sharpen your own ideas and see where you really stand and why. I've already said, this ultimately isn't a simple matter of right or wrong, but rather of different ways of looking at the world. It also saves a whole lot of time and verbiage.
> 
> Didn't you read and enjoy the Weitz essay? Didn't that help you define and/or refine your own views?


Yes, but that doesn't mean I see any value in telling people more than once that Weitz (and the other guy) have it all sorted and there's no need to carry on for 90 pages.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Anyway, regarding "the beauty in music", Eddie had a good point some pages ago. It was something similar to, in effect (the part in bold): 



Robert Levin: "What the 19th century did to Mozart was, it turned Mozart into the definition of taste, of elegance, of beauty. In short it turned Mozart into a fashion model; a beautiful face, a mask. And as a result of that, it cultivated an attitude toward Mozart performance in which things needed to be smooth, things needed to be poised, things needed to be beautiful. And of course *what starts by being a notion of beauty ends up being rather prettified*, and so we get performances of Mozart that tend to embalm him, rather than to enliven him. And to turn Mozart into an object which is just simply nice, pleasant, pretty is to me unforgivable because his music teems with all of the disorder of the human condition."


----------



## fluteman

EdwardBast said:


> I didn't point out the findings of social scientists. The term intersubjectivity is widely used in the three fields (musicology, music theory, and aesthetics) in which I've published. None of my work would implicate me as a "pragmatist," whatever that's supposed to mean, and all of it is radical in its aesthetic premises.
> 
> On another point, your attempt to paint Woodduck and a certain former member with the same brush is absurd. One of the two writes well and thinks clearly, the other was a BS artist. I'd apologize and move on.


Wow, what a rude and unenlightening post. Suffice it to say, it neither impresses nor intimidates me. Here's a decent definition of intersubjectivity from oxfordreference.com. Like other definitions I might have cited, it makes clear how the concept relates to how cultural identity is experienced generally, and not simply to musicology, music theory and aesthetics. Pragmatism is not especially radical either, unless one considers John Dewey to be a radical. (BTW, I characterized SanAntone's approach as pragmatic, not yours.) Perhaps you owe readers of your published work an apology for your misconception.

"The process and product of sharing experiences, knowledge, understandings, and expectations with others. A key feature of social constructionism, symbolic interactionism, and phenomenological approaches generally. The existence, nature, and meaning of things is not entirely up to the individual but subject to social and linguistic constraints within a culture or subculture (there has to be some degree of consensus or communication would be impossible; see also linguistic turn). The concept of intersubjectivity not only counters the undiluted subjectivism of extreme philosophical idealism but also the pure objectivism of naïve realism, since the same constraints filter our apprehension of the world. Things and their meanings are intersubjective to the extent that we share common understandings of them. Cultural identity is experienced through intersubjectivity."


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> I believe this is the third time in two days I've had to go to the trouble of rejecting your characterizing my thinking as "rationalism."


Yeah, it almost makes the rest of us look _Cartesianly irrational_ by comparison.


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> Yes, but that doesn't mean I see any value in telling people more than once that Weitz (and the other guy) have it all sorted and there's no need to carry on for 90 pages.


Well, there is no such thing as "having it all sorted", as I'm sure you know. But some reading helps. For example, though some here many not have studied western harmony formally, everyone here has probably listened to enough music to have a good basic grasp. Even those who know no technical terms know when something sounds harmonically "wrong". But if you want to explain yourself, some mastery of basic terminology is useful so others know what you're talking about.

Also, some here seem to think I'm being arrogant. But, isn't it arrogant to presume one has unique and innovative ideas on the topic of this thread that have not been expressed and analyzed for centuries, probably far better than any of us could?


----------



## Forster

Is anyone presuming that?


----------



## annaw

This issue seems to be rather strictly issue of philosophy of aesthetics and, in fact, seems to be almost like the whole subjectivity-objectivity debate that never seems to cease in disguise.

I do understand the intrigue of this topic but I do also feel that a more successful way to get answers is to sit down and devote a good deal of time to reading philosophy and contemplating it. Much less entertaining sometimes, but oh how insightful. I believe there is a very good reason why philosophy is required to answer questions like this one and in the past month I've really come to realise that many questions in ethics and philosophy, which we might be tempted to declare self-evident in our daily cultural and social debates, are, in fact, significantly more complex and benefit immensely from the philosophical _frameworks_ that are used to discuss them - philosophers aren't overcomplicating things but rather we (or at least I) are oversimplifying them in our daily arguments. I believe it's the same case with this particular debate.

My two cents to the discussion as I scrolled through some of the posts:

I think that the fact that majority of people have similar aesthetic taste does not necessarily imply neither that a) aesthetics are objective or b) they are subjective. I think it might be useful to draw an analogue from ethical debates. According to cultural relativism, the ethics I hold are reflective of the social conventions and rules of my society. For example, according to the view, "murder is wrong" is often presented to us as an objective fact (when we grow up, for example) but, in reality, it means that the society simply disapproves by it (similar example on which I based this one is further discussed in Harry Gensler's "Cultural Relativism"). The idea of cultural relativism has an interesting implication in that it connects the fact that certain moral rules are almost universally shared in the society with the idea that morality is subjective.

Where I want to get with this is that the same seems to apply to aesthetics as well. It doesn't seem to be a direct implication of "shared aesthetic taste" that aesthetics must be objective - we could also argue the opposite. It also goes vice versa - the mere fact that not all people share the same aesthetic tastes doesn't imply that it cannot be objective (again, I think we might benefit from analysing the argument structure of some arguments made for moral realism, not even necessarily its most extreme form). I am not taking any side here because, as I said, I consider it more fruitful to dive into the philosophical side of this, but I do think that the idea of shared aesthetic taste simply isn't enough (at least by itself) to argue for either for or against aesthetic objectivity.


----------



## Roger Knox

hammeredklavier said:


> Anyway, regarding "the beauty in music", Eddie had a good point some pages ago. It was something similar to, in effect (the part in bold):
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Levin: "What the 19th century did to Mozart was, it turned Mozart into the definition of taste, of elegance, of beauty. In short it turned Mozart into a fashion model; a beautiful face, a mask. And as a result of that, it cultivated an attitude toward Mozart performance in which things needed to be smooth, things needed to be poised, things needed to be beautiful. And of course *what starts by being a notion of beauty ends up being rather prettified*, and so we get performances of Mozart that tend to embalm him, rather than to enliven him. And to turn Mozart into an object which is just simply nice, pleasant, pretty is to me unforgivable because his music teems with all of the disorder of the human condition."


I'm afraid that despite being an outstanding fortepianist Robert Levin is not correct at least as quoted here. He talks about _the 19th century_ "turning iMozart into a fashion model ..." [true]. Then he says "so _we get_ performances of Mozart that tend to embalm him ..." [not typically true now]. The 19th century is more than 100 years before what we get now! And an enormous amount happened in that 100 years. Rudolf Serkin, in particular, promoted a much more robust style of Mozart playing and his influence as well as that of Schnabel and others had a decisive influence on Mozart playing in North America and at least some parts of Europe. There were holdouts, to be sure. Walter Gieseking was tremendous playing Impressionist composers, but my piano teacher back in 1970 told me something that was already common opinion then -- don't listen to Gieseking's "prettified" Mozart recordings. He recommended Lipatti's Mozart A minor Sonata, recorded around 1950, which is energetic yet controlled.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> The thing is fluteman, some people just want to discuss this for themselves. Where's the fun in being told that it was all worked out already by Famous Philosophers from 250 years ago?


Since they didn't work it all out - we can delve in with a little bit of confidence. We live in this century, so our perspective is slightly more modern. Less idealistic. Just the facts. Stop looking for mysteries other than the arithmetic patterns of music.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> The fact that the Beethoven violin concerto is acclaimed makes no difference to an *individual listener* if they do not like it. This is perhaps strongly put- a listener may be more inclined to like a piece if they know it's acclaimed as a masterpiece, or if they know it's by a famous composer, but a) all this demonstrates is that there are many factors to aesthetic response that are extramusical, and b) we still all have those acclaimed works or composers we dislike listening to.
> 
> This does not constitute "tyranny of the minority" except in a sense that one might have a desire to characterize the minority as objectively wrong in their tastes. Many of the emperical/subjective side have defined "objectively great" composers specifically as those who were historically acclaimed or influential, because historical acclaim and influence are as objective facts, or at least close enough. But this is not an aesthetic evaluation in the way beauty is. I can be objectively wrong if I say Wagner had no influence on music- I can be objectively wrong if I say most people find Mozart to be ugly, but I can't be objectively wrong if I say that *I* find Mozart ugly, because we have shifted to the realm of subjective evaluation. And this should have zero effect on those who like Mozart unless I'm excessively rude about it.


I'm not really all that concerned whether an 'individual listener' likes the Beethoven violin concerto or not. It doesn't change how that work has been viewed for well over a century and a half.

In the CPT era there are works that are consistently described as beautiful and there are composers known for composing works described as beautiful. It's not a mystery. The fact that not every single person agrees doesn't change that fact.


----------



## Luchesi

fbjim said:


> The fact that the Beethoven violin concerto is acclaimed makes no difference to an *individual listener* if they do not like it.* This is perhaps strongly put- a listener may be more inclined to like a piece if they know it's acclaimed as a masterpiece, or if they know it's by a famous composer,* but a) all this demonstrates is that there are many factors to aesthetic response that are extramusical, and b) we still all have those acclaimed works or composers we dislike listening to.
> 
> This does not


This is true perhaps on first hearing, but the marvelous thing is that you eventually come to appreciate it deeply (if you've appreciated similar works). I've been surprised like this.


----------



## fluteman

annaw said:


> I do think that the idea of shared aesthetic taste simply isn't enough (at least by itself) to argue for either for or against aesthetic objectivity.


Excellent and thoughtful points. As for this final statement of yours, it seems as insightful as the rest of your post. But rather than couch the debate in terms of aesthetic subjectivity or objectivity, I prefer to use the terms rationalism and empiricism, since these represent two contrasting ways to analyze artistic or aesthetic values: the former, to look for certain universal defining principles (whatever their source) to be our guide in all contexts, the latter, to observe aesthetic value systems as they actually develop (or developed if we are looking at historical periods) in a given society or culture and locate their defining characteristics. Defining principles can then be derived from those characteristics, but they only will apply fully to the specific culture or society being observed.

Those are two sharply contrasting ways of looking at the world. Ultimately, I've argued neither way is right or wrong in relation to the other. I have argued, in the case of aesthetics, western thought has gradually evolved away from the former and towards the latter, at least in part for reasons of pragmatism or utility in the modern world. People unhappy with modern aesthetic values, for whatever reason, are more likely to gravitate towards the rationalist rather than the empiricist approach, and I think the debate in this thread bears that out rather convincingly.

For those who bristle with hostility at the suggestion that the arguments they advance are in any way related to what some of the greatest thinkers in the history of western civilization have had to say on this precise subject over the past four centuries, I can only wonder what they are afraid of. I respect all points of view and all posters who argue in good faith, but I can't say the same for some here.



Luchesi said:


> Since they didn't work it all out - we can delve in with a little bit of confidence. We live in this century, so our perspective is slightly more modern. Less idealistic. Just the facts. Stop looking for mysteries other than the arithmetic patterns of music.


That's pleasantly pragmatic. Welcome to the empiricist camp!


----------



## Roger Knox

fluteman said:


> For example, though some here many not have studied western harmony formally, everyone here has probably listened to enough music to have a good basic grasp. Even those who know no technical terms know when something sounds harmonically "wrong". But if you want to explain yourself, some mastery of basic terminology is useful so others know what you are talking about.


Having taught post-secondary music theory for many years and having a master's degree in the subject, I disagree that people here have listened enough "probably have a good grasp" of western harmony. What we used to call "common practice harmony" (or CPT which is something like it) is a precise field, not just a matter of knowing technical terms or recognizing what sounds right. To understand harmony in the music of 18th-19th century composers takes a course of 1-2 years; some students pick it up more quickly and, exceptionally, are gifted and have enough experience to learn it by ear. In my 4 years of posting on TalkClassical, I've sometimes pointed out distinctive aspects of harmony and it's usually people with formal study who respond (jazz musicians and quite a few pop musicians have done formal study incidentally).


----------



## fluteman

Roger Knox said:


> Having taught post-secondary music theory for many years and having a master's degree in the subject, I disagree that people here have listened enough "probably have a good grasp" of western harmony. What we used to call "common practice harmony" (or CPT which is something like it) is a precise field, not just a matter of knowing technical terms or recognizing what sounds right. To understand harmony in the music of 18th-19th century composers takes a course of 1-2 years; some students pick it up more quickly and, exceptionally, are gifted and have enough experience to learn it by ear. In my 4 years of posting on TalkClassical, I've sometimes pointed out distinctive aspects of harmony and it's usually people with formal study who respond (jazz musicians and quite a few pop musicians have done formal study incidentally).


And yet, even people with no formal training in harmony can recognize progressions along the circle of fifths, for example. Have you ever worked with barbershop quartet singers? Although things have improved a bit in recent years, they have traditionally prided themselves on an ability to harmonize "by ear", often accompanied by an inability to read music. Consider this entertaining lecture excerpt by the late Dave Stevens, who already was a classically trained professional musician (at a good school -- Northwestern) when he first encountered barbershop singing (notice how careful he is to keep the tone not only humorous, but completely non-technical, as if he isn't teaching anything at all):


----------



## eljr

fluteman said:


> Also, some here seem to think I'm being arrogant.


I learned long ago that the claim of arrogance is generally born of inferiority (intellectual or economic) in the accuser.

Hence when I receive a PM calling me an "arrogant prick" I simply chuckle at the irony of someone outing themselves without awareness.

:tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> The "heightened awareness" you discuss (very well, by the way) is a concept directly from Descartes and Leibniz. That post was so detailed and well-written even I could understand it. If you haven't studied their works directly, you must at least had studied the work of those influenced by them, and they were important influences on western thinking until the early 20th century. You are obviously well versed in 18th and 19th century aesthetic thinking.


In fact, I'm not widely read in aesthetics. I base my conclusions (to the extent that my statements represent conclusions) on observation: observation of the forms art takes, of the ways it functions in human life, and - most important and interesting to me - of what happens during the process of creation, in which I'm a lifelong participant in several media including music and painting. I have to think that there is no observer better poised to understand a process than a participant engaged in carrying out that process from beginning to end, who has to make continuous decisions and choices while beset by an infinity of possibilities. But that doesn't mean the nature of the process is easy to communicate, especially in a forum where serious thought on difficult topics tends to vanish down a black hole and to leave one feeling that the time and effort involved isn't worth expending. So here goes (maybe) nothing...

In my observation, the making of art is governed, fundamentally, by three factors, distinct but in constant mutual interaction and influence: stylistic convention, assumed or chosen (as discussed above by EdwardBast); expressive intent (which may be specific and conscious, a byproduct of structural manipulations, or some mixture of the two); and principles of construction that reflect and exemplify the way the human mind works to make sense of the world and to maintain the state of mental and physical equilibrium we know as life. This third factor is the one most difficult to understand and explain, and I'm pretty sure it's largely outside the awareness of most people who aren't engaged in the making of art, as well as of many who are. But I'm convinced that many of the structural principles which give coherence to the patterns of sound and color we call art are direct expressions of principles by which our minds and bodies function. In post #1255 I write,

"Some qualities of composition which we perceive and enjoy, and which have long been identified as contributing to the sense of beauty, are variety within unity, movement contained in equipoise, expressive gesture, and the deployment and resolution of tension and ambiguity. Such qualities are expressible in all sensory modes as well as ideational structures, and can thus be perceived and enjoyed in all the arts."

Reviewing that statement, I'd say it's basic to my views and I wouldn't change it. I could elaborate on those qualities or principles (and will, just a little, below), but here I'll merely say that it's important to be aware of them because they are not mere conventions of artistic style but are representations and expressions of very basic structures and functions of our minds and bodies as successful living, and specifically human, beings. They inform our existence in its every aspect, and art therefore calls upon them in both its creation and its consumption: it makes use of them in the creative process, where they guide the creative mind toward coherent patterns of structural and expressive value, and it gives the observer of art a vivid symbolic representation of his own mind's and body's processes - embodied, focused, concentrated, and presented to his senses and mind in a way he doesn't usually experience in everyday consciousness (and this is what I mean by "heightened awareness," not something esoterically "Cartesian" or "Leibnizian" or some new-agey revelation of "truth" inaccessible to the uninitiated).

How is it that these principles of successful human life can express themselves in art? A number of years ago I discovered a theory in psychology known as "cross-domain mapping," which is based on the idea that there are underlying formal patterns or templates, common to the representations of reality presented to our minds through different sensory/cognitive modes, which allow us to perceive expressions in one mode as "metaphors" for those in another. This phenomenon is the basis of literal metaphor, which is a manner of verbal expression in which we recognize one thing as "standing for" another. The function of metaphor seems to be to impart a "heightened awareness" of the thing being represented, and in pursuit of this goal the commonest metaphors are those in which something very concrete and physical represents something abstract. Humans transform the abstract into the concrete through this "cross-domain mapping," employing common, underlying formal resemblances in different cognitive modes in order to make abstract things feel more fully "real" and meaningful.

Does this sound familiar? Does it sound like something art does? Does it suggest a way in which, say, a musical idea can seem to express a feeling or idea with remarkable specificity? When I discovered the cross-domain mapping idea I recognized instantly its applicability to musical form. Metaphor is a miniature art form, and art's most essential purpose, I think, is to serve as a metaphor for life processes and experiences of the world. In pursuit of this, the formal principles which make for coherent and satisfying compositions function as cross-domain metaphors for basic cognitive and physiological processes and concepts that undergird our capacity to live and make sense of the world. What's important here is that this ability of art to symbolize applies not merely to obviously "expressive" musical gestures (which may be relatively crude examples of cross-domain resemblance), but to basic design principles themselves, principles which are generally recognized as intrinsic to "good composition," and thus to ideas of beauty. It's perhaps not too hard to see, with a little reflection, some important ways in which an effective work of art reflects successful life - to see, for example, why unity and variety are complementary and mutually reinforcing values in art as they are in life (the alternatives being incoherence or boredom), why movement needs to be held in dynamic tension and balance by opposing and stabilizing forces (homeostasis is basic to biological existence), or why uncertainty, essential to action and arousing and potentially exciting in its dynamism, nonetheless seeks resolution in art as it does in both physical and mental activity.

If the forms of art can represent these very basic states and concepts, so essential to our existence, and offer them to the symbol-making human mind in concrete, sensuous, microcosmic form, it's completely unsurprising that human beings have always attached great importance to art, and that they have, with remarkable consistency, embodied such life-affirming concepts in certain artistic forms which have arisen over and over in very different cultures across time and space. Whatever the cultural milieu in which an artist lives and works, whatever the style and sound of the music he practices, and whatever his personal temperament and expressive goals, he will almost certainly be engaged in applying these principles in ways that his listeners can perceive as life-affirming and therefore beautiful, and he will be judged on how well he fulfills that task. Ultimately, for me, "beauty" is just this - form that evokes and affirms basic processes and perceptions of life, mental and physical, and makes us feel more alive. There is plenty of room for different perceptions of what things do this best; it will be different for different people. That is not a problem. There is plenty of beauty in the world, in an infinity of forms, to go around.

(As a postscript, in response to your recent remarks to and about me and what you think are my philosophical groundings or inclinations, I want to express the hope that the present post might extricate me from any pigeonholes into which I've been stuffed. Truly, except for "I think, therefore I am," which I've never been concerned to understand, and some nonsense about animals being machines, Monsieur Descartes and I have not been introduced, and I'm perfectly happy to keep it that way.)


----------



## Woodduck

eljr said:


> I learned long ago that the claim of arrogance is generally born of inferiority (intellectual or economic) in the accuser.
> 
> Hence when I receive a PM calling me an "arrogant prick" I simply chuckle at the irony of someone outing themselves without awareness.
> 
> :tiphat:


Heh heh. I think your observation is generally correct. Of course, it's always possible that someone who is called an arrogant prick really is an arrogant prick. If he is, it's unlikely to have escaped the notice of everyone.

:tiphat:


----------



## DaveM

eljr said:


> I learned long ago that the claim of arrogance is generally born of inferiority (intellectual or economic) in the accuser.
> 
> Hence when I receive a PM calling me an "arrogant prick" I simply chuckle at the irony of someone outing themselves without awareness.
> 
> :tiphat:


I've never understood why someone would use a PM for the purpose of name-calling. I reserve PMs strictly for complimentary comments.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> Since they didn't work it all out - we can delve in with a little bit of confidence. We live in this century, so our perspective is slightly more modern. Less idealistic. Just the facts. Stop looking for mysteries other than the arithmetic patterns of music.


I know they didn't work it all out (I thought it obvious I was exaggerating). And I'm not looking for mysteries. Whatever gave you either of those ideas?

I'm not looking for "Answers" either, though if I do ask questions of individuals and hope for answers, it's to do with clarifying my understanding of what people are thinking. I mean, why else do people come here, if not to meet other people? If I wanted Answers to the Meaning of Beauty, I'd go read a book.

(or just listen to Sibelius 6th)


----------



## 59540

eljr said:


> Hence when I receive a PM calling me an "arrogant prick" I simply chuckle at the irony of someone outing themselves without awareness.


What you need to do in that case is proclaim who sent it, eljr. If someone doesn't have the guts to say something like that in public, I'll help them out and publish it.


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> What you need to do in that case is proclaim who sent it, eljr. If someone doesn't have the guts to say something like that in public, I'll help them out and publish it.


Thank you for the sentiment but no, no, no. That would be petty and you and I are above that.

Interesting enough, as a comment on the human condition rather than the poster, it was sent from an account which only has a handful of posts attributed to it and I have not seen post in this thread. A sock account no doubt.

Plus, as I said, I enjoyed it, immensely. I truly did. I did not find it offensive as I understand why one would do such a thing.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> I've never understood why someone would use a PM for the purpose of name-calling. I reserve PMs strictly for complimentary comments.


meaning, when you really have to call names, you do it publicly; like a true _Cartesian rationalist_ gentleman.

:tiphat:


----------



## eljr

Woodduck said:


> Heh heh. I think your observation is generally correct. Of course, it's always possible that someone who is called an arrogant prick really is an arrogant prick. If he is, it's unlikely to have escaped the notice of everyone.
> 
> :tiphat:


You mean like on my audio forums, where the nicest of people congregate on the HI-FI forms and on the Mid and LO-FI forms they post of how arrogant they Hi-Fi posters are?

This seems to verify your contention, it's not just individuals that can feel inferior but entire groups. And these groups mutually legitimize their individual members behaviors so that they become more firm in their beliefs.

We see this in all areas of life, don't we?


----------



## eljr

hammeredklavier said:


> meaning, when you really have to call names, you do it publicly; like a true _Cartesian rationalist_ gentleman.
> 
> :tiphat:


Personally, I don't call names. I speak the truth. Far more powerful than name calling. In fact, it can cut so close to the bone that you can get your post deleted when no rule has been violated.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> meaning, when you really have to call names, you do it publicly; like a true _Cartesian rationalist_ gentleman.
> 
> :tiphat:


I've never really felt the need to "call names". I get really frustrated sometimes with some comments and behavior (and inconsistencies), but I don't know anyone here.


----------



## SanAntone

eljr said:


> Personally, I don't call names. I speak the truth. Far more powerful than name calling. In fact, it can cut so close to the bone that you can get your post deleted when no rule has been violated.


This is my favorite PM:



> Go **** yourself, you ****.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> This is my favorite PM:


For sending or receiving?


----------



## Luchesi

annaw said:


> This issue seems to be rather strictly issue of philosophy of aesthetics and, in fact, seems to be almost like the whole subjectivity-objectivity debate that never seems to cease in disguise.
> 
> I do understand the intrigue of this topic but I do also feel that a more successful way to get answers is to sit down and devote a good deal of time to reading philosophy and contemplating it. Much less entertaining sometimes, but oh how insightful. I believe there is a very good reason why philosophy is required to answer questions like this one and in the past month I've really come to realise that many questions in ethics and philosophy, which we might be tempted to declare self-evident in our daily cultural and social debates, are, in fact, significantly more complex and benefit immensely from the philosophical _frameworks_ that are used to discuss them - philosophers aren't overcomplicating things but rather we (or at least I) are oversimplifying them in our daily arguments. I believe it's the same case with this particular debate.
> 
> My two cents to the discussion as I scrolled through some of the posts:
> 
> I think that the fact that majority of people have similar aesthetic taste does not necessarily imply neither that a) aesthetics are objective or b) they are subjective. I think it might be useful to draw an analogue from ethical debates. According to cultural relativism, the ethics I hold are reflective of the social conventions and rules of my society. For example, according to the view, "murder is wrong" is often presented to us as an objective fact (when we grow up, for example) but, in reality, it means that the society simply disapproves by it (similar example on which I based this one is further discussed in Harry Gensler's "Cultural Relativism"). The idea of cultural relativism has an interesting implication in that it connects the fact that certain moral rules are almost universally shared in the society with the idea that morality is subjective.
> 
> Where I want to get with this is that the same seems to apply to aesthetics as well. It doesn't seem to be a direct implication of "shared aesthetic taste" that aesthetics must be objective - we could also argue the opposite. It also goes vice versa - the mere fact that not all people share the same aesthetic tastes doesn't imply that it cannot be objective (again, I think we might benefit from analysing the argument structure of some arguments made for moral realism, not even necessarily its most extreme form). I am not taking any side here because, as I said, I consider it more fruitful to dive into the philosophical side of this, but I do think that the idea of shared aesthetic taste simply isn't enough (at least by itself) to argue for either for or against aesthetic objectivity.


For me, subjectivity is just peoples' opinions and preferences. What else could it be? Psychologists and sociologists will continue to study subjectivity, but why is it a worthy subject for philosophy? Such researchers merely come up with broad categories, because there are so few universals for reliable references (because it all comes from individual experiences and outlooks - the hopes and fears of those individuals). We won't find fundamental answers in the generalities of subjectivity. 
The more we look into the mysteries of what music does to our brains (with integer relationships) the more it seems to be merely a joyful artifice (or trick, from our long natural history).


----------



## fbjim

Luchesi said:


> The more we look into the mysteries of what music does to our brains (with integer relationships) the more it seems to be merely a joyful artifice (or trick, from our long natural history).


It's the fakeness of art that's always fascinated me over any quest for truth, or anything like that. "Magic" is a good word, because it really is a trick of artifice that brings us joy- the fact that us as humans are able to ascribe emotions and be strongly affected by these things is just a wonderful aspect of our minds.


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> For sending or receiving?


Received. I don't send PMs as a rule other than to respond.


----------



## Aries

eljr said:


> I learned long ago that the claim of arrogance is generally born of inferiority (intellectual or economic)  in the accuser.
> 
> Hence when I receive a PM calling me an "arrogant prick" I simply chuckle at the irony of someone outing themselves without awareness.


Outings without awareness, intersting stuff .

The claim of arrogance is connected with some kind of inability to argue further. On the other hand to brag about leaning back and resting on opponents inadequacies is the epitome of arrogance.


----------



## eljr

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

:tiphat:


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> It's the fakeness of art that's always fascinated me over any quest for truth, or anything like that. "Magic" is a good word, because it really is a trick of artifice that brings us joy- the fact that us as humans are able to ascribe emotions and be strongly affected by these things is just a wonderful aspect of our minds.


Exactly. Art, whether light or serious, popular or classical, consists of myths, fantasies and illusions.


----------



## 59540

fluteman said:


> Exactly. Art, whether light or serious, popular or classical, consists of myths, fantasies and illusions.


Why, that's downright...Platonic. I thought Plato was discredited in these here parts.


----------



## BachIsBest

fbjim said:


> It's the fakeness of art that's always fascinated me over any quest for truth, or anything like that. "Magic" is a good word, because it really is a trick of artifice that brings us joy- the fact that us as humans are able to ascribe emotions and be strongly affected by these things is just a wonderful aspect of our minds.


But isn't it partially the fact that this "fakeness" can be more true than strict realism ever could be partially the magic of art. The plot of _King Lear_ is implausible at best, and yet the depth of suffering, the angst of the parent and the struggle against age, are all brought more vividly to light by this "fake" plot than they ever could have been by a "real" plot; the ability of Shakespeare to extract deep human truths from his story is indelibly weaved with this "fake" story.


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> But isn't it partially the fact that this "fakeness" can be more true than strict realism ever could be partially the magic of art. The plot of _King Lear_ is implausible at best, and yet the depth of suffering, the angst of the parent and the struggle against age, are all brought more vividly to light by this "fake" plot than they ever could have been by a "real" plot; the ability of Shakespeare to extract deep human truths from his story is indelibly weaved with this "fake" story.


It's not just the plot, though. The poetry is critical. Having said that, much as I like Lear, I've found many modern 'realist' dramas about family dynamics and ageing quite deep enough thank you. If the story is skilfully enough told, it matters not how much myth and fantasy are present (well, not for me, anyway).


----------



## BachIsBest

Forster said:


> It's not just the plot, though. The poetry is critical. Having said that, much as I like Lear, I've found many modern 'realist' dramas about family dynamics and ageing quite deep enough thank you. If the story is skilfully enough told, it matters not how much myth and fantasy are present (well, not for me, anyway).


I mean, of course there are multiple factors involved in Lear, although the poetry is also fake in the sense that people don't talk in poetry.

As I generally don't like 'realist' dramas, and it's not the topic of the thread, I won't comment further here.


----------



## Forster

I get that art is 'artifice', but it's not 'fake'.


----------



## Luchesi

fbjim said:


> It's the fakeness of art that's always fascinated me over any quest for truth, or anything like that. "Magic" is a good word, because it really is a trick of artifice that brings us joy- the fact that us as humans are able to ascribe emotions and be strongly affected by these things is just a wonderful aspect of our minds.


If you listen over and over to specific Mozart piano concertos you hear him intentionally using the elements to exaggerate the metaphors. What saves him is the very limits of the tonal tradition back then, so that it doesn't get too predictable (there's enough holes in the emotional signaling).


----------



## eljr

Forster said:


> I'm not this is true, at least, not all the time, and not necessarily the prime reason. As for the rest...I don't follow it at all.


I did not say it was the sole reason. As with any drug we may use it for varying reasons. The fact remains, listening to music releases endorphins in the brain. Endorphins give us a heightened feeling of excitement. In addition to feeling euphoric, endorphins quell anxiety, ease pain and stabilize the immune system.

I repeat, we use music to heighten our moods, This is fact, as stated.


----------



## fbjim

BachIsBest said:


> But isn't it partially the fact that this "fakeness" can be more true than strict realism ever could be partially the magic of art. The plot of _King Lear_ is implausible at best, and yet the depth of suffering, the angst of the parent and the struggle against age, are all brought more vividly to light by this "fake" plot than they ever could have been by a "real" plot; the ability of Shakespeare to extract deep human truths from his story is indelibly weaved with this "fake" story.


I remember Werner Herzog, I think, saying that he not only liked to stretch the truth in documentaries, but that it was necessary, because the idea was that he was compensating for the distancing factor of placing "truth" on the screen, and by imbuing it with fiction, making it more "true" than it would have been without embellishment.

The context of this was the cinema verite movement of very unembellished, "true" (usually documentary) cinema - I frequently think of this regarding the power of artifice.



> 3. Cinema Verité *confounds fact and truth*, and thus plows only stones. And yet, facts sometimes have a strange and bizarre power that makes their inherent truth seem unbelievable.
> 
> 5. There are deeper strata of truth in cinema, and there is such a thing as poetic, ecstatic truth. It is mysterious and elusive, and can be reached only through fabrication and imagination and stylization.


----------



## Forster

eljr said:


> I did not say it was the sole reason. As with any drug we may use it for varying reasons. The fact remains, listening to music releases endorphins in the brain. Endorphins give us a heightened feeling of excitement. In addition to feeling euphoric, endorphins quell anxiety, ease pain and stabilize the immune system.
> 
> I repeat, we use music to heighten our moods, This is fact, as stated.


Facts, yes, but context, presentation are not facts. You may use drugs, like music, to enhance your mood. I don't use music like drugs.


----------



## fbjim

You can use them both simultaneously, even!


In all seriousness I don't think it's a coincidence that music and narcotics have such a connection but that's probably beyond the scope of this.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Facts, yes, but context, presentation are not facts. You may use drugs, like music, to enhance your mood. I don't use music like drugs.


How do you use music? 
I try to use it in all the ways. But gardening is so different at that level of Zen.


----------



## Forster

fbjim said:


> You can use them both simultaneously, even!
> 
> In all seriousness I don't think it's a coincidence that music and narcotics have such a connection but that's probably beyond the scope of this.


Not if they contribute to heightened awareness!


----------



## Luchesi

fbjim said:


> You can use them both simultaneously, even!
> 
> In all seriousness I don't think it's a coincidence that music and narcotics have such a connection but that's probably beyond the scope of this.


John said it's just like music extended.


----------



## fbjim

Forster said:


> Not if they contribute to heightened awareness!


that would depend on the drug


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> How do you use music?


It serves different purposes at different times. To help me focus when exercising; to entertain me when driving; to listen to. To be reunited with a friend or friends.

To enjoy a beautiful experience; challenge my intellect; for fun...

I drink tea and alcohol for refreshment. Whatever effect those drugs have on me, I don't take them for the purpose 
of enhancing my mood.

I don't take any other drugs except mild painkillers and acid reflux remedies.


----------



## eljr

Forster said:


> Facts, yes, but context, presentation are not facts. You may use drugs, like music, to enhance your mood. I don't use music like drugs.




Funny how we humans think, isn't it?

So seldom aware of why we do what we do.

How important our constructs are to us.

That we mostly believe what suits use then scurry for reasons to support our beliefs thinking all the time we are objective and analytical.


----------



## Forster

eljr said:


> Funny how we humans think, isn't it?
> 
> So seldom aware of why we do what we do.
> 
> How important our constructs are to us.
> 
> That we mostly believe what suits use then scurry for reasons to support our beliefs thinking all the time we are objective and analytical.


_You_ might not be aware...


----------



## eljr

Forster said:


> I drink tea and alcohol for refreshment. Whatever effect those drugs have on me, I don't take them for the purpose
> of enhancing my mood.


:devil:

Trust me, you do.

Now, if you say that you don't consciously take them for the purpose of enhancing mood, that is possible.


----------



## eljr

Forster said:


> _You_ might not be aware...


I am as enslaved to the human condition as the next guy.


----------



## Forster

eljr said:


> :devil:
> 
> Trust me, you do.
> 
> Now, if you say that you don't consciously take them for the purpose of enhancing mood, that is possible.


I don't trust you, actually.


----------



## Forster

eljr said:


> I am as enslaved to the human condition as the next guy.


That's your construct.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> It serves different purposes at different times. To help me focus when exercising; to entertain me when driving; to listen to. To be reunited with a friend or friends.
> 
> To enjoy a beautiful experience; challenge my intellect; for fun...
> 
> I drink tea and alcohol for refreshment. Whatever effect those drugs have on me, I don't take them for the purpose
> of enhancing my mood.
> 
> I don't take any other drugs except mild painkillers and acid reflux remedies.


Wow, there's a whole other side to being. (but you might want to learn music theory first so that you don't miss ANYTHING!)


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> I know they didn't work it all out (I thought it obvious I was exaggerating). And I'm not looking for mysteries. Whatever gave you either of those ideas?
> 
> I'm not looking for "Answers" either, though if I do ask questions of individuals and hope for answers, it's to do with clarifying my understanding of what people are thinking. I mean, why else do people come here, if not to meet other people? If I wanted Answers to the Meaning of Beauty, I'd go read a book.
> 
> (or just listen to Sibelius 6th)


You're sensitive. I like that in forum posts.

..The answers are in all serious subjects (but paradoxically there aren't any meanings - and we think we know why..).


----------



## eljr

Forster said:


> I don't trust you, actually.


LOL :lol:

Well then, this is easily referenced, have at it! You will be pleasantly surprised to learn that you can trust me.

Peace


----------



## eljr

Forster said:


> That's your construct.


LOL. Yes, my construct is much more in alignment with science than some others.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Alright, let's get back to the topic;



dissident said:


> But the question is what is it about the rose or the brain that causes so many different brains to react in the same way?


But this still doesn't answer the questions (in terms of aesthetics); "why is classical music one of the least popular music genres today?"
You could argue it's because pop music gets much more exposure (through media) compared to classical music, but then by that logic, aren't Bach, Mozart, Beethoven also similarly over-exposed within classical music?
"doesn't classical music have its own "pitfalls" like the other music genres of today?"
















hammeredklavier said:


> If music created 200~300 years ago is so interestingly beautiful for everyone in the world today, why are there so few listening to it on regular basis? Surely there must be other factors why many don't find it very appealingly beautiful aesthetically. (Ie. Maybe the aesthetics is far too different from the modern sensibilities?)





EdwardBast said:


> Much of what was considered beautiful in the Classical Era would have been incomprehensible or confusing to a Renaissance chorister - let alone to a traditional musician of Indonesia, Japan, India, or the American South.


----------



## fluteman

hammeredklavier said:


> Alright, let's get back to the topic;
> 
> But this still doesn't answer the questions (in terms of aesthetics); "why is classical music one of the least popular music genres today?"
> You could argue it's because pop music gets much more exposure (through media) compared to classical music, but then by that logic, aren't Bach, Mozart, Beethoven also similarly over-exposed within classical music?
> "doesn't classical music have its own "pitfalls" like the other music genres of today?"


Maybe this thread is finally drying up, and I'm not going to try to keep it going. Many good comments, thanks to those who wrote thoughtfully without personal attacks on those with alternate points of view.

I will comment that hammeredklavier's post reminds me that a few pages back I mentioned, to the interest of almost nobody here (Woodduck, maybe?), the barbershop quartet, an American popular musical tradition, like so many others African-American based, dating back to the late 19th century, and kept alive in the US largely by a society founded in Tulsa, Oklahoma in 1938, now called the Barbershop Harmony Society. The BHS became successful nationwide, though membership was denied to non-whites until the American civil rights movement.

In the 1960s, thanks in part to the growth and success of the BHS, the American barbershop quartet tradition began to establish a beachhead abroad. These efforts have met with modest success in Canada, the UK, Germany, Scandinavia, Australia, New Zealand and, to a lesser extent, Japan, but with little or no success to date in other countries.

I find it fascinating that even in these days of instant global communication, there are such differences in musical tastes from one country to another. The extent to which English is a native language or a popular import has something to do with it, but there is more to it than that.

And finally, the BHS has recently fallen on harder times. Controversial challenges have arisen to some of its original tenets, such as the all-male aspect of the tradition, as well as a repertoire that includes many songs with explicitly racist lyrics, some of which come from the so-called "minstrel show" tradition that originated in the era of American slavery. Even more interesting are challenges that have arisen to the musical principles of the Society, as younger barbershop singers increasingly try to incorporate concepts from more recent American popular music into the format, including some very different ideas about harmony.

All topics for another thread. Or forum. But imo interesting in light of the conversation here.


----------



## Aries

hammeredklavier said:


> But this still doesn't answer the questions (in terms of aesthetics); "why is classical music one of the least popular music genres today?"
> You could argue it's because pop music gets much more exposure (through media) compared to classical music, but then by that logic, aren't Bach, Mozart, Beethoven also similarly over-exposed within classical music?


It has other reasons than aesthetics. It is about lyrics: Many want lyrics but classical music is rather instrumental. It is about length: Many want short music so it fits well into their everydays life, but classical music is most often longer than 4 minutes. And its about age: Many want music from today, because than it seems to be more relevant, but most classical music is older than 6 months.

But for films and video games classical music is more popular. The 3 mentioned criteria don't matter under these circumstances. If the film/game is relevant to the consumer, the music doesn't need to have separate relevance. Lyrics don't matter as much, because the film/game has other content and if the film/game is long the music needs to be long too.


----------



## eljr

hammeredklavier said:


> Alright, let's get back to the topic;




Why?

Seriously, why?


----------



## eljr

Aries said:


> It has other reasons than aesthetics. It is about lyrics: Many want lyrics but classical music is rather instrumental. It is about length: Many want short music so it fits well into their everydays life, but classical music is most often longer than 4 minutes. And its about age: Many want music from today, because than it seems to be more relevant, but most classical music is older than 6 months.
> 
> But for films and video games classical music is more popular. The 3 mentioned criteria don't matter under these circumstances. If the film/game is relevant to the consumer, the music doesn't need to have separate relevance. Lyrics don't matter as much, because the film/game has other content and if the film/game is long the music needs to be long too.


It's about identifiability, being able to relate.

And yes, lyrics can contribute greatly to this.

Classical music has little social relevance today.


----------



## fbjim

Young people, even the art school/creative crowd, do tend to have an interest in the new - either for fashion, or because they want to listen to the cutting edge (especially true for ones which make their own music). 

of course, an interest in the "classics", no matter the genre, has its own appeal- I do think the majority of people, no matter the generation, have little interest in art music, and the ones who do have many avenues to explore artistically-inclined music (including classical) than ones who existed in the pre-Youtube generation, let alone pre-LPs/radio.


----------



## BachIsBest

hammeredklavier said:


> Alright, let's get back to the topic;
> 
> But this still doesn't answer the questions (in terms of aesthetics); "why is classical music one of the least popular music genres today?"
> You could argue it's because pop music gets much more exposure (through media) compared to classical music, but then by that logic, aren't Bach, Mozart, Beethoven also similarly over-exposed within classical music?
> "doesn't classical music have its own "pitfalls" like the other music genres of today?"


Art is more than just beauty (hopefully we can all agree on that). Most people today, at least in my experience, do not prioritise beauty in listening to music. Many listen for lyrics, other for to hear something exciting (the average tempo in pop music just keeps going up), still others want something to dance to.

I have no hard data, but I would suspect that, if asked, "which music is more beautiful: classical or pop," most people would actually choose classical.


----------



## SanAntone

> "why is classical music one of the least popular music genres today?"


I'd say because it is "old stuffy music" that does not immediately share its riches from a quick casual listen. Many people desire instant gratification, hence fast food, disposable products, meditation to manage symptoms, instead of cures which take more time and work both from the doctor and patient.

That said, there is much to find in Pop (and all the other non-Classical genres) which is worthwhile and just as valuable, IMO, as what Classical music offers. It mostly comes down to taste, and what you prioritize.

Lyrics have been mentioned, and this is a huge priority for me. I greatly value the craft of songwriting, especially the talent and skill required to write good lyrics. So, just on that alone, Popular songs have it over Classical, for me in many respects.

But I could never live without listening to Classical music.


----------



## eljr

BachIsBest said:


> Art is more than just beauty (hopefully we can all agree on that). Most people today, at least in my experience, do not prioritise beauty in listening to music. Many listen for lyrics, other for to hear something exciting (the average tempo in pop music just keeps going up), still others want something to dance to.


So you say music is a mood enhancer or mood stimulator. You would be right 



BachIsBest said:


> I have no hard data, but I would suspect that, if asked, "which music is more beautiful: classical or pop," most people would actually choose classical.


I would suspect they would not.


----------



## Aries

*Where is the beauty in music? In the music itself or in the listeners brain?*

What do we call beauty? The perception of beauty (in the brain) is something different than beauty itself. Beauty is a characteristic of things that evoke the perception of beauty. So from a materialistic point of view it is not in the brain but attached to things.

The question assumes that the beauty exist. But does beauty exist objectively? If it doesn't exist objectively it could still exist subjectively. For everyone else would be something different beautiful in this case, but it would still be a characteristic of things instead of a perception in the brain.

However there is a idealistic point of view too, that all matter is indistinguishable and inseparable from the non-material perception. In this case the beauty has to be in something like a mind. The mind however would have no physical location. Everything physical including brains would be in the non-physical non-located mind. This point of view excludes any physical location.

So beauty is either in or on the music itself, or has no physical location, or doesn't exist at all. But we can rule out that it is in the brain.


----------



## eljr

Aries said:


> *Where is the beauty in music? In the music itself or in the listeners brain?*
> 
> What do we call beauty? The perception of beauty (in the brain) is something different than beauty itself. Beauty is a characteristic of things that evoke the perception of beauty. So from a materialistic point of view it is not in the brain but attached to things.
> 
> The question assumes that the beauty exist. But does beauty exist objectively? If it doesn't exist objectively it could still exist subjectively. For everyone else would be something different beautiful in this case, but it would still be a characteristic of things instead of a perception in the brain.
> 
> However there is a idealistic point of view too, that all matter is indistinguishable and inseparable from the non-material perception. In this case the beauty has to be in something like a mind. The mind however would have no physical location. Everything physical including brains would be in the non-physical non-located mind. This point of view excludes any physical location.
> 
> So beauty is either in or on the music itself, or has no physical location, or doesn't exist at all. But we can rule out that it is in the brain.


I am trying to figure if you are serious or is this meant as a parody of the thread?


----------



## mmsbls

Aries said:


> *Where is the beauty in music? In the music itself or in the listeners brain?*


eljr and I have a rather different view of reality than you do.



> What do we call beauty? The perception of beauty (in the brain) is something different than beauty itself. Beauty is a characteristic of things that evoke the perception of beauty. So from a materialistic point of view it is not in the brain but attached to things.


No one finds pressure waves in air (sound waves) beautiful. It is only after those pressure waves are converted to electrical signals in the brain and then processed by numerous brain systems that beauty comes into existence. That beauty exists precisely as neural processes in the brain.



> The question assumes that the beauty exist. But does beauty exist objectively? If it doesn't exist objectively it could still exist subjectively. For everyone else would be something different beautiful in this case, but it would still be a characteristic of things instead of a perception in the brain.


The sound waves have an objective existence, but everyone's brain processes them differently leading to variation in perception of beauty. Some brains create beauty from certain sound waves and others do not.



> However there is a idealistic point of view too, that all matter is indistinguishable and inseparable from the non-material perception. In this case the beauty has to be in something like a mind. The mind however would have no physical location. Everything physical including brains would be in the non-physical non-located mind. This point of view excludes any physical location.


Introducing non-physical minds leads to 2 problems. First, while we can only explain a modest amount with our understand of neural processes in brains, we can explain nothing with the concept of mind. We are learning more about how brains process reality, but we have no idea whatsoever how non-material minds could do anything. Second, we understand how neurons interact with each other, but we have no idea how non-physical minds interact with physical brains. So minds solve no problems but create a huge additional one.



> So beauty is either in or on the music itself, or has no physical location, or doesn't exist at all. But we can rule out that it is in the brain.


Beauty exists because we each sense it. It exists in the physical brain after enormously complex processing results in the sensation of beauty. We do not think sounds waves or electromagnetic waves (light) are beautiful. We think highly processed neural activity is beautiful.

Again, many people do not view reality as eljr and I do. As a result, many will not believe our view is sensible.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

Has anyone mentioned already how the thread begun tilted 80% in favour of the mind option, and now approaches a 50:50?

It makes me think that there are two circuits of users here, and there are some visible differences between average regular and sporadic users.


----------



## BachIsBest

eljr said:


> So you say music is a mood enhancer or mood stimulator. You would be right


Well it certainly enhances my mood more than reading your posts  (this is a joke). I do agree, although would take issue if you claimed that music was just a mood enhancer.



eljr said:


> I would suspect they would not.


To be clear, I'm not saying they have a positive view of classical music. My general impression is that people think classical music is boring, but beautiful, music for snobs and the hopelessly pedantic.


----------



## BachIsBest

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> Has anyone mentioned already how the thread begun tilted 80% in favour of the mind option, and now approaches a 50:50?
> 
> It makes me think that there are two circuits of users here, and there are some visible differences between average regular and sporadic users.


Or the later voters, who could have perused the thread, were persuaded appreciably towards the "in the music itself" option.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther

BachIsBest said:


> Or the later voters, who could have perused the thread, were persuaded appreciably towards the "in the music itself" option.


That is possible as well. I have noticed in the past, however, that polls often flip once more numerous voters show up.


----------



## Aries

mmsbls said:


> No one finds pressure waves in air (sound waves) beautiful.


I think I do that exactly.



mmsbls said:


> It is only after those pressure waves are converted to electrical signals in the brain and then processed by numerous brain systems that beauty comes into existence. That beauty exists precisely as neural processes in the brain.


Some thoughts:

Beauty is a trait not a process.

Neural processes are not beautiful.

Neural processes can not be experienced. Neural processes are experiences themselves or correspond at least to experience.

The perception of beauty is an experience and a neural process, but the perception of beauty is something different then beauty itself. Otherwise we would just call it "beauty" and not "perception of beauty". That we use a different wording means that we mean something different.



mmsbls said:


> The sound waves have an objective existence, but everyone's brain processes them differently leading to variation in perception of beauty. Some brains create beauty from certain sound waves and others do not.


Everyone has a somewhat different concept of beauty. Concepts however have no mass and no location. Beauty is a concept. Matter or sound waves can be formed according to such a concept.



mmsbls said:


> Introducing non-physical minds leads to 2 problems. First, while we can only explain a modest amount with our understand of neural processes in brains, we can explain nothing with the concept of mind. We are learning more about how brains process reality, but we have no idea whatsoever how non-material minds could do anything. Second, we understand how neurons interact with each other, but we have no idea how non-physical minds interact with physical brains. So minds solve no problems but create a huge additional one.


Such a discussion has practical problems in my experience.

What I think is that there are rules at long last to which everything else is subject to no matter if material or non-material. But these rules seem to stand above the physical rules. Quantum entanglement suggest this. Quantum entanglement contradicts the theory of relativity. But if there is just a rule above everything it is no problem.

I do not tend towards an idealistic worldview but I heard about mysterious things that can't be explained (cases like Clarita Villanueva 1953, Noah Donohoe 2020, Esther Cox 1878, Steven Makinye 2017). So who knows?

Everything could be just rules and memory states. Paranormal things may fit into this without a problem, even tough they are hard to imagine and I don't really feel it.



mmsbls said:


> Beauty exists because we each sense it. It exists in the physical brain after enormously complex processing results in the sensation of beauty. We do not think sounds waves or electromagnetic waves (light) are beautiful. We think highly processed neural activity is beautiful.


There are brain processes and brain states. And there are experiences which might be the same thing as brain states or something non-material. But what are you calling beauty?

We don't say "neural activity is beautiful". We don't say "processing results in the brain are beautiful". We say "music is beautiful". (music = specific sound waves)

We also say sometimes "the perception of beautiful music is beautiful". The experience has its own beauty. And this beauty of the experience is in the brain, but it is another beauty than the beauty of music.



mmsbls said:


> Again, many people do not view reality as eljr and I do. As a result, many will not believe our view is sensible.


You have a different opinion than someone else. Such differences happen all the time. Or is there something more special about it in this case?


----------



## BachIsBest

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> That is possible as well. I have noticed in the past, however, that polls often flip once more numerous voters show up.


It could just be us humans trying to attribute reasons to what is just random statistical fluctuations. Who knows.


----------



## eljr

mmsbls said:


> many people do not view reality as eljr and I do. As a result, many will not believe our view is sensible..


the differance being, we have some evidence to support our view


----------



## BachIsBest

mmsbls said:


> No one finds pressure waves in air (sound waves) beautiful. It is only after those pressure waves are converted to electrical signals in the brain and then processed by numerous brain systems that beauty comes into existence. That beauty exists precisely as neural processes in the brain.


Well, no one sees a cat as a cat until the light waves reflect off the cat into the eye, are absorbed by the rods and cones, processed by numerous brain systems, and only then are recognised as picturing a cat. Surely, though, the cat is a cat before any of this happens.


----------



## eljr

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> Has anyone mentioned already how the thread begun tilted 80% in favour of the mind option, and now approaches a 50:50?
> It makes me think that there are two circuits of users here, and there are some visible differences between average regular and sporadic users.


Nah. It was how the discussion was shifted. Someone came along and introduced music and the brain, the neuroscience of music. 

The post was laughed at. Now not so much.

That is what you saw. The shift as facts become insisted on.


----------



## eljr

BachIsBest said:


> Well, no one sees a cat as a cat until the light waves reflect off the cat into the eye, are absorbed by the rods and cones, processed by numerous brain systems, and only then are recognised as picturing a cat. Surely, though, the cat is a cat before any of this happens.


OK, what is the point? No one said the horn, piano and cello do not exist.

However, cat or music, until the brain receives the signal and processes it, no endorphins are released. (Endorphins are in large part responsible for the feeling we get that make us call objects beautiful.)Hence, no beauty until we process the sound or image.

Peace


----------



## BachIsBest

eljr said:


> OK, what is the point? No one said the horn, piano and cello do not exist.
> 
> However, cat or music, until the brain receives the signal and processes it, no endorphins are released. (Endorphins are in large part responsible for the feeling we get that make us call objects beautiful.)Hence, no beauty until we process the sound or image.
> 
> Peace


All we know is that when people call things beautiful, endorphins are released. We don't know whether the endorphins are released in response to the perception of beauty, or things are called beautiful because the endorphins are released upon there perception.

However, I think you misunderstood the cat. I was comparing the cat, to the beauty, not the instruments.


----------



## eljr

BachIsBest said:


> All we know is that when people call things beautiful, endorphins are released. We don't know whether the endorphins are released in response to the perception of beauty, or things are called beautiful because the endorphins are released upon there perception.
> 
> However, I think you misunderstood the cat. I was comparing the cat, to the beauty, not the instruments.


I understood fine and it is not an either or. Endorphins are released by stimuli. It is the response that we call beautiful. it is not just endorphins. They are but one marker. We should not be limiting the reaction to stimuli to one chemical.


----------



## BachIsBest

eljr said:


> I understood fine and it is not an either or. Endorphins are released by stimuli. It is the response that we call beautiful. it is not just endorphins. They are but one marker. We should not be limiting the reaction to stimuli to one chemical.


You just can't conclude that from the evidence. We can flash stimuli before peoples eyes and ask them which ones they find beautiful, and then associate this to brain scans, brain chemistry, etc. However, we don't know whether the chicken or the egg comes first here; does the person perceive beauty and the perception of beauty causes the measurable effects, or does the person experience the measurable brain effects in response to some stimuli (that for whatever reason we shouldn't call beauty), and declare the object beautiful as a result.

I do think this is an actual question, and it is perhaps better clarified through examples. By looking at brain scans we can determine, in some circumstances, what colour a person is looking at. Surely, in this case, the perception of the actual property of green causes the brain response. On the other hand, if you look into the face of a loved one, you surely call the emotion you feel love only upon the "love" brain reaction as the face contains no special property that makes you feel that way.

However, the point being, there is no real way to distinguish between the love example and the green example by just analysing the brain; in either case, there is just a predictable response to outside stimuli.


----------



## Forster

mmsbls said:


> No one finds pressure waves in air (sound waves) beautiful. It is only after those pressure waves are converted to electrical signals in the brain and then processed by numerous brain systems that beauty comes into existence. That beauty exists precisely as neural processes in the brain.
> 
> The sound waves have an objective existence, but everyone's brain processes them differently leading to variation in perception of beauty. Some brains create beauty from certain sound waves and others do not.


At some point, the conscious mind decides that the neural processes are 'beautiful', yes? That is, while the brain is doing the processing unconsciously in response to a pleasurable stimulus, it is not until the conscious mind tags that experience with words, that 'beauty' or 'beautiful' comes into existence for the listener.

Are you also saying that any and all brain stimulation of this type - when endorphins are released - must be called 'beauty'?


----------



## Forster

Woodduck said:


> But that doesn't mean the nature of the process is easy to communicate, especially in a forum where serious thought on difficult topics tends to vanish down a black hole and to leave one feeling that the time and effort involved isn't worth expending. So here goes (maybe) nothing...


Thanks for the detailed explanation. It's a lot to digest. (Looking up and trying to make sense of 'cross domain mapping' is a task in itself.)

So, the composer manipulates sounds until they have found the right combination to tap into one or more of those qualities - their own and, they hope, the listeners' - that are not just contained in 'beauty', but are reflective of 'life processes' themselves.

And for you, Wagner is a composer who most often writes music where you find "variety within unity, movement contained in equipoise, expressive gesture, and the deployment and resolution of tension and ambiguity". Those are generic qualities that are achieved by the right mix of rhythm, melody, harmony, tinbre etc - it's not those musical elements in themselves that are important, but how they combine to 'generate' the qualities that matters.

Have I got that right?

I'm still not clear about 'heightened awareness'. You seem to be saying that unlike mundane awareness - I'm hungry, I need to go shopping, that's an ugly car, why she just say that to me - beauty can only be sensed when artist/audience are in the right frame of mind to concentrate and become aware that they are responding to, say, 'movement contained in equipoise'.

Have I got that right?


----------



## eljr

BachIsBest said:


> there is no real way to distinguish between the love example and the green example by just analysing the brain


sure there is

we are at our infancy in making these delineations however.


----------



## eljr

Aries said:


> I think I do that exactly.
> 
> Some thoughts:
> 
> Beauty is a trait not a process.
> 
> Neural processes are not beautiful.
> 
> Neural processes can not be experienced. Neural processes are experiences themselves or correspond at least to experience.
> 
> The perception of beauty is an experience and a neural process, but the perception of beauty is something different then beauty itself. Otherwise we would just call it "beauty" and not "perception of beauty". That we use a different wording means that we mean something different.
> 
> Everyone has a somewhat different concept of beauty. Concepts however have no mass and no location. Beauty is a concept. Matter or sound waves can be formed according to such a concept.
> 
> Such a discussion has practical problems in my experience.
> 
> What I think is that there are rules at long last to which everything else is subject to no matter if material or non-material. But these rules seem to stand above the physical rules. Quantum entanglement suggest this. Quantum entanglement contradicts the theory of relativity. But if there is just a rule above everything it is no problem.
> 
> I do not tend towards an idealistic worldview but I heard about mysterious things that can't be explained (cases like Clarita Villanueva 1953, Noah Donohoe 2020, Esther Cox 1878, Steven Makinye 2017). So who knows?
> 
> Everything could be just rules and memory states. Paranormal things may fit into this without a problem, even tough they are hard to imagine and I don't really feel it.
> 
> There are brain processes and brain states. And there are experiences which might be the same thing as brain states or something non-material. But what are you calling beauty?
> 
> We don't say "neural activity is beautiful". We don't say "processing results in the brain are beautiful". We say "music is beautiful". (music = specific sound waves)
> 
> We also say sometimes "the perception of beautiful music is beautiful". The experience has its own beauty. And this beauty of the experience is in the brain, but it is another beauty than the beauty of music.
> 
> You have a different opinion than someone else. Such differences happen all the time. Or is there something more special about it in this case?


Lot's wrong here but it's pointless. When one chooses to suspend disbelief, anything is possible to believe. As with religion, reason is of no relevance in such circumstance.
Peace and good will I offer you.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Beauty does not exist outside of our brain but our brain needs an external stimulus to elicit the feeling of beauty. So it's some from column A and some from column B.

(likely a redundant comment but I wasn't in the mood this morning of reading 95 pages).


----------



## Aries

eljr said:


> OK, what is the point? No one said the horn, piano and cello do not exist.
> 
> However, cat or music, until the brain receives the signal and processes it, no endorphins are released. (Endorphins are in large part responsible for the feeling we get that make us call objects beautiful.)Hence, no beauty until we process the sound or image.


But what causes the brain to process and release endorphin? What is the final cause?

That the brain does something in the whole process is self-evident and just an intermediate step.

Beauty -> causes the brain to release endorphin -> causes the human to call something beautiful.

What is the variable on which it depends the most whether someone perceives beauty? Our brain is a rather fix constant for each of us. We usually can not just decide to find some dirt beautiful and our paramour ugly. What we see and hear is the variable on which it depends the most whether we perceive beauty. We find dirt ugly and our paramour beautiful.

If we take more people into account the brain characteristic gets more variable, but ot is still not even closely as variable as the manifold things we can sense. Most people will find scratching on a blackboard ugly and sunlight beautiful.

What we mean with beauty and ugliness are traits of things we can sense, not our sensing and brain processing.


----------



## SanAntone

*Where is the beauty in music?*

In our minds. One man's beauty is another man's superficial confection.


----------



## mmsbls

BachIsBest said:


> Well, no one sees a cat as a cat until the light waves reflect off the cat into the eye, are absorbed by the rods and cones, processed by numerous brain systems, and only then are recognised as picturing a cat. Surely, though, the cat is a cat before any of this happens.


Yes, the cat is a cat before neural processing. The pressure waves are pressure waves before neural processing. The beauty is beauty only after neural processing.

My view is illustrated in these examples:

Light waves reflected from the cat are processed in our brains and result in our recognition of our pet cat, Jenny. The cat exists outside our brain. The name recognition occurs in our brain through that process.

Nerve signals from a hammer hitting our finger are processed in our brains and result as pain. The hammer and blow to the finger exist outside our brain. The pain occurs in our brain through that process.

Sound waves from music are processed in our brains and result in beauty. The sound waves exist outside our brain. The beauty occurs in our brain through that process.


----------



## Forster

mmsbls said:


> Sound waves from music are processed in our brains and result in beauty. The sound waves exist outside our brain. The beauty occurs in our brain through that process.


But only if we consciously categorise it as 'beauty'?


----------



## eljr

Aries said:


> What is the variable on which it depends the most whether someone perceives beauty?


There are many, all within us, obviously, as we can perceive anything as beautiful.

That we often call the same stimuli beautiful is our common ancient hereditary of species followed by our particular societal exposures. Then of course we have our unique associations.


----------



## eljr

mmsbls said:


> Yes, the cat is a cat before neural processing. The pressure waves are pressure waves before neural processing. The beauty is beauty only after neural processing.
> 
> My view is illustrated in these examples:
> 
> Light waves reflected from the cat are processed in our brains and result in our recognition of our pet cat, Jenny. The cat exists outside our brain. The name recognition occurs in our brain through that process.
> 
> Nerve signals from a hammer hitting our finger are processed in our brains and result as pain. The hammer and blow to the finger exist outside our brain. The pain occurs in our brain through that process.
> 
> Sound waves from music are processed in our brains and result in beauty. The sound waves exist outside our brain. The beauty occurs in our brain through that process.


In his theorem, every that exists is beautiful as everything that exists can be interpreted as beautiful.

But he is not understanding that this is his submission.


----------



## mmsbls

Forster said:


> At some point, the conscious mind decides that the neural processes are 'beautiful', yes? That is, while the brain is doing the processing unconsciously in response to a pleasurable stimulus, it is not until the conscious mind tags that experience with words, that 'beauty' or 'beautiful' comes into existence for the listener.
> 
> Are you also saying that any and all brain stimulation of this type - when endorphins are released - must be called 'beauty'?


I agree with your first paragraph, but I view consciousness as an epiphenomenon of brain activity. So I would make a slight and probably, for this argument, unimportant change saying "the unconscious brain processes tag the experience as beauty and 'notifies' one's consciousness of that beauty after the determination."

My understanding is that when endorphins are realeased, the brain experiences pleasure. I don't view pleasure and beauty as necessarily identical so I don't think any and all release of endorphins are a result of beauty or should be called beauty.


----------



## Forster

mmsbls said:


> I agree with your first paragraph, but I view consciousness as an epiphenomenon of brain activity. So I would make a slight and probably, for this argument, unimportant change saying "the unconscious brain processes tag the experience as beauty and 'notifies' one's consciousness of that beauty after the determination."
> 
> My understanding is that when endorphins are realeased, the brain experiences pleasure. I don't view pleasure and beauty as necessarily identical so I don't think any and all release of endorphins are a result of beauty or should be called beauty.


OK. Are you also saying that unless endorphins are released, the unconscious brain processes wouldn't tag and notify as beauty? Isn't it possible to "recognise" beauty without actually experiencing pleasure?


----------



## eljr

Forster said:


> OK. Are you also saying that unless endorphins are released, the unconscious brain processes wouldn't tag and notify as beauty? Isn't it possible to "recognise" beauty without actually experiencing pleasure?


I should have never brought up endorphins as that has turned the thread far too one dimensional. My second posted regret of this.

But yes, it is the pleasure, derived in many ways, that we have evolved to use the word beauty to caption.

Can you memorize an object with the caption beauty applied as you suggest here, yes. But that is off subject.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> (As a postscript, in response to your recent remarks to and about me and what you think are my philosophical groundings or inclinations, I want to express the hope that the present post might extricate me from any pigeonholes into which I've been stuffed. Truly, except for "I think, therefore I am," which I've never been concerned to understand, and some nonsense about animals being machines, Monsieur Descartes and I have not been introduced, and I'm perfectly happy to keep it that way.)


I appreciate your taking the time to write that post. As I said before, I really have nothing further to add here that directly relates to this discussion. I will say that I think you are being unfair to Monsieur Descartes, not surprisingly, as many are, including published academics (we all know what fools they are!). That is why I cited the Gary Hatfield article, which is available in its entirety for free online, thanks to the University of Pennsylvania.

He discusses why some prevalent interpretations of Cartesian realism or rationalism are simplistic and off the mark, and though imo he wastes too many words shooting down colleagues (a tiresome habit of some academics), I think he does a good job.

I hope you understand that my comments regarding Cartesian realism or rationalism (neither 'realism' nor 'rationalism' fully convey what is meant by this, but those are conventionally used terms) were not an attempt to pigeonhole your position or intended to be condescending. The point was to try to introduce some clarity, as I see two sides here arguing from fundamentally different approaches to the problem of aesthetics. In this post, I think you clearly explain the underlying basis for your point of view, so no further clarifying or characterization is needed.

While I understand your point of view, I have a different point of view, and I can see from your post why that is so. I've done my best to explain why, including by citing some scholars who view the problem of aesthetics my way and no doubt explain themselves much better and in more detail than I do. This was done to help people understand what I was trying to say, not to arrogantly give a reference and say, "This chap has it sorted, you don't."

Of course, some here flame and ridicule me for citing sources, others criticize me for not doing so. That's silly. Either make use of them, or ignore them.


----------



## fbjim

Forster said:


> OK. Are you also saying that unless endorphins are released, the unconscious brain processes wouldn't tag and notify as beauty? Isn't it possible to "recognise" beauty without actually experiencing pleasure?


I think we are actually talking about two different things in that case. We can associate specific aesthetics we detect with "beauty" as an aesthetic mode we can identify, in the same way we can do any sort of detached, aesthetic evaluation of a work. I think a lot of people have a decent idea of what Classical listeners tend to associate with "beauty", which allows us to do this. I think this is a specifically different thing from what we're talking about as "experiencing" beauty, however.


----------



## Forster

eljr said:


> Can you memorize an object with the caption beauty applied as you suggest here, yes.


I don't understand this.


----------



## mmsbls

Aries said:


> You have a different opinion than someone else. Such differences happen all the time. Or is there something more special about it in this case?


I think it's more than that. I have a different view of reality than you. You are able to view beauty as a non-physical thing (I think). I don't.

So...you say:



> Beauty is a trait not a process.
> 
> Neural processes are not beautiful.
> 
> Neural processes can not be experienced.


I believe beauty is a physical thing. Neural processes are not beautiful. Beauty exists as neural processes in the brain (i.e. beauty _is_ neural processes). Neural processes can be experienced. That's how brains work.



Aries said:


> I think I do that exactly.


Well, I'm not sure anyone can differentiate sound waves coming from a Beethoven symphony and a marching band or a street corner _without first using their ear to transduce the sound waves into electrochemical signals and processing them._ Once they are transduced and processed, you can determine beauty.

Anyway, I think it's rather unlikely to make progress towards an mutual understanding since our views are so different. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## mmsbls

Forster said:


> OK. Are you also saying that unless endorphins are released, the unconscious brain processes wouldn't tag and notify as beauty? Isn't it possible to "recognise" beauty without actually experiencing pleasure?


I would guess yes, but it might depend on one's definition. The answer probably also requires a better knowledge of brain processes than I have.


----------



## Forster

fbjim said:


> I think we are actually talking about two different things in that case. We can associate specific aesthetics we detect with "beauty" as an aesthetic mode we can identify, in the same way we can do any sort of detached, aesthetic evaluation of a work. I think a lot of people have a decent idea of what Classical listeners tend to associate with "beauty", which allows us to do this. I think this is a specifically different thing from what we're talking about as "experiencing" beauty, however.


Um...er...I'm not sure. Several of us have attempted to make the distinction between "the experience of beauty" (a process) and "beauty" (an abstract concept.) It seems that for some, they are one and the same, as if one cannot dispassionately point to something that is beautiful without having experienced the pleasure that gave rise to the impulse to label it so.

I'm reminded of a conversation with my brother who asked what I thought of the film _Taxi Driver_. I said I didn't like it, but I could see why it was praised by the critics and accepted their judgement that it was a great film. He said he didn't think that was possible: if I didn't like it, it can't be great.

I know many such exchanges like that occur here, but it seems particularly relevant when we're talking about brain processes.


----------



## fbjim

What's interesting is that for a large part that I've seen, it's the "subjectivist" side which has generally agreed on using things like critical consensus and historical import as an objective quantity that allows for statements like "I can see why this is great though I personally dislike it". 

The main disconnect seems to simply be (and this is restating old ground again) the treatment of it as an inherent, discrete quality of art.


----------



## Forster

fbjim said:


> The main disconnect seems to simply be (and this is restating old ground again) the treatment of it as an inherent, discrete quality of art [...]


...that is ordained by some absolute authority.


----------



## Aries

mmsbls said:


> Yes, the cat is a cat before neural processing. The pressure waves are pressure waves before neural processing. The beauty is beauty only after neural processing.





eljr said:


> There are many, all within us, obviously, as we can perceive anything as beautiful.
> 
> That we often call the same stimuli beautiful is our common ancient hereditary of species followed by our particular societal exposures. Then of course we have our unique associations.


Beauty does not exist independent from life, and everyone has his own ideal of beauty inside his brain. But it is about a sensible use of language. The description of brain processes as beauty is rather obscure and distracting.

Compare it to maliciousness:

Where is the maliciousness of a serial killer? In the serial killer or in the observers brain?

"What is meant" with maliciousness and beauty may not exist objectively, but that does not mean that "what is meant" exists in the brain. It means that it may just exist subjectively (but still outside the brain).

In order to judge the maliciousness of a killer we need to think about the killer and not about the stimulation at some brain coordinates. If we want to judge the beauty of a piece of music, we need to think about the music. And the language reflects that. The question of this thread already gives the answer. Where is the beauty _in music_?

To call certain brain states [edited because of ambiguous wording] beauty would be a misled usage of language.


----------



## mmsbls

Aries said:


> Beauty does not exist independent from life, and everyone has his own ideal of beauty inside his brain. But it is about a sensible use of language. The description of brain processes as beauty is rather obscure and distracting.


I agree completely. We say Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 is beautiful, and and while we say that, some of us believe the actual beauty exists in our brains.


----------



## fbjim

Aries said:


> Beauty does not exist independent from life, and everyone has his own ideal of beauty inside his brain. But it is about a sensible use of language. The description of brain processes as beauty is rather obscure and distracting.


It is, which is why we use the rhetorical shorthand of ascribing subjective responses to the object itself. It is not true in a literal sense but makes perfect sense when in a context outside of philosophical debates on the nature of aesthetics.

If someone says "that was beautiful", I don't think even the strictest pedant would insist they actually say "that triggered an aesthetic sense of beauty in my brain" or something like that, because ascribing "Beauty" to the object which caused us to feel that way is a perfect way to communicate our response to music. However, in a context like this, where we are discussing the nature of aesthetic evaluation, it is different.


----------



## DaveM

Aries said:


> Where is the maliciousness of a serial killer? In the serial killer or in the observers brain?


The malicious of the serial killer originates in the brain; the manifestation of it is in the body. If the observer is about to be the next victim, the maliciousness will likely register in the observer's brain.



> To call certain brain states maliciousness...would be a misled usage of language.


I don't think so. (maliciousness one def: having a desire to harm someone.)


----------



## arpeggio

I have seen some screwball equivalencies here but relating a discussion of aesthetics to the mind of a serial killer


----------



## Aries

fbjim said:


> However, in a context like this, where we are discussing the nature of aesthetic evaluation, it is different.


Regarding philosophy: I think calling processes in the brain beauty (instead of things like specific shapes and sounds etc.) still leads away from the philosophical topic of aesthetics (what is the issue of the term beauty) towards the topic of anthropology etc. Isn't it just more precise to talk about "perception of beauty" or "experience of beauty" when talking about the brain?


----------



## eljr

Aries said:


> In order to judge the maliciousness of a killer we need to think about the killer and not about the stimulation at some brain coordinates.


Judge? We want to understand not judge. 
Don't you want to understand these things?

I sure as hell do. I am always looking to learn and improve the human condition as a result.

BTW, I have no problems with language except that my grammar is very poor and my spelling worse. But this thread is not about language.


----------



## Aries

DaveM said:


> The malicious of the serial killer originates in the brain; the manifestation of it is in the body. If the observer is about to be the next victim, the maliciousness will likely register in the observer's brain.


Yes, it is the perception of the maliciousness of somebody else.



DaveM said:


> I don't think so. (maliciousness one def: having a desire to harm someone.)


Yes, my phrasing was bad.

The maliciousness is in a brain, but in the brain of the killer. In the observers brain is the perception of maliciousness, but this perception is not malicious itself.



eljr said:


> Judge? We want to understand not judge.


Well, we want a lot of things.



eljr said:


> BTW, I have no problems with language except that my grammar is very poor and my spelling worse. But this thread is not about language.


This thread is about philosophy, but terms and language are very important for philosophy.


----------



## eljr

mmsbls said:


> I agree completely. We say Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 is beautiful, and and while we say that, some of us believe the actual beauty exists in our brains.


If it does not exist in our brains than we don't experience it.

So then, if it is perceived as beautiful or not has no relevance.

How can anything be beautiful in and of itself if it is dependent on us experiencing it?

It can't.


----------



## fbjim

eljr said:


> BTW, I have no problems with language except that my grammar is very poor and my spelling worse. But this thread is not about language.


on the contrary, i think the use of language is extremely key to how we define our experiences with art


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> I think it's more than that. I have a different view of reality than you. You are able to view beauty as a non-physical thing (I think). I don't.
> 
> So...you say:
> 
> I believe beauty is a physical thing. Neural processes are not beautiful. Beauty exists as neural processes in the brain (i.e. beauty _is_ neural processes). Neural processes can be experienced. That's how brains work.
> 
> Well, I'm not sure anyone can differentiate sound waves coming from a Beethoven symphony and a marching band or a street corner _without first using their ear to transduce the sound waves into electrochemical signals and processing them._ Once they are transduced and processed, you can determine beauty.
> 
> Anyway, I think it's rather unlikely to make progress towards an mutual understanding since our views are so different. I'll leave it at that.


This exchange between Aries and mmsbls is one of the most succinct and direct I have found in this thread between a rationalist (Aries) who states that beauty is a trait possessed by an object, and an empiricist (mmsbls), who replies that beauty is a physical, neurological process that is experienced by a subject perceiver.

That exchange could come right out of a philosophy textbook, word for word.


----------



## eljr

fbjim said:


> on the contrary, i think the use of language is extremely key to how we define our experiences with art


You already said.

I'll repeat myself too.

This discussion is about science or it's akin to ************. (I hope I can say that!:devil


----------



## eljr

LOL, guess I can't say that! :lol:


----------



## Art Rock

eljr said:


> ..akin to ************. (I hope I can say that!:devil


Apparently you cannot.


----------



## BachIsBest

eljr said:


> sure there is
> 
> we are at our infancy in making these delineations however.


I don't believe there is though. Do you mean we may discover one in the future? If there is such a method, surely you would be so kind as to provide some sort of source for this claim?


----------



## eljr

BachIsBest said:


> I don't believe there is though. Do you mean we may discover one in the future? If there is such a method, surely you would be so kind as to provide some sort of source for this claim?


I have provided links, I doubt any were sourced.

The specifics of your question eludes me. What specifically is your query of me?

Thanks


----------



## fluteman

eljr said:


> I have provided links, I doubt any were sourced.
> 
> The specifics of your question eludes me. What specifically is your query of me?
> 
> Thanks


The irony is, a routine comment in outside sources is that it is generally accepted that aesthetic issues are best viewed from an empirical / scientific method standpoint, as opposed to, say, mathematics or theoretical physics. The people who say that haven't seen this thread. :lol:


----------



## BachIsBest

eljr said:


> I have provided links, I doubt any were sourced.
> 
> The specifics of your question eludes me. What specifically is your query of me?
> 
> Thanks





BachIsBest said:


> You just can't conclude that from the evidence. We can flash stimuli before peoples eyes and ask them which ones they find beautiful, and then associate this to brain scans, brain chemistry, etc. However, we don't know whether the chicken or the egg comes first here; does the person perceive beauty and the perception of beauty causes the measurable effects, or does the person experience the measurable brain effects in response to some stimuli (that for whatever reason we shouldn't call beauty), and declare the object beautiful as a result.
> 
> I do think this is an actual question, and it is perhaps better clarified through examples. By looking at brain scans we can determine, in some circumstances, what colour a person is looking at. Surely, in this case, the perception of the actual property of green causes the brain response. On the other hand, if you look into the face of a loved one, you surely call the emotion you feel love only upon the "love" brain reaction as the face contains no special property that makes you feel that way.
> 
> However, the point being, there is no real way to distinguish between the love example and the green example by just analysing the brain; in either case, there is just a predictable response to outside stimuli.


Just the question I posted that you responded to with "sure there is"?


----------



## BachIsBest

mmsbls said:


> Yes, the cat is a cat before neural processing. The pressure waves are pressure waves before neural processing. The beauty is beauty only after neural processing.
> 
> My view is illustrated in these examples:
> 
> Light waves reflected from the cat are processed in our brains and result in our recognition of our pet cat, Jenny. The cat exists outside our brain. The name recognition occurs in our brain through that process.
> 
> Nerve signals from a hammer hitting our finger are processed in our brains and result as pain. The hammer and blow to the finger exist outside our brain. The pain occurs in our brain through that process.
> 
> Sound waves from music are processed in our brains and result in beauty. The sound waves exist outside our brain. The beauty occurs in our brain through that process.


Okay, but what argument do you have that beauty isn't like the cat and unlike the hammer? Assuming the cat exists outside the brain, but beauty does not, is begging the question.


----------



## whispering

Dear All

This is a fascinating thread and has had quite an impact on my thinking. To cut a long story short my mother died recently this year, after I cared for her with Dementia for almost six years. During that time period music was often my one source of joy in frequently snatched moments, a source of beauty in a world which increasingly grew darker.

So for what it is worth here are a few observations of how my appreciation of the beauty of music developed or should I say changed over that period.

1) To start with I preferred symphonies, my favourites being Beethoven, late Mozart, some Schubert and Brahms. I liked the depth of the orchestra sounds, the dramatic rises and falls in the music. Life was care free, my idea of beautiful music reflected that.
2) Then the emotional rain and upsets came. I found beauty in chamber music I had largely ignored until then. Brahms Violin Sonatas, Schubert and Mendelssohn piano trios, string quintets, String quartets, etc. Reflective piano music by Satie, Schumann and Beethoven suddenly became beautiful to ears which for decades had regarded them as little better than intermission music.
3) The bleakness of lock downs and severe social isolation with mum’s illness reduced my time for music to brief snatched periods. My idea of beauty now switched to music which was sad, reflective of endings and ultimately talked of goodbyes.
4) Now alone I am slowly finding my way back to the original joy of upbeat symphonies.

My point would be forget which part of the brain “finds beauty in music”. I would argue the key is our human emotional condition. That is on two levels. Firstly the bad day in the office or with the kids level. You reach for something to lift you, give a little beauty in your life. Secondly the more profound changes in our life can make much deeper impacts on our notion of what is beautiful music. For me the ill health and suffering of a loved one. For someone else serious health concerns, the break down of a very important relationship, perhaps an important goal in life is secured or lost, etc. Here the change in our perception is much more profound and may result in long term or perhaps permanent shifts in our perception of beauty in music.

Finally there is also I suggest another force in play which I have observed on many instances but which I am unable to articulate beyond a basic emotional gut instinct. Perhaps someone else can articulate it better for me. When we are young life is less complicated and are perceptions of beauty in art, music, entertainment, etc, are how can I say seen through the eyes of the innocent mind. Then adult life hits us all for bad or worse. Our demands on what constitutes beauty become more sophisticated. Then as we reach older years I notice in myself and others a recapturing of those long ago abandoned notions of beauty. How many of us then ask the question why did I stop listening to this music, why did I abandon X composer for so long, etc. The effect reaches beyond music eg what we read, watch on entertainment streams, etc.

In summary I would humbly argue that even if we can definitively decide what part of the human brain determines what is beautiful in music or anything else, it is a constantly shifting view as we move through life. Sometimes those changes are overnight, sometimes so gradual and delicate we hardly notice them happening.

Finally a small amusing memory I would like to share. Quite often in musical pieces a composer gets a little carried away in the area of recapitulation of the main theme. There I was in my chair about ten years ago listening to just such a piece. Mum suddenly made the profound statement “oh mate will you kindly get there”. The beauty of the piece definitely not having the same impact on her ears, honed to the finer things of life like Jim Reeves.

Please enjoy beauty wherever you find it, but be aware it is a sensation that is nearly always in flux, even if the rate of that change at times is very slow.


----------



## eljr

whispering said:


> In summary I would humbly argue that even if we can definitively decide what part of the human brain determines what is beautiful in music or anything else, it is a constantly shifting view as we move through life.


I am glad you understand that the music is not beautiful unto itself as 46% incorrectly suggest.

Also,

I am sorry for the challenges you have faced. Time helps.

Peace


----------



## eljr

BachIsBest said:


> Just the question I posted that you responded to with "sure there is"?


I did, you just quoted my response. No clue what's up with this.

Peace


----------



## Aries

eljr said:


> I am glad you understand that the music is not beautiful unto itself as 46% incorrectly suggest.


These are two different things. That beauty is in the music itself doesn't mean that it exists unto itself independent from humans.

Compare it to quality features. A fast airplane has the quality features that it is fast. But this feature depends on humans. Without humans the airplane doesn't fly at all. But it is still a quality feature of the airplane to be fast compared to slower airplanes.

A lot of concepts and capabilities only work depending on humans or even on specific humans. Concepts itself have no location and no matter. But concepts can be applied to matter at physical locations. Matter can be formed or moved according to concepts. When sound waves are formed in a way so that they edify my, I call them beautiful. That they are beautiful (for me) means that the (my) concept of beauty is realized in them at their location.


----------



## eljr

Aries said:


> Concepts itself have no location and no matter.


 Wrong, thoughts, concepts is an electrical, biochemical processes in the brain. It most certainly does have a location, matter.



> But concepts can be applied to matter at physical locations. Matter can be formed or moved according to concepts. When sound waves are formed in a way so that they edify my, I call them beautiful. That they are beautiful (for me) means that the (my) concept of beauty is realized in them at their location.


It is realized in the brain. That is the physical location. Geez.


----------



## Aries

eljr said:


> Wrong, thoughts, concepts is an electrical, biochemical processes in the brain. It most certainly does have a location, matter.


What matter does a dot, a straight line or a plane have? A plane doesn't have a volume, a straight line doesn't have a surface, and a dot doesn't even has a length. I am talking about geometrical concepts here, not about my thoughts about geometrical concepts.



eljr said:


> It is realized in the brain. That is the physical location. Geez.


The actual meaning of a concept seems to be beyond your thoughts.

Why is it difficult to understand that a thought about a concept is something different than the concept itself?


----------



## BachIsBest

eljr said:


> I did, you just quoted my response. No clue what's up with this.
> 
> Peace


You posted "The specifics of your question eludes me. What specifically is your query of me?"...


----------



## Forster

@Woodduck:

I posted this a few pages back. You may have missed it. If you did, any thoughts in response?

Where is the beauty in music?

Thanks


----------



## mmsbls

BachIsBest said:


> Okay, but what argument do you have that beauty isn't like the cat and unlike the hammer? Assuming the cat exists outside the brain, but beauty does not, is begging the question.


If I leave the cat, the cat is still there, but my recognition of the cat goes away.

If I leave the hammer, the hammer is still there, but the pain (eventually) goes away.

If I leave the sound waves, the sound waves are still there, but the beauty goes away.

In each case, the recognition, pain, and beauty exist as activated neural circuits. When the stimulus goes away, the circuit is no longer activated and the recognition, pain, and beauty cease to be.


----------



## Aries

mmsbls said:


> If I leave the cat, the cat is still there, but my recognition of the cat goes away.


But what if it is Schrödinger's cat?

The cat you saw maybe went somewhere else when you left or she died maybe. And if you would block off the cat completely she could be dead and alive at the same time according to quantum mechanics.

What you have is a recognition that she is a cat, that she lives and that she ist there. But is this really more than "activated neural circuits". And if yes: Why is the beauty of the cat not more?

That beauty is just something in the own mind, seems like an idealistic point of view. But for an idealistic point of view it seems much more consequent that everything exists just in the mind.


----------



## eljr

Aries said:


> That beauty is just something in the own mind, seems like an idealistic point of view. But for an idealistic point of view it seems much more consequent that everything exists just in the mind.


Everything is relative.


----------



## mmsbls

Aries said:


> ...That beauty is just something in the own mind, seems like an idealistic point of view. But for an idealistic point of view it seems much more consequent that everything exists just in the mind.


I don't think of it as idealistic but rather empirical. I think of the notion of beauty as something non-physical as idealistic.

I wrote a long post awhile ago explaining why I don't think everything exists in our brains, but unfortunately, I can't find it. Basically, we observe an outside world that has enormous content, all incredibly ordered, and entirely consistent. Radio waves, radiative heat, light, and X_rays are photons behaving the same except for their frequencies. General relativity reduces perfectly to Newton's equations in the limit of low mass and velocity. Electrons can behave like light (interference) because both are described with quantum wave functions.

I realize I am not remotely smart enough and can't store enough information in my brain to independently come up with all the above and much more that we have learned. Therefore, those phenomena don't exist solely in my brain and there is an outside world.


----------



## eljr

Aries said:


> What matter does a dot, a straight line or a plane have? A plane doesn't have a volume, a straight line doesn't have a surface, and a dot doesn't even has a length. I am talking about geometrical concepts here, not about my thoughts about geometrical concepts.
> 
> The actual meaning of a concept seems to be beyond your thoughts.
> 
> Why is it difficult to understand that a thought about a concept is something different than the concept itself?


Dude, with all respect, it is not I that is limited in thought. Trust me.

That plane exists, the thought exits, a geometric concept resides in your brain. 

You want to insist on metaphysical nonsense, that is the problem. I am not having it.


----------



## mmsbls

Please refrain from personal comments.


----------



## fbjim

Aries said:


> But what if it is Schrödinger's cat?
> 
> The cat you saw maybe went somewhere else when you left or she died maybe. And if you would block off the cat completely she could be dead and alive at the same time according to quantum mechanics.


it isn't, because the question presupposed that the cat existed. this is the same problem with asking about music with nobody to listen to when the question presupposed that humans would likely find it beautiful if they did listen to it- by making the second statement we are already making an aesthetic evaluation on it.


----------



## fbjim

Aries said:


> These are two different things. That beauty is in the music itself doesn't mean that it exists unto itself independent from humans.
> 
> Compare it to quality features. A fast airplane has the quality features that it is fast. But this feature depends on humans. Without humans the airplane doesn't fly at all. But it is still a quality feature of the airplane to be fast compared to slower airplanes.
> 
> A lot of concepts and capabilities only work depending on humans or even on specific humans. Concepts itself have no location and no matter. But concepts can be applied to matter at physical locations. Matter can be formed or moved according to concepts. When sound waves are formed in a way so that they edify my, I call them beautiful. That they are beautiful (for me) means that the (my) concept of beauty is realized in them at their location.


this isn't the right way to look at it.

the concept of a "fast airplane" is specific to humans, because "fast" is a subjective evaluation. depending on your point of view, an airplane that travels at 100mph over the ground might be "fast", or you might not consider it "fast" until it breaks the sound barrier.

now- the concept of an airplane that is "faster" or "slower" than other airplanes is not subjective, so long as we agree upon the objective, measurable criteria to measure speed. but you'll have a far easier time doing that than trying to find any sort of objective, measurable criteria of "beauty" to measure.


----------



## Aries

mmsbls said:


> I realize I am not remotely smart enough and can't store enough information in my brain to independently come up with all the above and much more that we have learned. Therefore, those phenomena don't exist solely in my brain and there is an outside world.


But you think beauty is just in the brain. But "cat" and "beauty" are both concepts with delimitations that depend on human brains.

Some say cats are beautiful. Others say: No, cats are ugly, dogs are beautiful.

But its the same with "cat".

Are lions cats? Some say: No, only domestic cats or small cats are cats. Some say: Lions are cats too.

Or what about cat_like_? This is maybe more plausible. Some might even find meerkats catlike. Someone finds a form still catlike, someone else doesn't. Someone finds a form beautiful, someones else does not.



eljr said:


> You want to insist on metaphysical nonsense, that is the problem. I am not having it.


I think you have some kind of problem with things that don't have matter. But I don't say that they exist in a material way. I don't say that they react with the material world. It is just that we talk about such non-material, theoretical things when we use words like "dot" or "beauty". We are not talking about brain mass.



fbjim said:


> now- the concept of an airplane that is "faster" or "slower" than other airplanes is not subjective, so long as we agree upon the objective, measurable criteria to measure speed. but you'll have a far easier time doing that than trying to find any sort of objective, measurable criteria of "beauty" to measure.


Understanding and agreeing on the concept of beauty is much more difficult than on the concept of horsepower for example. But the more difficult question of beauty is: What embodies beauty exactly? I think there is much more agreement about what beauty is supposed to be, what beauty basically is. Beauty is supposed to please humans aesthetically.


----------



## eljr

Aries said:


> I think you have some kind of problem with things that don't have matter. But I don't say that they exist in a material way. I don't say that they react with the material world. It is just that we talk about such non-material, theoretical things when we use words like "dot" or "beauty". We are not talking about brain mass.


Massless particles most certainly exist, you try to ascribe miraculous attributes to them.


----------



## Aries

eljr said:


> Massless particles most certainly exist, you try to ascribe miraculous attributes to them.


This is a misinterpretation. I say: Concepts have no physical particles. They are non-physical theoretical constructions.

Before we answer the question, where beauty is, we maybe need to answer the question, what kind of thing beauty is.

Here are some interesting sentences I found with google:

_"This fashionable ring *embodies beauty*, quality and timeless design." _https://www.buddhatobuddha.com/en/ring-ben-gold-14kt
_"This work was written shortly after the birth of Dvořák's son, and it *embodies beauty*, optimism, playfulness, and elegance, which I believe is essential in our lives right now."_ https://chattanoogasymphony.org/news/520-cso-presents-live-digital-dvorak-string
_"Sydney Opera House *embodies beauty*, inspiration, and the liberating power of art and ideas."_ https://www.talentticker.ai/company/sydney-opera-house-trust-334381

So beauty can be embodied. What does this tell us about beauty? Well, that beauty itself has no body. It is a theoretical construct that needs to be embodied.

Now where is the beauty? If there is some beautiful music the beauty is _embodied in the music_.


----------



## eljr

Aries said:


> This is a misinterpretation. I say: Concepts have no physical particles. They are non-physical theoretical constructions.
> 
> Before we answer the question, where beauty is, we maybe need to answer the question, what kind of thing beauty is.
> 
> Here are some interesting sentences I found with google:
> 
> _"This fashionable ring *embodies beauty*, quality and timeless design." _https://www.buddhatobuddha.com/en/ring-ben-gold-14kt
> _"This work was written shortly after the birth of Dvořák's son, and it *embodies beauty*, optimism, playfulness, and elegance, which I believe is essential in our lives right now."_ https://chattanoogasymphony.org/news/520-cso-presents-live-digital-dvorak-string
> _"Sydney Opera House *embodies beauty*, inspiration, and the liberating power of art and ideas."_ https://www.talentticker.ai/company/sydney-opera-house-trust-334381
> 
> So beauty can be embodied. What does this tell us about beauty? Well, that beauty itself has no body. It is a theoretical construct that needs to be embodied.
> 
> Now where is the beauty? If there is some beautiful music the beauty is _embodied in the music_.


It's the same problem identified early in the thread. The romantic will not be bent by science.

It is the same mechanism that makes one accept the magical stories of religion.

Enjoy, and I wish you peace.


----------



## BachIsBest

mmsbls said:


> If I leave the cat, the cat is still there, but my recognition of the cat goes away.
> 
> If I leave the hammer, the hammer is still there, but the pain (eventually) goes away.
> 
> If I leave the sound waves, the sound waves are still there, but the beauty goes away.
> 
> In each case, the recognition, pain, and beauty exist as activated neural circuits. When the stimulus goes away, the circuit is no longer activated and the recognition, pain, and beauty cease to be.


This line of argumentation is begging the question. You just assume that the beauty ceases to exist when no one perceives it. My position is, that the recognition of the beauty goes away, but the fact that the music has beauty still remains.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fbjim said:


> I can be objectively wrong if I say most people find Mozart to be ugly, but I can't be objectively wrong if I say that *I* find Mozart ugly, because we have shifted to the realm of subjective evaluation.


I can see how some might find stuff like this "sickening" (from 1:00 onwards):





just like how my mother would describe sofa designs like







;
_"Ewww... The curls in the sides look like those of 18th century European guys' hairstyle."_


----------



## DaveM

Aries said:


> But you think beauty is just in the brain. But "cat" and "beauty" are both concepts with delimitations that depend on human brains.
> 
> Some say cats are beautiful. Others say: No, cats are ugly, dogs are beautiful.
> 
> But its the same with "cat".
> 
> Are lions cats? Some say: No, only domestic cats or small cats are cats. Some say: Lions are cats too.


You don't help your argument with these comparisons, especially when they contain confusing statements. For instance, "Are lions cats? Some say: No". That isn't a matter of opinion. That isn't determined by the wherewithal of someone's brain. Lions are a member of the cat family. End of story.


----------



## mmsbls

BachIsBest said:


> This line of argumentation is begging the question. You just assume that the beauty ceases to exist when no one perceives it. My position is, that the recognition of the beauty goes away, but the fact that the music has beauty still remains.


You seem to be arguing that beauty is not neural processes in the brain, but you haven't explained what beauty is. You say it's in the music. What is it? Sound waves are air pressure variation in ampliture and frequency as a function of time. Where is the beauty in those pressure variations?

The same sound waves can result in sensations of beauty and ugliness in different people or the same person at different times. I think it's hard to argue both beauty and ugliness are in the same pressure waves. It's much easier to argue that the same waves can be transduced and processed by complex brain modules that have developed through variable learning processes. One brain processes the signal rather differently from another so it can produce vastly different results (i.e. beauty in one brain and ugliness in another).

Experiments have demonstrated that electrode stimulation of brain circuits produce detailed sensory memories including emotions as well as music. Patients hear music and presumably can experience beauty simply because their neural circuits are activated.


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> Experiments have demonstrated that electrode stimulation of brain circuits produce detailed sensory memories including emotions as well as music. Patients hear music and presumably can experience beauty simply because their neural circuits are activated.


Do you mean such electrode stimulation produces memories of music - not actually the sound of music?


----------



## mmsbls

janxharris said:


> Do you mean such electrode stimulation produces memories of music - not actually the sound of music?


As I understand the details, the stimulation causes the patient to essentially re-experience an event so they might see an outdoor scene complete with the scent of flowers or appear to hear music not just remember the sounds.


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> As I understand the details, the stimulation causes the patient to essentially re-experience an event so they might see an outdoor scene complete with the scent of flowers or appear to hear music not just remember the sounds.


Very interesting. I wonder if the specific event triggered is related directly to location of the brain stimulated.


----------



## Aries

DaveM said:


> You don't help your argument with these comparisons, especially when they contain confusing statements. For instance, "Are lions cats? Some say: No". That isn't a matter of opinion. That isn't determined by the wherewithal of someone's brain. Lions are a member of the cat family. End of story.


This is a lay view. It is not that easy at all.

First of all biological systematics and taxonomy are made by human brains. 
Second there are multiple ways to work out a biological systematic.
Thrid biological systematics have not an unlimited relevance.

For example wikipedia says that the following is a cat:

_"The cat (Felis catus) is a domestic species of small carnivorous mammal." _https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat

So wikipedia just decided for itself that felis catus = cat. But we have much more taxonomical ranks regardings cats today: Felis catus (domestic cats), Felis ("real cats", includes closest not domesticated relatives of domestic cats), Felinae ("small cats", includes cheetahs for example), Felidae (includes big cats like lions), Feliformia ("catlike", includes hyena and others)

But there are other fields, where the refinement of biological systematics are rather irrelevant: When you sell "10 cats" to someone, and you have a contract in written form, but you give him 10 lions, I think he can go a court and it is very likely that the court will demand that you give him 10 domestic cats instead.

There is a difference between the biological meaning of "cat" and the legal meaning. And it is not just like one is right and the other is wrong.

Also when you ask whether humans are animals the answers will differ. A biologist will say "yes", a social scientist will rather say "no". A jurist will probably also say "no".

But there are also different ways to work out a biological systematic. The question is what matters more: The time of diversion in evolution or actual biological differences today? And regarding differences: Do visible and functional difference matter or just genetical differences? 150 years ago we had no real genetical knowledge, so species were divided along visible differences. Now we have more genetical knowledge and new biological systematics are proposed. Sometimes big genetical differences result in little functional differences and vice versa.

In the case of "frogs" and "toads" it is all a total mess for example.


----------



## BachIsBest

mmsbls said:


> You seem to be arguing that beauty is not neural processes in the brain, but you haven't explained what beauty is. You say it's in the music. What is it? Sound waves are air pressure variation in ampliture and frequency as a function of time. Where is the beauty in those pressure variations?


Where is the truth in the statement "all circles are ovals"? What is it? Would you seriously argue the truth isn't in the statement but is just in the mind? I believe beauty is real because, as far as I know, virtually every human culture has arrived at the concept of beauty (what language does not have the sentence "the sunset is beautiful"?), and this concept is roughly similar. The cultural products of each human society that are called beautiful may differ, but this is because one may need prerequisite knowledge and understanding to perceive some beauty that is a given in that society. In short, it seems highly unlikely to me, that all human society's arrived at the same concept only for it to be a trick of the mind.

In my view, beauty as a quality of objects is just as real as truth as a quality of statements.



mmsbls said:


> The same sound waves can result in sensations of beauty and ugliness in different people or the same person at different times. I think it's hard to argue both beauty and ugliness are in the same pressure waves. It's much easier to argue that the same waves can be transduced and processed by complex brain modules that have developed through variable learning processes. One brain processes the signal rather differently from another so it can produce vastly different results (i.e. beauty in one brain and ugliness in another).


As I said to another user, in your country, you can't even agree on who won the presidential election and you require absolute agreement on beauty as a prerequisite for beauty to exist outside the human mind. Why?

It should also be noted that there are sounds so awful to the human ear that the military researchers sonic weapons. There are things like sunsets that are near-universally considered beautiful (I would guess the sunsets are ugly crowd is less sizable than the flat-earth crowd). So this idea that anyone can honestly consider anything beautiful or ugly is clearly false.



mmsbls said:


> Experiments have demonstrated that electrode stimulation of brain circuits produce detailed sensory memories including emotions as well as music. Patients hear music and presumably can experience beauty simply because their neural circuits are activated.


Sure. If we get advanced enough technology we could probably make people see cats that aren't there. Just because we can simulate the experience of something in the mind does not mean it doesn't exist outside of it.


----------



## janxharris

BachIsBest said:


> Where is the truth in the statement "all circles are ovals"? What is it? Would you seriously argue the truth isn't in the statement but is just in the mind? I believe beauty is real because, as far as I know, virtually every human culture has arrived at the concept of beauty (what language does not have the sentence "the sunset is beautiful"?), and this concept is roughly similar. The cultural products of each human society that are called beautiful may differ, but this is because one may need prerequisite knowledge and understanding to perceive some beauty that is a given in that society. In short, it seems highly unlikely to me, that all human society's arrived at the same concept only for it to be a trick of the mind.


If circles are ovals then it's through definition. It's a truism.

I'm not sure we are comparing like with like regarding a sunset. Music is offered by the composer for approval to an audience - and yet it is almost entirely an abstract offering. A sunset is what it is - whilst music attempts to expressing something meaningful to minds that perhaps perceive sound in similar ways to the composer. So, as far as I understand it, not every listener finds romantic love expressed in Rachmaninoff's Second Piano Concerto and not everyone finds perfection of form in classical era composers.


----------



## mmsbls

BachIsBest said:


> Where is the truth in the statement "all circles are ovals"? What is it? Would you seriously argue the truth isn't in the statement but is just in the mind? I believe beauty is real because, as far as I know, virtually every human culture has arrived at the concept of beauty (what language does not have the sentence "the sunset is beautiful"?), and this concept is roughly similar. The cultural products of each human society that are called beautiful may differ, but this is because one may need prerequisite knowledge and understanding to perceive some beauty that is a given in that society. In short, it seems highly unlikely to me, that all human society's arrived at the same concept only for it to be a trick of the mind.


I have said I believe beauty is real. Yes, brains can and do "trick" us into seeing, hearing, or believing things that do not correspond to the external reality (e.g. illusions), but I obviously don't believe beauty is simply a _trick_ of the brain. I do believe that truth and beauty are enormously different. With more information we can converge on what is true, but that is impossible for beauty.



BachIsBest said:


> As I said to another user, in your country, you can't even agree on who won the presidential election and you require absolute agreement on beauty as a prerequisite for beauty to exist outside the human mind. Why?
> 
> It should also be noted that there are sounds so awful to the human ear that the military researchers sonic weapons. There are things like sunsets that are near-universally considered beautiful (I would guess the sunsets are ugly crowd is less sizable than the flat-earth crowd). So this idea that anyone can honestly consider anything beautiful or ugly is clearly false.


I don't require agreement on beauty. In fact my last post made it clear that I think some music is considered beautiful by some and ugly by others. I used to find Beethoven's Grosse Fuge and Berg's Violin Concerto somewhat ugly, but now I find both incredibly beautiful. I probably am misunderstanding what you are saying here.



BachIsBest said:


> Sure. If we get advanced enough technology we could probably make people see cats that aren't there. Just because we can simulate the experience of something in the mind does not mean it doesn't exist outside of it.


It does seem to suggest that beauty can exist inside the brain.

I think we are simply talking past one another. I find reasons to believe beauty exists inside the brain while you do not. I don't understand your reasons for believing beauty exists in external objects mostly becasue I'm not sure what they are. Maybe I'm just not understanding your comments.

I do thank you for making me think harder about my views and for motivating me to clarify my arguments.


----------



## Simon Moon

Larry: Hey Fred. Where is the beauty in this rotting carcass? Is it in the carcass itself, or in our brains?

Fred: It's in the carcass itself. Surely it is so universal, that anyone should be able to see the beauty.

Larry: I don't know Fred, doesn't it take the perceptions of our vulture brains to see the beauty? After all, the definition of beauty is- the qualities in a thing that give pleasure to the senses or the mind. That seems to imply that a mind that is able to perceive the beauty of the sight, odor and taste of this carcass is needed. Otherwise, it is just a rotting carcass.


----------



## Red Terror

There's beauty in everything except lawlessness.


----------



## hammeredklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> But why isn't there a Bach or a Beethoven from the Renaissance period? Was it a low point of music? Were the composers simply inept? I personally find that there's not much variety of texture, mood, dynamics within a movement of a Palestrina mass, giving the impression that the music isn't really going anywhere at any point of it. I still think the stuff is great for creating atmospheres in contents such as
> 
> 
> 
> (this one is a Tallis piece, I believe). But if someone says to me "just cause you're not into the Renaissance idiom, it doesn't mean Palestrina was not great at working within his idiom", I wouldn't be able to (come up with an argument to) refute that. The same logic applies to general classical music; like Simon Moon, if you don't care for the sounds of classical music, which you perceive as "pedantic", you just wouldn't care for the difference between JSBach and DeepBach.






this reminds me of 1. film composers trying out various chords on their synthesizers





and this of 2. cavemen chanting.

(To be honest), to me, saying that these pieces are beautiful is almost like saying that 1 and 2 are also beautiful.


----------



## BachIsBest

Simon Moon said:


> Larry: Hey Fred. Where is the beauty in this rotting carcass? Is it in the carcass itself, or in our brains?
> 
> Fred: It's in the carcass itself. Surely it is so universal, that anyone should be able to see the beauty.
> 
> Larry: I don't know Fred, doesn't it take the perceptions of our vulture brains to see the beauty? After all, the definition of beauty is- the qualities in a thing that give pleasure to the senses or the mind. That seems to imply that a mind that is able to perceive the beauty of the sight, odor and taste of this carcass is needed. Otherwise, it is just a rotting carcass.


Generally speaking, we can't quiz non-humans on their aesthetic perceptions. In fact, advanced aesthetic perception seems to be a hallmark of intelligent human life, rather than that of other animals.

Unless we happen to find more intelligent non-human life then I thinks it fairly irrelevant to talk about non-humans in this context.


----------



## BachIsBest

mmsbls said:


> I have said I believe beauty is real. Yes, brains can and do "trick" us into seeing, hearing, or believing things that do not correspond to the external reality (e.g. illusions), but I obviously don't believe beauty is simply a _trick_ of the brain. I do believe that truth and beauty are enormously different. With more information we can converge on what is true, but that is impossible for beauty.


Sorry, I do realise you consider beauty as real (I still believe if we use the dictionary definition of beauty, then your position logically necessitates the non-existence of beauty, but we don't need to rehash this discussion). I do think your point on beauty and truth is really in the crux of our disagreement. I believe, that given more information, opinions on beauty tend to display some convergence (there is an obvious difference with truth as truth is binary whereas two things can both have beauty, but one may be more beautiful than the other). When I learn about new art and music and increasingly understand the culture that created it and something of where the artist was coming from, I find the art more beautiful. Most cultures have a general consensus on what their greatest works of art are, and people who learn about those cultures tend to come to the same conclusions.



mmsbls said:


> I don't require agreement on beauty. In fact my last post made it clear that I think some music is considered beautiful by some and ugly by others. I used to find Beethoven's Grosse Fuge and Berg's Violin Concerto somewhat ugly, but now I find both incredibly beautiful. I probably am misunderstanding what you are saying here.


I think we do have a misunderstanding here. Your previous argument was something along the lines of "people disagree on what is beautiful, so how can beauty be a property of the object". My response was about how many people disagree on truth, or even on whether or no the Earth is round, or presidential elections. Clearly, the truth of statement isn't just inside someone's head, and the Earth being round is a property of the Earth, not us who think it so, so the disagreement on the subject of beauty shouldn't be used to invalidate the argument that beauty is a quality of things.



mmsbls said:


> It does seem to suggest that beauty can exist inside the brain.
> 
> I think we are simply talking past one another. I find reasons to believe beauty exists inside the brain while you do not. I don't understand your reasons for believing beauty exists in external objects mostly becasue I'm not sure what they are. Maybe I'm just not understanding your comments.
> 
> I do thank you for making me think harder about my views and for motivating me to clarify my arguments.


Basically, to summarise my previous post, I'll try and explain why I think beauty is a quality of objects. Generally speaking, I think's it's actually rather difficult to know what is a quality of an object, and what is just people's perception of that object. We generally don't realise this, because for most everyday things it's intuitively obvious which category they fall into.

For things where it is not obvious, I think the best tool we have is cross-cultural agreement (one must make some allowance for when there are evolutionary reasons like most people finding large carnivorous animals scary). For example, I can think of no reason why humans across so many different cultures should both develop a conception of beauty and find sunsets beautiful, other than concluding that there is a thing called beauty, and sunsets have that thing.

I do like a good discussion on aesthetic philosophy. So thank you too.:tiphat:


----------



## BachIsBest

janxharris said:


> If circles are ovals then it's through definition. It's a truism.


Sure. But the question isn't why the statement is true, but where the truth is. Is the statement true, or is the truth just in your perception of the statement?


----------



## 59540

So this thread is still going on? I thought we had a conclusive answer 20 or 40 pages ago. I do find it a little odd or even amusing that some of the "it's in the brain" proponents are also some of the ones who get angriest and most indignant when modern music is attacked. So some, maybe most, brains respond negatively to music you like. To some brains it is not on an equal level with the greatest music from the CP era. What's the big deal?


----------



## janxharris

BachIsBest said:


> Sure. But the question isn't why the statement is true, but where the truth is. Is the statement true, or is the truth just in your perception of the statement?


The statement would be true whether an individual accepted it or not (assuming circles can be defined as a special type of oval (ie one with an unvarying radius)).


----------



## janxharris

dissident said:


> So this thread is still going on? I thought we had a conclusive answer 20 or 40 pages ago. I do find it a little odd or even amusing that some of the "it's in the brain" proponents are also some of the ones who get angriest and most indignant when modern music is attacked. So some, maybe most, brains respond negatively to music you like. To some brains it is not on an equal level with the greatest music from the CP era. What's the big deal?


The big deal remains when the inference is made that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven therefore wrote objectively superior music to the rest.


----------



## BachIsBest

janxharris said:


> The statement would be true whether an individual accepted it or not (assuming circles can be defined as a special type of oval (ie one with an unvarying radius)).


Does the truth then lie in the statement? Again, the questions is not whether or not the statement is true regardless of its acceptance, but where the truth of the statement lies.


----------



## janxharris

BachIsBest said:


> Does the truth then lie in the statement? Again, the questions is not whether or not the statement is true regardless of its acceptance, but where the truth of the statement lies.


I accepted that the truth is in the statement (ie it is objective).


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> Sure. But the question isn't why the statement is true, but where the truth is. Is the statement true, or is the truth just in your perception of the statement?


Neither. Circles aren't ovals.


----------



## janxharris

Forster said:


> Neither. Circles aren't ovals.


There doesn't seem to be a formal, mathematical definition of an oval.


----------



## Forster

janxharris said:


> There doesn't seem to be a formal, mathematical definition of an oval.


Oval, from ovum, Latin for egg. Eggs are generally not circular (or perfect spheres).


----------



## janxharris

Forster said:


> Oval, from ovum, Latin for egg. Eggs are generally not circular (or perfect spheres).


How about all men are mortal?


----------



## Forster

janxharris said:


> How about all men are mortal?


How about somebody explain the significance of this line of discussion? Just because a statement seems self-evidently true does not relieve us of the business of perceiving its truth - or not. The particular example was obscuring this. Even a most basic plain English search of Google brings up references to research into "perceived truths".

I'm not sure how this clarifies any part of the discussion about beauty _in music _except to restate the siginficance of the role of the perceiver - and the unresolved philosophical dilemma it causes.


----------



## janxharris

Forster said:


> How about somebody explain the significance of this line of discussion? Just because a statement seems self-evidently true does not relieve us of the business of perceiving its truth - or not. The particular example was obscuring this. Even a most basic plain English search of Google brings up references to research into "perceived truths".
> 
> I'm not sure how this clarifies any part of the discussion about beauty _in music _except to restate the siginficance of the role of the perceiver - and the unresolved philosophical dilemma it causes.


I don't think there is any significance either.


----------



## BachIsBest

Forster said:


> Neither. Circles aren't ovals.


This obviously depends on your definition of oval, and is really quite irrelevant, but I think you know that. We could just say all circles are ellipses or Socrates was man (therefore he is mortal ).


----------



## janxharris

BachIsBest said:


> This obviously depends on your definition of oval, and is really quite irrelevant, but I think you know that. We could just say all circles are ellipses or Socrates was man (therefore he is mortal ).


But what is the point you are trying to make BIB?


----------



## DaveM

Aries said:


> This is a lay view. It is not that easy at all.
> 
> First of all biological systematics and taxonomy are made by human brains.
> Second there are multiple ways to work out a biological systematic.
> Thrid biological systematics have not an unlimited relevance.
> 
> For example wikipedia says that the following is a cat:
> 
> _"The cat (Felis catus) is a domestic species of small carnivorous mammal." _https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat
> 
> So wikipedia just decided for itself that felis catus = cat. But we have much more taxonomical ranks regardings cats today: Felis catus (domestic cats), Felis ("real cats", includes closest not domesticated relatives of domestic cats), Felinae ("small cats", includes cheetahs for example), Felidae (includes big cats like lions), Feliformia ("catlike", includes hyena and others)
> 
> But there are other fields, where the refinement of biological systematics are rather irrelevant: When you sell "10 cats" to someone, and you have a contract in written form, but you give him 10 lions, I think he can go a court and it is very likely that the court will demand that you give him 10 domestic cats instead.
> 
> There is a difference between the biological meaning of "cat" and the legal meaning. And it is not just like one is right and the other is wrong.
> 
> Also when you ask whether humans are animals the answers will differ. A biologist will say "yes", a social scientist will rather say "no". A jurist will probably also say "no".
> 
> But there are also different ways to work out a biological systematic. The question is what matters more: The time of diversion in evolution or actual biological differences today? And regarding differences: Do visible and functional difference matter or just genetical differences? 150 years ago we had no real genetical knowledge, so species were divided along visible differences. Now we have more genetical knowledge and new biological systematics are proposed. Sometimes big genetical differences result in little functional differences and vice versa.
> 
> In the case of "frogs" and "toads" it is all a total mess for example.


I think you've talked yourself into this. I'm not sure anyone else is persuaded. I know I'm not. 

(Btw, if one wants to carry this to an even greater extreme, if you say you're going to sell '10 cats' to someone that could be 10 Caterpillar trucks,)


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> This obviously depends on your definition of oval, and is really quite irrelevant, but I think you know that. We could just say all circles are ellipses or Socrates was man (therefore he is mortal ).


It's not quite irrelevant. If you want to get into a difficult discussion about truth and truth statements, you'd better make sure your examples make sense. Where does one end up when one asks "Where is the truth in the statement, 'a=b'? when plainly a doesn't equal b?

However, my point still stands, that examining this kind of truth statement doesn't get us any further forward when discussing beauty in music, especially given the overwhelming reluctance of many posters to offer and insights about music itself. One poster has set out a personal theory but not elaborated in response to questions.

So long ago I no longer believe I wrote it, I'm sure I set out the criteria I use to define the music I find beautiful, and I also concurred with two approaches in papers referenced by fluteman. Nothing I have seen since has convinced me to change my views. I did think of starting another thread where people could vote - not anonymously - for one or more descriptors of what beauty is, but I've held back as interest seems to be petering out.


----------



## BachIsBest

Forster said:


> It's not quite irrelevant. If you want to get into a difficult discussion about truth and truth statements, you'd better make sure your examples make sense. Where does one end up when one asks "Where is the truth in the statement, 'a=b'? when plainly a doesn't equal b?


Look, I was using oval to mean "generic smooth curvy convex shape" which roughly corresponds to the common understanding of a drawn 2d oval object. I will admit, that the word oval was perhaps ill chosen, but the point of the statement was obviously to provide a statement that was trivially true, what precise true statement was picked, was completely irrelevant. If you want to be mathematically precise, we could say all circles are ellipses and have the same effect.

Somehow, still no one has answered the question of where the truth is.


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> Look, I was using oval to mean "generic smooth curvy convex shape" which roughly corresponds to the common understanding of a drawn 2d oval object. The point of the statement was obviously to provide a statement that was trivially true, what precise true statement was picked, was completely irrelevant. If you want to be mathematically precise, we could say all circles are ellipses and have the same effect.
> 
> Somehow, still no one has answered the question of where the truth is.


But if it wasn't true, it threw your question into a different light.

Read up only briefly on philosophical discussions of truth statements and you'll see that there is no one single answer, only a number of proposed approaches.


----------



## 59540

janxharris said:


> The big deal remains when the inference is made that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven therefore wrote objectively superior music to the rest.


OK let's edit that a little:

the inference is made that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven...wrote ... superior music to the rest.

Why do so many feel that way? That's a lot of individual tastes reaching the same conclusion.


----------



## eljr

dissident said:


> OK let's edit that a little:
> 
> the inference is made that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven...wrote ... superior music to the rest.
> 
> *Why do so many feel that way? *That's a lot of individual tastes reaching the same conclusion.


I cannot reply with absoluteness but I can answer with absoluteness that one major factor is simply because we have been taught since grade school that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart stand apart from all others.

It is really that simple, if something is repeated often enough, it becomes fact in our minds.


----------



## eljr

Forster said:


> But if it wasn't true, it threw your question into a different light.
> 
> Read up only briefly on philosophical discussions of truth statements and you'll see that there is no one single answer, only a number of proposed approaches.


I think this thread suffers as a result of philosophy and should be thrown out with the bath water.

"Philosophy is a waste of time. Worse then that, *the study of philosophy, when taken seriously, impedes scientific progress..." 
Philosophy is a Waste of Time

Kevin Steves

Pittston Education Chronicle

May 2014

I submit this is the case in this thread.*


----------



## janxharris

dissident said:


> OK let's edit that a little:
> 
> the inference is made that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven...wrote ... superior music to the rest.
> 
> Why do so many feel that way? That's a lot of individual tastes reaching the same conclusion.


They are expressing, one would assume, whom their favourite is; that doesn't establish superiority - even if it's a view held by a majority.


----------



## Art Rock

I just came across this quote by Emerson M. Pugh, and it reminded me immediately of this thread:



> If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't.


----------



## Aries

dissident said:


> I do find it a little odd or even amusing that some of the "it's in the brain" proponents are also some of the ones who get angriest and most indignant when modern music is attacked. So some, maybe most, brains respond negatively to music you like. To some brains it is not on an equal level with the greatest music from the CP era. What's the big deal?


I have the impression that some just pretend that it is in the brain for tactical reasons (not mmsbls or eljr with their much dedicated positions but some others). They confuse the question of where the beauty is with the subjective/objective question.



Forster said:


> Neither. Circles aren't ovals.


All circles are ovals, but not all ovals are circles. It is like all squares are quadrilaterals, but not all quadrilateral are squares.



Forster said:


> Oval, from ovum, Latin for egg. Eggs are generally not circular (or perfect spheres).


Most ovals aren't circles, but that does not answer the question whether all circles are ovals.



DaveM said:


> I think you've talked yourself into this. I'm not sure anyone else is persaded. I know I'm not.


For which option did you vote? I think your "advice" is poisoned.



eljr said:


> I cannot reply with absoluteness but I can answer with absoluteness that one major factor is simply because we have been taught since grade school that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart stand apart from all others.
> 
> It is really that simple, if something is repeated often enough, it becomes fact in our minds.


Bach, Beethoven and Mozart became more popular in the last 100 years. These three on the top seems to be a peculiarity of our time. But it is remarkable because these composers are already dead for so long. There is maybe something in their music that is more timeless.

Bach was not as popular before the 1930s. Mozart wasn't as popular before the 1980s. And Beethoven wasn't as popular before the 1970s. The composers regarded as top three in the 1920s seem to be Richard Strauss, Franz Schubert and Richard Wagner for example (with Cäsar Franck and Johann Strauss as serious contenders). In analyzed old newspapers for this.

But especially the popularity of Richard Strauss decreased since then compared to the much older Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. What is it that they withstand time so well?


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> OK let's edit that a little:
> 
> the inference is made that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven...wrote ... superior music to the rest.
> 
> Why do so many feel that way? That's a lot of individual tastes reaching the same conclusion.


How many is "so many" and "a lot of individual tastes?" Relative to what sample size?


----------



## Forster

"All circles are ovals"

Not if the definition of an oval is 'egg-shaped'

All circles are _ellipses _would be true.

Circle and ellipse have mathematical definitions; oval doesn't. My source for the general defintion of oval:

https://www.lexico.com/definition/oval

Is this important? As I said earlier, if one is getting into the philosophy of truth statements in order to access the validity of what we can say about 'beauty', then it is important. If, as eljr asserts, philosophy is unhelpful, then it is not important.

I don't agree that philosophy is a waste of time, but I do think that it has overstayed its welcome in a discussion about beauty wrt music. I also think that the neuroscience of how the brain receives and processes information is also overstated.


----------



## mmsbls

Aries said:


> ...Bach was not as popular before the 1930s. Mozart wasn't as popular before the 1980s. And Beethoven wasn't as popular before the 1970s. The composers regarded as top three in the 1920s seem to be Richard Strauss, Franz Schubert and Richard Wagner for example (with Cäsar Franck and Johann Strauss as serious contenders). In analyzed old newspapers for this....


Do you think Richard Strauss, Franz Schubert and Richard Wagner were considered the "top 3" by music professionals or by the general public?


----------



## mmsbls

Forster said:


> ...I don't agree that philosophy is a waste of time, but I do think that it has overstayed its welcome in a discussion about beauty wrt music. I also think that the neuroscience of how the brain receives and processes information is also overstated.


Are you saying philosophy and neuroscience are not so important to the general discussion of beauty and music or to the specific discussion of where beauty exists?

What areas are more important? I've read all the posts in this thread, and maybe I should know this from your earlier posts, but it's easier to ask.


----------



## eljr

mmsbls said:


> Do you think Richard Strauss, Franz Schubert and Richard Wagner were considered the "top 3" by music professionals or by the general public?


Just curious, does it matter?

After all, this is subjective.

(Yes I understand the scholarly attach technical evaluations but in the end, does that matter? It is art, meant to please the brain. I think most composers would prefer it pleased the largest group, not the most analytical of a subjective subject. ??? these are all questions, I have no answers or fully formed opinions on this, unlike "where is the beauty in music")


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> How many is "so many" and "a lot of individual tastes?" Relative to what sample size?


Whatever sample size. Say, the same sample that somehow objectively determines that John Cage was a "great classical composer".


SanAntone said:


> *Where is the beauty in music?*
> 
> In our minds. One man's beauty is another man's superficial confection.


I don't think any rational person could call Bach's output a "superficial confection", love hate or indifferent.


janxharris said:


> They are expressing, one would assume, whom their favourite is; that doesn't establish superiority - even if it's a view held by a majority.


Circularity again. The question is *why* they are the favorites of so many.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> Whatever sample size. Say, the same sample that somehow objectively determines that John Cage was a "great classical composer".


"Somehow determines"? It is obvious: John Cage is considered a Classical composer not from a "sample size" of individual tastes, but from the collective professional judgment over a significant period of time.



> I don't think any rational person could call Bach's output a "superficial confection", love hate or indifferent.
> Circularity again. The question is *why* they are the favorites of so many.


I'd say there are hundreds of millions of people who don't know or care who J.S. Bach is, much less what his music sounds like. This ought to concern you since you seem to place emphasis on the numbers.


----------



## Aries

Forster said:


> "All circles are ovals"
> 
> Not if the definition of an oval is 'egg-shaped'


But the shape of an egg depends of the perspective. Is an egg not egg-shaped anymore if you look at it straight from the top?

One could say real eggs are irregular anyway, maybe.

But it is possible to define ovals geometrically and it appears to me that circles are usually specific cases of such geometrically defined ovals.



Forster said:


> Is this important? As I said earlier, if one is getting into the philosophy of truth statements in order to access the validity of what we can say about 'beauty', then it is important.


Whether it is true or false, it has no location imo. Where is the location of "1+1=2" or "1+1=3"? Such equations have no location imo.



Forster said:


> I don't agree that philosophy is a waste of time, but I do think that it has overstayed its welcome in a discussion about beauty wrt music. I also think that the neuroscience of how the brain receives and processes information is also overstated.


What is then the core of the discussion? If it is not about philosophy and science, what is left? Is it a cultural-political question?



mmsbls said:


> Do you think Richard Strauss, Franz Schubert and Richard Wagner were considered the "top 3" by music professionals or by the general public?


Rather the general public, especially in the case of Richard Strauss. And I am talking about english speaking areas only. But regarding musical professional I'm still sure that Bach/Beethoven/Mozart were not always considered "top 3" since Beethovens death. Not even close. Bach was a non-factor before the 1870s. Wagner was ahead of everything at some point. Haydn was probably on par if not ahead of Mozart and Beethoven for a long time. Weber was important in the 19th century. But separating music professionals and the general public is more speculative obviously.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> "Somehow determines"? It is obvious: John Cage is considered a Classical composer not from a "sample size" of individual tastes, but from the collective professional judgment over a significant period of time.


So? If someone says that in their judgement he was a circus clown they'd be just as cerebrally justified.



> I'd say there are hundreds of millions of people who don't know or care who J.S. Bach is, much less what his music sounds like. This ought to concern you since you seem to place emphasis on the numbers.


There are probably loads who don't know what a differential equation is either.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> The question is *why* they are the favorites of so many.


Have you seen my recent post; https://www.talkclassical.com/72824-where-beauty-music-93.html#post2168123 . 
Of course there are "hits" in every genre. eg. Duke Ellington and Elvis Presley. They become some sort of "icons" for marketing and are shoved into the throats of anyone who begins to have interest in the genres; so they have far greater advantage/chance than other artists in becoming anyone's favorites. But if powdered wigs are really horrible stuff to you, they would all be, and it wouldn't matter to you how well-crafted and artistically-inspired some of them are. When it's pointed out that there are music genres much more popular than classical music today, the logic "popularity = greatness" somehow doesn't apply? Also it's very strange to me that only Bach, Mozart, Beethoven always get this sort of treatment (with the doctrine that "anyone who isn't interested in their music has bad taste or lacks intelligence or understanding of culture"), while none of the Renaissance period composers does, for instance.


----------



## mmsbls

eljr said:


> Just curious, does it matter?


Not to this discussion, but I'm curious. If it's really true that a majority of either musical professionals or classical music listeners thought Richard Strauss, Franz Schubert and Richard Wagner were superior to Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart, I'd find it rather interesting. If music listeners thought so, I could imagine that they were influenced by the media. If professionals thought so, I'd wonder what changed and why.


----------



## Ariasexta

In order to answer to this question, before this thread occured, I formulated a body of philosophy but not gonna talk about it here. The Following explanation is drawn from my theory to try to answer to this question:

I do not know where to begin but this is a great discussion, the broadband speed in China is very slow so I can not read through the thread before posting. I do not know if some one has stated here that beauty can be a form of correspondance between the subjective mind and the incoming message(I dislike the word objective, it carries too much materialist undertone today). Hermeticism has a doctrine of universal correspondance among the 7 principles, I think it can be applied to the elaboration of the sense of beauty. I voted beauty is incoming, because I can not vote both. But in the case I choosed to vote for the former, it does not tend to elaborate that I was implying an objective tendency, even in the light of correspondance which underlines my view on this question. Incoming message is not to be taken as an objective existence, which means it exists independently from the subjective mind, to me, existence itself is the correspondance, the correspondance existed before the message was received by any subjective mind, therefore, the message comes as a kind of *destined signal* of the correspondance. So summing it up, beauty is subjective but correspondingly transpositive, it contains the implicit ideas of reciprocality, destiny, unity; the implicitness of the messages it carries underlines the subjective biase of the sense of beauty and existence, but however, there is a conduit called destiny, through which, the sense of beauty happens in an incoming way, but not in the way of objectivist principles.

The term objective is lacking the sense of beauty itself, when people buy into this way of thinking, they think in ugliness and dryness, of course, their views on most things will be as dry and ugly as their ways of thinking.


----------



## Aries

mmsbls said:


> Not to this discussion, but I'm curious. If it's really true that a majority of either musical professionals or classical music listeners thought Richard Strauss, Franz Schubert and Richard Wagner were superior to Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart, I'd find it rather interesting. If music listeners thought so, I could imagine that they were influenced by the media. If professionals thought so, I'd wonder what changed and why.


What changed is an increased historical awareness compared to the romantic period.

Baroque music was neglected after the baroque. Classicism was not completely neglected in the romantic period, but romantic music was the hot stuff and ruled. In the 20th century the music of the classical period and Bach gained popularity again. Then later other Baroque composers were revived. And the newest trend appears to be revival of renaissance composers.

But in the romantic period people were more passionate about their own period.


----------



## BachIsBest

Forster said:


> "All circles are ovals"
> 
> Not if the definition of an oval is 'egg-shaped'
> 
> All circles are _ellipses _would be true.
> 
> Circle and ellipse have mathematical definitions; oval doesn't. My source for the general defintion of oval:
> 
> https://www.lexico.com/definition/oval
> 
> Is this important? As I said earlier, if one is getting into the philosophy of truth statements in order to access the validity of what we can say about 'beauty', then it is important. If, as eljr asserts, philosophy is unhelpful, then it is not important.
> 
> I don't agree that philosophy is a waste of time, but I do think that it has overstayed its welcome in a discussion about beauty wrt music. I also think that the neuroscience of how the brain receives and processes information is also overstated.


It was exceedingly clear from context that I wanted a trivially true statement. I don't know why you continually wish to pint out again and again that I made a dumb and easily corrected mistake. I have already said prior to this that a better statement would be "all circles are ellipses".

And although @janxharris has said the truth is in the statement (which then raises the question of why the beauty can't be in the music for most of the arguments presented against the beauty being in the music would also work to argue the truth isn't in the statement), you have not clarified where you believe the truth lies. Is it in the statement, or is it in the mind of the person reading the statement?


----------



## BachIsBest

eljr said:


> I cannot reply with absoluteness but I can answer with absoluteness that one major factor is simply because we have been taught since grade school that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart stand apart from all others.
> 
> It is really that simple, if something is repeated often enough, it becomes fact in our minds.


No grade schools (at least here in Canada) teach that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart stand out from all the others. When Bach became my favourite composer, I can honestly say I didn't know he was considered in the same league as Beethoven and Mozart.


----------



## fbjim

The fact that it took that long to establish that should be a good demonstration that establishing truth without a context with which to he true in (including the context of itself, which is a truism) is difficult


Does the fact that Earth has a bunch of bumps for mountains, and isn't a perfect sphere mean "the world is round" is as false as "the world is flat"?

The answer is no, since we accept certain conventions where it's perfectly fine to approximate the world as "round" - but if we were in certain contexts where pedantic accuracy is desired, we might not be right to provide the world as an example of a round object.


----------



## fbjim

Aries said:


> What changed is an increased historical awareness compared to the romantic period.
> 
> Baroque music was neglected after the baroque. Classicism was not completely neglected in the romantic period, but romantic music was the hot stuff and ruled. In the 20th century the music of the classical period and Bach gained popularity again. Then later other Baroque composers were revived. And the newest trend appears to be revival of renaissance composers.
> 
> But in the romantic period people were more passionate about their own period.


What I do find interesting is when the veneration of classical music started, especially secular classical music. I've read contemporary reviews from the time, and from the Romantic period where people have no qualms saying they think Beethoven op. 111 is garbage. Somewhere along the line, however, select works became almost above criticism.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> How many is "so many" and "a lot of individual tastes?" Relative to what sample size?


Is there other music which has been admired for so long and thus has endured for so long AND in which there's so much to study (so many dimensions to be absorbed). What music are you thinking of?


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> Not to this discussion, but I'm curious. If it's really true that a majority of either musical professionals or classical music listeners thought Richard Strauss, Franz Schubert and Richard Wagner were superior to Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart, I'd find it rather interesting. If music listeners thought so, I could imagine that they were influenced by the media. If professionals thought so, I'd wonder what changed and why.


Why aren't the former three considered to be superior to or equal to the latter three? Why would you assume that average listeners would be influenced by "the media", but professionals would not? Is it possible then that the case of "modern music" could be one of the emperor's new clothes, as critics of modern music are fond of saying?


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> So? If someone says that in their judgement he was a circus clown they'd be just as cerebrally justified.


No, they would just be ignorant.



> There are probably loads who don't know what a differential equation is either.


Beauty is not the first quality I think of to describe Bach's music, not even in the top five. Apparently "beauty" is much more important to you than for me.

And since beauty is a subjective response it is nothing like any mathematical equation.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> Have you seen my recent post; https://www.talkclassical.com/72824-where-beauty-music-93.html#post2168123 .
> Of course there are "hits" in every genre. eg. Duke Ellington and Elvis Presley. They become some sort of "icons" for marketing and are shoved into the throats of anyone who begins to have interest in the genres; so they have far greater advantage/chance than other artists in becoming anyone's favorites. But if powdered wigs are really horrible stuff to you, they would all be, and it wouldn't matter to you how well-crafted and artistically-inspired some of them are. When it's pointed out that there are music genres much more popular than classical music today, the logic "popularity = greatness" somehow doesn't apply? Also it's very strange to me that only Bach, Mozart, Beethoven always get this sort of treatment (the doctrine that "anyone who isn't interested in their music has bad taste or lacks intelligence or understanding of culture"), but none of the Renaissance period composers does, for instance.


It seems likely to me that the musical tools were not available until about the time when JsB was born. So the earlier music had a limited effectiveness, comparatively (not to the performers but to the wider public).


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> No, they would just be ignorant.


Ignorant of what, their own judgement? Are you appealing to some kind of artistic truth? You could just as easily say that Cage admirers are ignorant.



> Beauty is not the first quality I think of to describe Bach's music, not even in the top five. Apparently "beauty" is much more important to you than for me.


That's disingenuous and you know it, unless it's just a semantic redefinition of beauty.



> And since beauty is a subjective response it is nothing like any mathematical equation.


What's the source of or authority for mathematical truth? Is it something outside the brain?


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> Ignorant of what, their own judgement? Are you appealing to some kind of artistic truth? You could just as easily say that Cage admirers are ignorant.


They would be ignorant of the critical consensus regarding John Cage.



> That's disingenuous and you know it, unless it's just a semantic redefinition of beauty.


I haven't redefined beauty.



> What's the source of or authority for mathematical truth? Is it something outside the brain?


It's what I was taught in school, along with "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> They would be ignorant of the critical consensus regarding John Cage.


Ahhhhh, "critical consensus". What's that but just another set of opinions without any firm foundation in fact.



> I haven't redefined beauty.


Define it then.


----------



## fbjim

Critical consensus is a fact, and not an aesthetic evaluation. I can tell you the most critically acclaimed works of music without listening to a single note of music, because we're dealing with what amounts to musicology, rather than music listening.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> Define it then.


If your statement amounts to someone who doesn't find beauty in Bach being ignorant, irrational or otherwise flawed, I think the onus to define it is in you.


----------



## Luchesi

fbjim said:


> If your statement amounts to someone who doesn't find beauty in Bach being ignorant, irrational or otherwise flawed, I think the onus to define it is in you.


It's evident to me that if you don't study Bach (or any other great creator in the arts) you'll be ignorant (in the best sense of the term).


----------



## Luchesi

fbjim said:


> What I do find interesting is when the veneration of classical music started, especially secular classical music. I've read contemporary reviews from the time, and from the Romantic period where people have no qualms saying they think Beethoven op. 111 is garbage. Somewhere along the line, however, select works became almost above criticism.


Maybe to them Beethoven was considered a madman and therefore it was fruitless to study where he was going with music.


----------



## DaveM

eljr said:


> I cannot reply with absoluteness but I can answer with absoluteness that one major factor is simply because we have been taught since grade school that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart stand apart from all others.


The one major factor? As opposed to the scenario where we start to take an interest in CM and find out for ourselves? My main listening started by, on my own, pulling out a dusty 78 rpm Beethoven Violin Concerto and I was smitten.



> It is really that simple, if something is repeated often enough, it becomes fact in our minds.


Doesn't that make us a bunch of suggestible dummies as in 'the Emperor has no clothes'? That's opening a Pandora's Box. One could start applying that premise to more recent CM music also.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> Define it [beauty] then.


"Beauty" is the quality a person identifies in a piece of music, or work of art, that they find especially pleasing.


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> Why aren't the former three considered to be superior to or equal to the latter three?


Apparently they were.



dissident said:


> Why would you assume that average listeners would be influenced by "the media", but professionals would not?


I don't.



dissident said:


> Is it possible then that the case of "modern music" could be one of the emperor's new clothes, as critics of modern music are fond of saying?


No.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> Critical consensus is a fact, and not an aesthetic evaluation. ...


Critical consensus implies aesthetic evaluation.


mmsbls said:


> I don't.


That wasn't what you said in the quoted post. You could imagine that "listeners" were influenced by the media.


SanAntone said:


> "Beauty" is the quality a person identifies in a piece of music, or work of art, that they find especially pleasing.


So...you don't find Bach's music especially pleasing.


fbjim said:


> If your statement amounts to someone who doesn't find beauty in Bach being ignorant, irrational or otherwise flawed, I think the onus to define it is in you.


No the question is more about what so many *do* find in common in Bach that's beautiful. The onus isn't on me to prove the beauty of a rose if someone is convinced that crabgrass is prettier or has never seen a rose.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> So...you don't find Bach's music especially pleasing.


"Beautiful" is not among the adjectives I would use to describe my response to Bach's music. I don't often use the word to describe any music since I don't think it says anything interesting about it.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> "Beautiful" is not among the adjectives I would use to describe my response to Bach's music. I don't often use the word to describe any music since I don't think it says anything interesting about it.


Well then that's just your linguistic/semantic idiosyncracy.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> "Beautiful" is not among the adjectives I would use to describe my response to Bach's music. I don't often use the word to describe any music since I don't think it says anything interesting about it.


Personally, if I didn't find the word 'beautiful' as something that very much describes something interesting about so much classical music, I would be checking to see if there were AA batteries inserted in my back.


----------



## eljr

DaveM said:


> *The one major factor? *As opposed to the scenario where we start to take an interest in CM and find out for ourselves? .


Yes.



> Doesn't that make us a bunch of suggestible dummies


yep, we are not at all as we like to think we are. Little we do is for reasons we consciously think we do. You don't even see what you think you see. It's rather fascinating. Out brain fills in most or vision and we scan for changes, generally missing (not seeing) unimportant changes at all. 
Then there is the "invisible gorilla" test...
Now filter in how we look for reasons to believe what we want to believe while dismissing reasons which contradict.

Next, throw in some emotion and you've got pretty much a hot confused mess.

Fact is, we don't think much as we believe we do. Not much at all.

Peace


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> 'the Emperor has no clothes'


"Let's not delude ourselves. No amount of artistry and inspiration (sorry Glenn, not even you) can make you forget that you are hearing 80 minutes of G major; it's like trying not to notice Mount Everest. Not only is it G major, but it is always, (nauseatingly?) the same sequence of harmonies within G major. This is more than a compositional roadblock; it's essentially a recipe for monotony and failure." -Pianist Jeremy Denk
https://www.npr.org/sections/decept.../148769794/why-i-hate-the-goldberg-variations
"And they told me: "Listen to the pieces, usually also in minor, where you can hear a contained smoldering prefiguring the romantic era". Those excerpts do indeed exist, but they actually are the most convincing passages of the fact that the emperor has no clothes, as Mozart always follows them with silly kid-stuff. It is like topping off a fresh-herb flavored veal scallopine with Ready Whip." -Composer Arnold Rosner
https://sequenza21.com/rosner.html


----------



## EdwardBast

eljr said:


> Yes.
> 
> yep, we are not at all as we like to think we are. Little we do is for reasons we consciously think we do.[1] *You don't even see what you think you see*[2]. It's rather fascinating. Out brain fills in most or vision and we scan for changes, generally missing (not seeing) unimportant changes at all.


[1] Speak for yourself. We don't all live in the box you inhabit.

[2] Seeing, visual perception, is pretty much defined as "what you think you see."  So, we do see what we think we see, which is precisely the problem-if problem it is-you're attempting to illustrate. But you've gone about it all wrong. The proposition you need to be pushing is "we don't see what's there." That one might be a heavier push than "we think." 



eljr said:


> Fact is, we don't think much as we believe we do. Not much at all.
> 
> Peace


Once again, speak for yourself.


----------



## DaveM

eljr said:


> ..yep, we are not at all as we like to think we are. Little we do is for reasons we consciously think we do. You don't even see what you think you see. It's rather fascinating. Out brain fills in most or vision and we scan for changes, generally missing (not seeing) unimportant changes at all.
> Then there is the "invisible gorilla" test...
> Now filter in how we look for reasons to believe what we want to believe while dismissing reasons which contradict.
> 
> Next, throw in some emotion and you've got pretty much a hot confused mess.
> 
> Fact is, we don't think much as we believe we do. Not much at all.


That's going to be of concern when you see your physician expecting a reasoned evaluation of an important problem.


----------



## arpeggio

Just because I think, and it is just an opinion, Beethoven is the greatest classical composer does it mean that I think the music of Elliot Carter stinks.


----------



## arpeggio

Some posters, and you know who you are, have complained that those of us who think beauty in music is in the ears of the beholder are the members who like post-19th century music are overly defensive, _etc._

(Note: If I mention names I would be accused of violating the Terms of Service.)

Well it works both ways. Most of the proponents (I said most, not all) believe that proving beauty is in the music, want to prove that the classical music of the 18th and 19th century is superior to 99.9% of the classical music composed since 1900.


----------



## arpeggio

After over 1500 posts I have seen nothing that proves or resolves anything.

It appears to me that both sides are right. They are just two different ways to look at music.

If a person just wants to listen to beautiful music from the 18th and 19th century that is their choice.

It does not mean that those of us who enjoy ugly modern music are wrong.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> Personally, if I didn't find the word 'beautiful' as something that very much describes something interesting about so much classical music, I would be checking to see if there were AA batteries inserted in my back.


Much Classical music is far more interesting than merely beautiful. Beauty is a superficial quality.


----------



## Aries

EdwardBast said:


> [2] Seeing, visual perception, is pretty much defined as "what you think you see."


What about imagination? Some things we think we see are just imaginated.

Do you notice your blind spot? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_spot_(vision)

The brain just fills the spot.

I notice a big change in the perception of places after I visit them very often. The very unique impression, the obvious characteristic of the place gets softened in the perception. Its the same with pieces of music.


----------



## Aries

arpeggio said:


> Well it works both ways. Most of the proponents (I said most, not all) believe that proving beauty is in the music, want to prove that the classical music of the 18th and 19th century is superior to 99.9% of the classical music composed since 1900.


If it is in the music, how is this a point against classical music composed since 1900?

A lot of very beautiful classical music was composed after 1900. Also less beautiful music. But beauty isn't the only quality music can have.

But it appears to me that there is maybe not enough faith in the beauty in some post-1900 classical music. Is it really necessary to try to place the beauty somewhere else?


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> That wasn't what you said in the quoted post. You could imagine that "listeners" were influenced by the media.


I think you misread my post. I could imagine listeners influenced by the media, but I did not assume they were. More importantly, I said nothing one way or the other about whether professionals would be influenced.

But really I'd just be curious why that opinion changed.


----------



## fluteman

Aries said:


> If it is in the music, how is this a point against classical music composed since 1900?
> 
> A lot of very beautiful classical music was composed after 1900. Also less beautiful music. But beauty isn't the only quality music can have.
> 
> But it appears to me that there is maybe not enough faith in the beauty in some post-1900 classical music. Is it really necessary to try to place the beauty somewhere else?


How insecure must someone be to insist, not only that one must have faith in the superiority, or greater beauty (however that is defined), of the music one likes, but that its superiority or greater beauty must be objectively quantifiable in a way that all must acknowledge? Not only is that idea "too ridiculous for words", as Ludwig Wittgenstein put it, in my opinion it diminishes the achievements of the artists sought to be canonized, and even the concept of art itself.

Having "faith" means having complete trust and confidence in one's beliefs, without the 
need for proof they are valid. So, if you have that faith in your aesthetic tastes, why the insistence on objective proof that they are valid? Why worry if others are blind to "the Emperor's new clothes"?

It seems to me that those of us who do not endlessly search for objective proof to validate our tastes, who are comfortable with the principle that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, are the ones who are truly confident in our tastes.


----------



## BachIsBest

fluteman said:


> How insecure must someone be to insist, not only that one must have faith in the superiority, or greater beauty (however that is defined), of the music one likes, but that its superiority or greater beauty must be objectively quantifiable in a way that all must acknowledge? Not only is that idea "too ridiculous for words", as Ludwig Wittgenstein put it, in my opinion it diminishes the achievements of the artists sought to be canonized, and even the concept of art itself.
> 
> Having "faith" means having complete trust and confidence in one's beliefs, without the
> need for proof they are valid. So, if you have that faith in your aesthetic tastes, why the insistence on objective proof that they are valid? Why worry if others are blind to "the Emperor's new clothes"?
> 
> It seems to me that those of us who do not endlessly search for objective proof to validate our tastes, who are comfortable with the principle that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, are the ones who are truly confident in our tastes.


So the idea that some music is beautiful in the sense that it has the quality of beauty, diminishes the achievement of artists who often very explicitly said they were trying to write music that had the quality of beauty. Furthermore, anyone insisting this idea of music they like is just doing so out of deep-seated personal insecurity.

Has anyone argued that beauty is objectively quantifiable in a way that all must acknowledge? I'm not for forcing people to acknowledge anything, let alone beauty.

Has anyone here argued they have objective proof their taste is "valid"?

Is your post actually arguing against anyone on this thread, or just self-righteously taking down outrageous strawmen?


----------



## Aries

fluteman said:


> So, if you have that faith in your aesthetic tastes, why the insistence on objective proof that they are valid?


Do I insist on objective proof for my aesthetic tastes? I know it is at least somewhat subjective, I don't know if it is entirely subjective. Probably not.



fluteman said:


> It seems to me that those of us who do not endlessly search for objective proof to validate our tastes, who are comfortable with the principle that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, are the ones who are truly confident in our tastes.


Isn't it just scientifically interesting what humans find beautiful, and where the differences are, and with what the differences correlate? To just withdraw from the beginning to a position that beauty is per se entirely subjective, is dreadfully uninterested and defensive.


----------



## arpeggio

BachIsBest said:


> So the idea that some music is beautiful in the sense that it has the quality of beauty, diminishes the achievement of artists who often very explicitly said they were trying to write music that had the quality of beauty. Furthermore, anyone insisting this idea of music they like is just doing so out of deep-seated personal insecurity.
> 
> Has anyone argued that beauty is objectively quantifiable in a way that all must acknowledge? I'm not for forcing people to acknowledge anything, let alone beauty.
> 
> Has anyone here argued they have objective proof their taste is "valid"?
> 
> Is your post actually arguing against anyone on this thread, or just self-righteously taking down outrageous strawmen?


I know fluteman is not saying any of the above.

I feel safe in saying that most of us who think beauty is in the ear of the beholder do not think that those who believe that beauty is in the actual music are wrong.

We view that beauty is in the music is an esthetic of music, not the only esthetic.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> Much Classical music is far more interesting than merely beautiful. Beauty is a superficial quality.


I'm always amazed at what people will state as fact with a straight face, especially, in this case, with regards to classical music which has so many works meant to be perceived as beautiful, particularly those called adagios and andantes which I guess you skip over.


----------



## Luchesi

arpeggio said:


> Some posters, and you know who you are, have complained that those of us who think beauty in music is in the ears of the beholder are the members who like post-19th century music are overly defensive, _etc._
> 
> (Note: If I mention names I would be accused of violating the Terms of Service.)
> 
> Well it works both ways. Most of the proponents (I said most, not all) believe that proving beauty is in the music, want to prove that the classical music of the 18th and 19th century is superior to 99.9% of the classical music composed since 1900.


It's logical to assume that "99.9% of the classical music composed since 1900" is slightly superior to "the classical music of the 18th and 19th century".


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> I'm always amazed at what people will state as fact with a straight face, especially, in this case, with regards to classical music which has so many works meant to be perceived as beautiful, particularly those called adagios and andantes which I guess you skip over.


No, slow movements are generally my favorites. I just don't refer to them as "beautiful" since I consider that adjective to be a superficial way to talk about music. It's like saying "the sun is bright," the kind of common but superficial cliché I try to avoid. It doesn't take too much work to come up with something more accurate and descriptive when talking about some music I've heard that was especially rewarding.

I also prefer to talk about music more objectively, e.g. describing a gesture in more specific musical terms rather than saying, it was "beautiful," which could describe literally hundreds of thousands of gestures. I think precise language, that which utilizes details, is far more interesting and informative than vague and emotional gushing about how beautiful it was.


----------



## fluteman

arpeggio said:


> I know fluteman is not saying any of the above.
> 
> I feel safe in saying that most of us who think beauty is in the ear of the beholder do not think that those who believe that beauty is in the actual music are wrong.
> 
> We view that beauty is in the music is an esthetic of music, not the only esthetic.


That's right. As I said above, at the heart of this debate is two different ways of looking at the world, as perfectly summed up in the exchange between Aries, taking a rationalist approach, and mmsbls, taking an empirical approach. While neither approach is right or wrong, the empirical approach has long been accepted as the more useful way to think about art, mainly because art does not lend itself to being encapsulated or summarized in a series of universal principles (which some call a "theory"), due to vast differences in the art of different eras, cultures, and subcultures that result from historical accident and an endless variety of random factors.

My point in my last post was that empiricists, who view beauty as something sensed by the perceiver in response to a stimulus, rather than as a trait in a perceived object, are comfortable with the fact that others may not perceive beauty in the same objects as they do. Whereas, some here (not all, I don't mean to single out Aries) who argue that beauty (defined by me and the dictionary as "aesthetically pleasing", but feel free to use some other definition so long as you make clear what it is) is a trait in a perceived object are attempting to lay the groundwork to establish the proposition that modern or post-modern music, interesting as it may be to some, is inherently not as beautiful as pre-modern music. These folks seem to be less comfortable or secure with their own tastes, as for example, they need to believe that a hypothetical African bushman will readily share them if he is given a proper education.

But I'm not about to go over all that again.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> No, slow movements are generally my favorites. I just don't refer to them as "beautiful" since I consider that adjective to be a superficial way to talk about music. It's like saying "the sun is bright," the kind of common but superficial cliché I try to avoid. It doesn't take too much work to come up with something more accurate and descriptive when talking about some music I've heard that was especially rewarding.
> 
> I also prefer to talk about music more objectively, e.g. describing a gesture in more specific musical terms rather than saying, it was "beautiful," which could describe literally hundreds of thousands of gestures. I think precise language, that which utilizes details, is far more interesting and informative than vague and emotional gushing about how beautiful it was.


I get your point and that's fine if you are sure you are in an environment where people are going to understand that you are going to attempt to use precise language, utilizing details, to analyze hundreds of thousands of gestures. And that they are going to have any clue what you're talking about.

Saying that 'Beauty is a superficial quality' is rather dismissive and suggests that those who put more value in the meaning of the word than you are minions that need some schooling.


----------



## arpeggio

Luchesi said:


> It's logical to assume that "99.9% of the classical music composed since 1900" is slightly superior to "the classical music of the 18th and 19th century".


That is not what we are saying and you know it. You are just trying to provoke an argument.


----------



## DaveM

arpeggio said:


> That is not what we are saying and you know it. You are just trying to provoke an argument.


When you said the following I thought you were trying to provoke an argument, since nowhere near 'most of the proponents' have said such a thing. A number of people have believed and said that music of the CPT era was endowed with characteristics that were often perceived by many as being beautiful without inferring anything about music that followed. Unfortunately, some keep putting words in their mouths, accusing them of doing so.



arpeggio said:


> Most of the proponents (I said most, not all) believe that proving beauty is in the music, want to prove that the classical music of the 18th and 19th century is superior to 99.9% of the classical music composed since 1900.


----------



## Ariasexta

Beauty is not superfacial, to me it seems the popular scientific attitude is more of the servility and blind superstition in need of something to mask the indolence in indepent thinking yet pretending all metaphysics are ancient and all about personal assumptions. Metaphysics starts with understanding the present and criticism against the corrupt authorities and the predominant majority blindness, often culminated in heroic self-sacrifices. 

Western metaphsyics did not really get a boost untill Socrates died of false accusations, and Christianity not untill Jesus Christ died. It is not about everyone should follow the fates, rather not to pretending you owe nothing to their heroisms for all those :scientifics, oh, people sacrifice for science too, but what about other people, they die too, can you be scientific enough to equally see the death of all people?


----------



## BachIsBest

fluteman said:


> That's right. As I said above, at the heart of this debate is two different ways of looking at the world, as perfectly summed up in the exchange between Aries, taking a rationalist approach, and mmsbls, taking an empirical approach. While neither approach is right or wrong, the empirical approach has long been accepted as the more useful way to think about art, mainly because art does not lend itself to being encapsulated or summarized in a series of universal principles (which some call a "theory"), due to vast differences in the art of different eras, cultures, and subcultures that result from historical accident and an endless variety of random factors.
> 
> My point in my last post was that empiricists, who view beauty as something sensed by the perceiver in response to a stimulus, rather than as a trait in a perceived object, are comfortable with the fact that others may not perceive beauty in the same objects as they do. Whereas, some here (not all, I don't mean to single out Aries) who argue that beauty (defined by me and the dictionary as "aesthetically pleasing", but feel free to use some other definition so long as you make clear what it is) is a trait in a perceived object are attempting to lay the groundwork to establish the proposition that modern or post-modern music, interesting as it may be to some, is inherently not as beautiful as pre-modern music. These folks seem to be less comfortable or secure with their own tastes, as for example, they need to believe that a hypothetical African bushman will readily share them if he is given a proper education.
> 
> But I'm not about to go over all that again.


Yes, I realise your position. But you can state it without mischaracterising those you disagree with, or implying they have their views because of deep insecurities, or a need for other people to constantly validate them.

Finally, the dictionaries do not define beauty as "aesthetically pleasing", but would define it as (roughly) "that quality, or combination of qualities, which induces aesthetic pleasure", a rather key difference.


----------



## Ariasexta

Heraclitus:

"The unapparent connection is better than the apparent, those things which are learned by sight and hearing I honor more."

The senses of justice, beauty, unity are always implicit, while science today is about setting limits to things by dividing them into units like rationing, rationing of freedom as Lenin has said. Music is the kind of art which conveys the beauty through implicit sense of beauty while appealing to the immediate sense of hearing. Therefore popular "scientists" are tended to consider musical beauty is in the reactional effects rather than inherent to music itself, for the sense of beauty is only a biochemical effect and different evaluations of beauty thus are due to different physical health conditions. :lol: Such people should stop listen to music instead of which, seek for some psychiatrical stimuli of some chemical compounds.


----------



## janxharris

HammeredClavier quoted composer Arnold Rosner earlier - here's another from the same site:

_"Do I dislike them all - Boccherini, Gluck, Haydn, early Beethoven? Yes, I do, but Mozart deserves a special place. It is not true that he is the worst of all composers; his prodigious technical skills developed by age six. Sometimes it is not so great to be a prodigy,- I often feel his emotional and dramatic palette is set at the same age. Rather he is the most overrated composer of them all. The difference between the (mediocre) quality of his music and the (celestial) reverence he is accorded is a gulf simply beyond belief."_ (https://sequenza21.com/rosner.html - The contemporary classical music portal)

On the other hand, he does say:

_"The MAJOR-key multi-subject fugue in the finale of the Jupiter symphony DOES impress, however."_

If you assert that the beauty is in the music itself and you rate Mozart as one of the big three, then you are, de facto, finding fault with Mr. Rosen's perception aren't you?


----------



## janxharris

Rosner explicitly states what his criterion for excellence is:

_In the 36 years that I have taught music survey, or appreciation sections to liberal arts students I have always said: "All I want from you is that you allow music to address any and all aspects of the human condition".....But in the classical era of music history, even the composers fail to meet my condition. Inheriting an already sparse choice of two principal scales, 95% of the time they choose the brighter and lighter major; minor is too serious for them._

I'm not suggesting that his criterion is necessarily 'right' - but he is entitled to his opinion...even if it means that classical era composers, including Mozart, fail it. Of course, a good majority do not share his perception - but that just underlines the abstract nature of sound that is organised ...into music. Many will and do think that Mozart addresses, 'any and all aspects of the human condition,' but how you go about proving so does not seem to be possible.

And, of course, Mozart's reputation is left untarnished.


----------



## eljr

EdwardBast said:


> Speak for yourself. We don't all live in the box you inhabit.


In fact, we all do. It is the awareness that eludes most.



> [2] Seeing, visual perception, is pretty much defined as "what you think you see."  So, we do see what we think we see, which is precisely the problem-if problem it is-you're attempting to illustrate. But you've gone about it all wrong. The proposition you need to be pushing is "we don't see what's there." That one might be a heavier push than "we think."


You are correct. I did not word my post well.



> Once again, speak for yourself.


Oh, you are the exception. Got it.

Funny thing is, we all think we are.

Peace


----------



## eljr

DaveM said:


> That's going to be of concern when you see your physician expecting a reasoned evaluation of an important problem.


What would be your specific concern? I have no clue how this speaks to my statement.

As to my consultant, my doctor, he is a wonderful source for collaboration on medical issues.


----------



## mmsbls

janxharris said:


> ...If you assert that the beauty is in the music itself and you rate Mozart as one of the big three, then you are, de facto, finding fault with Mr. Rosen's perception aren't you?


I assume you mean to refer to Arnold Rosner here. As far as I can tell, those who believe beauty is in the music still believe that individuals respond differently to music. In other words people's response is not completely objective. I don't think those people would find fault in Rosner's perception (presumably he hears the sounds correctly) but rather they would say that Rosner evaluates the music differently from most people. I don't think they would say Rosner's response is wrong, after all what could that mean?



janxharris said:


> Rosen explicitly states what his criterion for excellence is:
> 
> _In the 36 years that I have taught music survey, or appreciation sections to liberal arts students I have always said: "All I want from you is that you allow music to address any and all aspects of the human condition".....But in the classical era of music history, even the composers fail to meet my condition. Inheriting an already sparse choice of two principal scales, 95% of the time they choose the brighter and lighter major; minor is too serious for them._
> 
> I'm not suggesting that his criterion is necessarily 'right' - but he is entitled to his opinion...even if it means that classical era composers, including Mozart, fail it. Of course, a good majority do not share his perception - but that just underlines the abstract nature of sound that is organised ...into music. Many will and do think that Mozart addresses, 'any and all aspects of the human condition,' but how you go about proving so does not seem to be possible.


So maybe one reason Rosner responds differently to Mozart is his subjective criterion for excellence (e.g. one of his metrics for evaluation). We all have differing metrics or place different weight on particular metrics. So he hears the music the same as everyone but has learned over time to respind differently.

Given that it's impossible to prove gravitation, ionic bonding, the world isn't flat, or anything oputside formal systems, I agree it's not possible to prove that Mozart addresses, 'any and all aspects of the human condition.'


----------



## eljr

Ariasexta said:


> Such people should stop listen to music instead of which, seek for some psychiatrical stimuli of some chemical compounds.


The most beautiful sight I ever beheld was at the prompt of LSD.

I guess the artistry of the sugar cube itself contained the beauty.


----------



## Aries

fluteman said:


> As I said above, at the heart of this debate is two different ways of looking at the world, as perfectly summed up in the exchange between Aries, taking a rationalist approach, and mmsbls, taking an empirical approach. While neither approach is right or wrong, the empirical approach has long been accepted as the more useful way to think about art, mainly because art does not lend itself to being encapsulated or summarized in a series of universal principles (which some call a "theory"), due to vast differences in the art of different eras, cultures, and subcultures that result from historical accident and an endless variety of random factors.


If you acknowledge the link between differences in taste and differences in era, culture, subculture etc, it is already a theory, and of course a sensible theory.

What is problematic is instead the view that taste is completely random. It results in an attitude that "anything goes". We see the results in the inhospitable, ugly modern architecture that rejects ornament and everything humans like. The cold deserts concrete, steel and glass in our cities show that something went really wrong.


----------



## SanAntone

Aries said:


> What is problematic is instead the view that taste is completely random. It results in an attitude that "anything goes". We see the results in the inhospitable, ugly modern architecture that rejects ornament and everything humans like. The cold deserts concrete, steel and glass in our cities show that something went really wrong.


You are extrapolating your limited appreciation and understanding of modern art, music, and architecture, which informs your opinion of it, with some kind of widespread belief embraced by all humans. Get a grip.

There are many of us who like modern architecture, art, and music and do not think of it as "anything goes" but as new expressions of the same artistic ambitions artists, architects, and composers have always exhibited.


----------



## mmsbls

Aries said:


> What is problematic is instead the view that taste is completely random. It results in an attitude that "anything goes".


Honestly, do you believe that any sentient being in the universe believes taste is completely random and that "anything goes"?



Aries said:


> We see the results in the inhospitable, ugly modern architecture that rejects ornament and everything humans like. The cold deserts concrete, steel and glass in our cities show that something went really wrong.


I like some of the concrete, steel and glass in our cities. I certainly prefer it over ornamental architecture in general. I doubt I'm alone in that view, and I think others who agree with me could be human as well.

But, OK, I think there are two extreme views being argued in this and the objective/subjective thread. One is complete objectivity and the other is complete subjectivity. Those who argue for objectivity have made it clear that they don't think everyone likes the same art. I believe those who argue for subjectivity would not disagee with the statement that there are similar features of brains that respond in similar ways to stimuli. My gut feeling is that there is vastly more agreement on these issues than disagreement. Of course, I could be misunderstanding some people's views.


----------



## Ariasexta

eljr said:


> The most beautiful sight I ever beheld was at the prompt of LSD.
> 
> I guess the artistry of the sugar cube itself contained the beauty.


LSD is produced by science, they could be positive prescriptions if not abused, like poppies, they are like roses but when people abuse them they become illegal opiates, human responsibilities have to be taken account of. Baroque music is a semi-dope for me now, I could have bought a BMW 5 series if not for my spending on music. Beautiful things might have thorns, sicut lillium inter spinas-Canticum Canticolum.


----------



## Aries

SanAntone said:


> You are extrapolating your limited appreciation and understanding of modern art, music, and architecture, which informs your opinion of it, with some kind of widespread belief embraced by all humans.


I talk with other people about it and hear what others have to say about it. There is a ditch between architects and normal people. But everyone has to use architecture unlike music. And of course it is tried to relativize everything and to talk about "missing understanding" of house wall. But it is a transparent cheap trick. The emperor is nude.



mmsbls said:


> Honestly, do you believe that any sentient being in the universe believes taste is completely random and that "anything goes"?


Some suggest it when they declare taste to be something entirely subjective.



mmsbls said:


> I like some of the concrete, steel and glass in our cities.


Some, of course. I think I do that too. But overall?


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> I assume you mean to refer to Arnold Rosner here.


Yes - updated ta.



> As far as I can tell, those who believe beauty is in the music still believe that individuals respond differently to music. In other words people's response is not completely objective. I don't think those people would find fault in Rosner's perception (presumably he hears the sounds correctly) but rather they would say that Rosner evaluates the music differently from most people. I don't think they would say Rosner's response is wrong, after all what could that mean?


This perhaps proves that an extreme position is untenable. Rather, for those individuals who respond positively to a work, then we conclude that there are qualities in the music that resonate with them; for the naysayers, however, that isn't so.

We might conclude that the former individuals share some characteristics of the composer's way of thinking.


----------



## eljr

Aries said:


> If you acknowledge the link between differences in taste and differences in era, culture, subculture etc, it is already a theory, and of course a sensible theory.
> 
> What is problematic is instead the view that taste is completely random. It results in an attitude that "anything goes". We see the results in the inhospitable, ugly modern architecture that rejects ornament and everything humans like. The cold deserts concrete, steel and glass in our cities show that something went really wrong.


Curious, your opinion of the work of the late architect Michael Graves?

The 70's popular artist Peter Max?

The famed minimalist Philip Glass?

Thanks


----------



## eljr

Ariasexta said:


> LSD is produced by science, they could be positive prescriptions if not abused, like poppies, they are like roses but when people abuse them they become illegal opiates, human responsibilities have to be taken account of. Baroque music is a semi-dope for me now, I could have bought a BMW 5 series if not for my spending on music. Beautiful things might have thorns, sicut lillium inter spinas-Canticum Canticolum.


Indeed, there's to a hole in daddies arm where all the money goes, here too. I live without that same car while listening to my cherished Bach and Glass on a system sinfully indulgent.


----------



## eljr

Aries said:


> Some suggest it when they declare taste to be something entirely subjective.


Isn't it entirely subjective but not random?


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> ...I believe those who argue for subjectivity would not disagee with the statement that there are similar features of brains that respond in similar ways to stimuli. ...


If my appreciation of Bach's music is attributable solely to the way my brain responds to stimuli, why can't I compose like Bach? Why can't anyone? It seems that if my brain "knows" what it finds stimulating and satisfying, I could create my own music and be quite satisfied in it and only it.


----------



## Luchesi

arpeggio said:


> That is not what we are saying and you know it. You are just trying to provoke an argument.


Argument? No, I know how sensitive people are.


----------



## Aries

eljr said:


> Isn't it entirely subjective but not random?


It depends on if someone combines it with the idea of free will or with determinism.



eljr said:


> Curious, your opinion of the work of the late architect Michael Graves?


I would say oversized ornaments, so missing clear hierarchy between the overall functional form and the ornaments and emptiness in details. Also too many styles, ideas, colors mixed in one building.



eljr said:


> The 70's popular artist Peter Max?


I don't like the colors.



eljr said:


> The famed minimalist Philip Glass?


Overall I miss the big forms and prominent themes. Minimalism is like ornament pure. But I like some pieces. It is worth for me to search for more.


----------



## SanAntone

Aries said:


> I talk with other people about it and hear what others have to say about it. There is a ditch between architects and normal people. But everyone has to use architecture unlike music. And of course it is tried to relativize everything and to talk about "missing understanding" of house wall. But it is a transparent cheap trick. The emperor is nude.


How many people could you talk to? And within your social circle they probably share something of the same taste as you. Such a small and self-selected sample size is meaningless for drawing conclusions.

I happen to find much to admire in new architecture, music, painting, and sculpture. I am excited by what new artists, writers, composers, architects are doing.

I feel a a little sorry for someone with your attitude, it would be so depressing to think that the best is all behind us ...


----------



## 59540

arpeggio said:


> ...
> Well it works both ways. Most of the proponents (I said most, not all) believe that proving beauty is in the music, want to prove that the classical music of the 18th and 19th century is superior to 99.9% of the classical music composed since 1900.


I don't feel the need to "prove" the worth or beauty of any music, and I don't get particularly butthurt if someone criticizes Mozart or Bach. I don't have to defend them. Anyone can say those two were acting "in bad faith" or were "charlatans" all they want. Their work is refutation enough.


----------



## eljr

Aries said:


> It depends on if someone combines it with the idea of free will or with determinism.
> 
> I would say oversized ornaments, so missing clear hierarchy between the overall functional form and the ornaments and emptiness in details. Also too many styles, ideas, colors mixed in one building.
> 
> I don't like the colors.
> 
> Overall I miss the big forms and prominent themes. Minimalism is like ornament pure. But I like some pieces. It is worth for me to search for more.


Thank you for the reply


----------



## Aries

SanAntone said:


> How many people could you talk to? And within your social circle they probably share something of the same taste as you. Such a small and self-selected sample size is meaningless for drawing conclusions.
> 
> I happen to find much to admire in new architecture, music, painting, and sculpture. I am excited by what new artists, writers, composers, architects are doing.
> 
> I feel a a little sorry for someone with your attitude, it would be so depressing to think that the best is all behind us ...


So, you are questioning the relevance of my social contacts, you praise that you are able to like round about everything, and you feel sorry for me. Well, maybe I am just not as great of a person as you. I am still quite happy to be like me and not like you.

It is strange how diametrically opposed your thought are to mine most of the time. But here you want to lead the discussion into a personal, unobjective, fruitless and pitiful direction. Its not worth to continue this with you. I disagree with you, no further exploration needed.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Aries said:


> I talk with other people about it and hear what others have to say about it. *There is a ditch between architects and normal people*. But everyone has to use architecture unlike music. And of course it is tried to relativize everything and to talk about "missing understanding" of house wall. But it is a transparent cheap trick. The emperor is nude.


I deal with architects from day to day at work. It's a very competitive field, and most architects in the field will never do anything more than the old boring derivative designs. It's usually mainly up to what the developers want, with financial, structural, and many other constraints. Something out of the ordinary is a true symbol of independence or power, and their way of getting noticed, even if it is ugly! They are definitely not all of like minds, and the overwhelming majority know what is nice or not to most people.


----------



## Luchesi

dissident said:


> I don't feel the need to "prove" the worth or beauty of any music, and I don't get particularly butthurt if someone criticizes Mozart or Bach. I don't have to defend them. Anyone can say those two were acting "in bad faith" or were "charlatans" all they want. Their work is refutation enough.


True. All that matters are the facts. But facts are slippery in this area. Has music ended, in our time? Facts can support either conclusion.


----------



## Forster

I think the discussion has, in one sense at least, moved on from when I was asked these questions, but I should answer.

I had said that



> I don't agree that philosophy is a waste of time, but I do think that it has overstayed its welcome in a discussion about beauty wrt music. I also think that the neuroscience of how the brain receives and processes information is also overstated.


Aries then asked:



Aries said:


> What is then the core of the discussion? If it is not about philosophy and science, what is left? Is it a cultural-political question?


Since clearly I didn't say it wasn't about philosophy and science, Aries either misreads, misunderstands or misrepresents what I said. Then mmsbls asked:



mmsbls said:


> Are you saying philosophy and neuroscience are not so important to the general discussion of beauty and music or to the specific discussion of where beauty exists?
> 
> What areas are more important? I've read all the posts in this thread, and maybe I should know this from your earlier posts, but it's easier to ask.


It's not that something is _more_ important, just that the discussion about neuroscience seemed to me to be somewhat arcane (PET scans, yellowness)...and yet obvious. Of course the brain is involved in perceiving and deciding what is beautiful. And similarly, the discussion about philosophy. I'd indicated this here:

Where is the beauty in music?



> Though I do believe in rational enquiry (if that means I tend to reject a reliance on the spiritual for "answers") I'm not a literalist, if 'literalist' means that this poll is asking if we can detect "beauty" by a physical examination of the cerebrum, cerebellum, medulla oblongata, amygdala, or hypothalamus; or by a physical investigation of the score or the sound waves produced by an orchestra following a score.


What do I think is important? The discussion about what features of music give rise to declarations of beauty, and whether there is any kind of commonality in the beauty found by different listeners in different musics (which is where Woodduck was heading, though I don't think they've been back to see what the response has been.

Lastly, I responded to two articles recommended by fluteman in this post:

Where is the beauty in music?



> I am satisfied that as Weitz says in the article I cited that,
> 
> *"There are no necessary and sufficient conditions but there are the strands of similarity conditions, i.e., bundles of properties, none of which need be present but most of which are"*
> 
> I don't believe that there is a single, immutable definition of 'beauty' that can be applied to all music and for all listeners. I do believe that there are a number of attributes that many can agree apply to a variety of pieces of music that they describe as beautiful. That allows anyone to find the 4th movement of Beethoven's 9th 'not beautiful', and Verklarte Nacht beautiful, because the conditions that fulifil _their _version of beauty are, or are not present in those cases.
> 
> So, that returns us to the idea that 'beauty' is both resident in the works that we find beautiful (because there are particular elements of the work itself that provoke a beauty response) and in the brain since it is the brain that makes the response.


I hope that clarifies.


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> Rather, for those individuals who respond positively to a work, then we conclude that there are qualities in the music that resonate with them; for the naysayers, however, that isn't so.


Also, look at this: http://www.scena.org/columns/lebrecht/051214-nl-250mozart.html


----------



## Forster

hammeredklavier said:


> Also, look at this: http://www.scena.org/columns/lebrecht/051214-nl-250mozart.html


Yes...and your point is?


----------



## Forster

Aries said:


> I talk with other people about it and hear what others have to say about it. There is a ditch between architects and normal people. But everyone has to use architecture unlike music. And of course it is tried to relativize everything and to talk about "missing understanding" of house wall. But it is a transparent cheap trick. The emperor is nude.
> 
> Some suggest it when they declare taste to be something entirely subjective.
> 
> Some, of course. I think I do that too. But overall?


Architects aren't normal people then?


----------



## SanAntone

Aries said:


> So, you are questioning the relevance of my social contacts, you praise that you are able to like round about everything, and you feel sorry for me. Well, maybe I am just not as great of a person as you. I am still quite happy to be like me and not like you.
> 
> It is strange how diametrically opposed your thought are to mine most of the time. But here you want to lead the discussion into a personal, unobjective, fruitless and pitiful direction. Its not worth to continue this with you. I disagree with you, no further exploration needed.


Fine, stick with your negative attitude about modern music, architecture and anything else; I hope that brings you joy. I just think it is healthier to focus on what we find pleasing rather than the other kind, and to leave others (including the creators of it) alone without judgment, to do the same.


----------



## eljr

SanAntone said:


> Fine, stick with your negative attitude about modern music, architecture and anything else; I hope that brings you joy. I just think it is healthier to focus on what we find pleasing rather than the other kind, and to leave others (including the creators of it) alone without judgment, to do the same.


I guess it's simply personality that makes one reject as inferior that which he does not favor. Personally, I enjoy architecture. Period.

The same with music and with subgenres within classical. I enjoy it all.

Strange as I am a very negative person. The glass is always half empty.

Maybe one's rejection of certain periods or styles is not much at all to with the music or the architecture but more about being more ridged, more demonstrative in class association?


----------



## Aries

eljr said:


> Personally, I enjoy architecture. Period.


Here I have something for your enjoyment from my homeland: https://www.topmania.de/2018/04/26/top-10-die-haesslichsten-gebaeude-deutschlands/


----------



## eljr

Aries said:


> Here I have something for your enjoyment from my homeland: https://www.topmania.de/2018/04/26/top-10-die-haesslichsten-gebaeude-deutschlands/


Yes, I agree, these are less inspiring efforts than others.

I rather enjoy industrial rust, as I call it.

I am very comfortable around industrial decay.

My home town


----------



## SanAntone

eljr said:


> Yes, I agree, these are less inspiring efforts than others.
> 
> I rather enjoy industrial rust, as I call it.
> 
> I am very comfortable around industrial decay.
> 
> My home town


I don't have a problem with them, in fact, I like them. And they appear to have accomplished the goal of the project: The aim of the architects was to build as many apartments as possible in a limited space ("vertical living space compression"). In front of it are elongated terraced houses in which, among other things, 2 schools are located.

I am a fan of urban architecture, I have several books with photographs of office buildings in NYC.


----------



## fbjim

I generally think the stuff that held up badly was the utopian-style stuff which was unfortunately popular in the 50s/60s - these were post-war developments made with little knowledge or regard of urban functionality and resulted in poor housing developments/projects which were not integrated into cities well. There's a reason we don't build monolithic housing projects all by themselves separated from the cities around them by a bunch of park/green space too much anymore. 


That's a bit off-topic, though. Less an architectural failure than an urban planning failure, in any case.


----------



## Aries

eljr said:


> I am very comfortable around industrial decay.


I really like old industrial places too. I like the mysterious atmosphere of the past and the fight of nature to overgrow such lost places.


----------



## fbjim

Also always liked this present day building where I live, the central library -


----------



## eljr

Aries said:


> I really like old industrial places too. I like the mysterious atmosphere of the past and the fight of nature to overgrow such lost places.


I like the austere coldness. Not being reclaimed by nature but rather neglected by man.

Not abandoned, just a hash environment in which to dwell.

The inner city. Where the struggle is in more than just in the face of people, it is also in the face of the steel and concrete. 
Minimal by evolution, not by design.

The abandoned railroad tracks, missing some rail, that sits astride a tenement, graffiti at it's base. The weathered people who live there, they walk slow, many bent over but wise. That is my home, my heart, my spirit.


----------



## eljr

fbjim said:


> I generally think the stuff that held up badly was the utopian-style stuff which was unfortunately popular in the 50s/60s - these were post-war developments made with little knowledge or regard of urban functionality and resulted in poor housing developments/projects which were not integrated into cities well. There's a reason we don't build monolithic housing projects all by themselves separated from the cities around them by a bunch of park/green space too much anymore.
> 
> That's a bit off-topic, though. Less an architectural failure than an urban planning failure, in any case.


Yes indeed, a failed template. Behavioral architecture has taught us it's folly.

Much of urban planning turned out to be urban abandonment. Robert Moses slashed the face of NYC with arteries of escape. 
He is who should have his statues torn down, his name crossed out wherever it sullies a surface.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> Fine, stick with your negative attitude about modern music, architecture and anything else; I hope that brings you joy. I just think it is healthier to focus on what we find pleasing rather than the other kind, and to leave others (including the creators of it) alone without judgment, to do the same.


Over and over this seems to be the same result. People are 'taught' that art and music are all about the joy of beauty and 'liking'.


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> Over and over this seems to be the same result. People are 'taught' that art and music are all about the joy of beauty and 'liking'.


Well, what do you think art and music are all about?


----------



## janxharris

Luchesi said:


> Over and over this seems to be the same result. People are 'taught' that art and music are all about the joy of beauty and 'liking'.


This didn't address SanAntone's post.

Who doesn't understand without being taught that music might be likeable?


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> Well, what do you think art and music are all about?


I can't think of any answer for you. We're just so different.


----------



## Luchesi

janxharris said:


> This didn't address SanAntone's post.
> 
> Who doesn't understand without being taught that music might be likeable?


My point has long been that likability is irrelevant. If you don't think it is then tell me why..


----------



## janxharris

Luchesi said:


> My point has long been that likability is irrelevant. If you don't think it is then tell me why..


How many works that aren't liked by anyone (except perhaps the composer) are considered beautiful?

I'm not sure I'm following you.


----------



## Luchesi

janxharris said:


> How many works that aren't liked by anyone (except perhaps the composer) are considered beautiful?
> 
> I'm not sure I'm following you.


Thanks for your question.

I've been very busy trying to install the latest macOS. It's been hours (again) and I'm not even sure that it's doing anything. I looked it up on my other computer and they said to force restart. This is very dangerous, you can lose files or have a corrupted OS a month from now. I trusted them. We'll see. In any case this does not instill confidence in Apple programmers. Sheesh!

I should've switched to Linux on all my computers long ago because I have no interest in what Apple adds to their OS these days. Their OS is so bloated that they can't even figure out how to keep it running. There's always some instability but what should we expect from this can of worms?

Your question contains works that aren't liked? by anyone? So obviously we need to know what you mean by "aren't liked" and who is the 'anyone' music enthusiast you're thinking of? I can make the same general assumptions that you're making, but is that what you want?


----------



## janxharris

Luchesi said:


> Thanks for your question.
> 
> I've been very busy trying to install the latest macOS. It's been hours (again) and I'm not even sure that it's doing anything. I looked it up on my other computer and they said to force restart. This is very dangerous, you can lose files or have a corrupted OS a month from now. I trusted them. We'll see. In any case this does not instill confidence in Apple programmers. Sheesh!
> 
> I should've switched to Linux on all my computers long ago because I have no interest in what Apple adds to their OS these days. Their OS is so bloated that they can't even figure out how to keep it running. There's always some instability but what should we expect from this can of worms?
> 
> Your question contains works that aren't liked? by anyone? So obviously we need to know what you mean by "aren't liked" and who is the 'anyone' music enthusiast you're thinking of? I can make the same general assumptions that you're making, but is that what you want?


Hope you sort your computer woes.

I was attempting to fathom your assertion that, "likability is irrelevant," by presenting a hypothetical. Since you made the assertion using 'likability', then perhaps you should define it. Until I understand what is you are trying to say, then it's best I don't write more and add to the confusion.


----------

