# Can non-classical 'art' be better than classical?



## wolf (May 16, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> ...How do I define high quality music that has merit and can be considered art?
> 
> For me this is any music that contains clear expression of musical ideas, that contains genuine emotionality, and that is original in some way...





Jeremy Marchant said:


> ...And is it not possible for people to offer a reasoned argument why a piece of music is great, and not just rely on their feelings?...





StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...Is "bewilderingly complex" inherently a standard of "great" music?





Argus said:


> ...Saying 'X is a great piece of music' means exactly 'I like X a lot'. And if people say they think something is great yet they don't like it, or vice versa, they are pretty much talking out of the wrong hole...





Weston said:


> Complexity is _one_ aspect of music that I enjoy in the right context that can indeed contribute to a piece's greatness...But it is only one aspect, not the be all end all...





jhar26 said:


> Maybe 'halfclassical' is the keyword here. Most of the time prog-rock doesn't work for me because it's as though the're trying to build a skyscraper on foundations fit only for a one storey house...





Earthling said:


> ...There are moments where classical influence can (consciously or unconsciously) make itself felt-- but within the simpler structures of a pop or rock song...





151 said:


> Regardless, you are just one person. Being able to conceive a skyscraper doesn't make you special.
> 
> I doubt you listen to music that reflects your own ability, maybe you should do so rather than trying to upscale your intellectual prowess through other people's ideas.





Weston said:


> Right. Back on topic then?...


Agree that the soul and complexity in classical versus rock, perhaps shouldn't be discussed in that thread. But these questions will pop up, and why not discuss it? I looked for a thread, but couldn't find one that had this topic. So I'll start a new one, because I think what jhar26, Earthling and others say here is interesting.

If something is better, is of course very subjective, but why not use the word better, without having to say all the time "it's not really better, only I think so". Anyone is allowed to say that Madonna is better than Britney, and we classicals don't take offence when pop people think that their music is better. So why are the poplisteners so incredibly sensitive? If they truly thought that their music was as good, would they care the least what we thought?

No matter how carefully jhar26 worded his message, he got attacked, as I know he would. Why can't one in a classical forum, discuss these things, without being jumped at? I don't like pop, I never listen to it (although I used to all the time), but the only thing I regret about it, is that it's forced on me from every frigging corner. That anyone should dislike the poplistener, just because you do not like his music, is a monstrous notion. If I don't like the scent Chanel no 5, I must despise those who wear it?



Earthling said:


> I feel classical music is engaging both sensually, emotionally, intellectually, whereas rock music is engaging more on the sensual and emotional planes only...the way in which classical composers approach music is more intellectual, more *attention to construction on the micro and macro levels* (and this is where Bach, Schoenberg and Ligeti share a common heritage).


Very well put. Perhaps it's just that combination Earthling describes here. The profound, almost animal satisfaction when hearing good classical, I never experienced when I adored pop. And I honestly do not know why, I worshipped Hendrix and stuff like that, but the euphoria was nothing near the "Mozart Flash".


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

As in previous thread I will say the following.

Yes, classical music is much better than popular music.
Greatest classical works are FAR, FAR better than greatest popular music works.

BUT,
Greatest popular music works are better than bellow average classical music works.

So, best works of the Beatles, Bob Dylan, the Rolling Stones, Queen, are better than weakest works of Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, etc.


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

Whistlerguy said:


> Yes, classical music is much better than popular music.
> Greatest classical works are FAR, FAR better than greatest popular music works.


I'm not sure what you mean by "better" in any objective sense. By what standard? By rock standards, Bach is a miserable failure. By classical standards, Johnny Cash is a failure. Classical music is not "The Standard" as if it existed in some sort of Platonic realm.

Popular music covers a territory that classical music does not, and vice versa. And one of the reasons why is because of the approach. There is an intellectual component in classical music that is absent in popular music and in fact, it is the absence of that intellectual aspect that give popular music a unique _immediacy _that classical music does not have and _cannot _have. You are comparing apples with oranges. I see no need to assert a hierarchy of some music over others-- and why would one feel the need to assert such a thing anyway?

There is a deep sadness evoked in Billie Holiday's "Strange Fruit" that Barber's _Adagio for Strings_ can't express. There is a sadness in Barber's Adagio for Strings that is very different from Billie Holiday's haunting song. One important reason why is how the music is constructed, the methods which are used to create the music. They operate by totally different paradigms and each excels within their own kind of music-- they engage the listener in different ways.

The guitar solo at the end of Jimi Hendrix's "Bold as Love" is just as ecstatic as Wagner's _Liebestod_, but they are expressed differently and the listener is expected to engage with each music appropriately (if one has any appreciation for a particular kind of music at all). If you are listening to Jimi Hendrix as if you were listening to Wagner, _you're doing it wrong_.

The only thing that guarantees the greatness of anything is your own personal concrete engagement with it in your own way. Everything else is just putting a mask on your own insecurities, and even an evasion from the greatness of composers, whether it is Beethoven or the Rolling Stones.


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

When I listen to rock and roll, I am listening _with different ears_ than when listening to classical music, or jazz, or whatever.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> Popular music covers a territory that classical music does not, and vice versa. And one of the reasons why is because of the approach. There is an intellectual component in classical music that is absent in popular music and in fact, it is the absence of that intellectual aspect that give popular music a unique immediacy that classical music does not have and cannot have. You are comparing apples with oranges. I see no need to assert a hierarchy of some music over others-- and why would one feel the need to assert such a thing anyway?


I disagree. There are many classical works that DO have this immediacy and are absolutely accessible on first hearing. For example Vivaldi's Spring first movement, Bach's first movement of 3rd Brandenburg concerto, Mozart's Turkish march and Eine kleine nachtmusic, as well as first movement of 40th symphony, Beethoven's Moonlight sonata, 1st movement of 5th symphony, Ode to Joy from 9th symphony, Orff's O Fortuna, Dvorak's 4th movement of New World Symphony etc.

All these works are extremely recognizable and even more memorable and catchy than most pop songs. We can relate to them immediately on visceral level.

Also, I think it is not true that all popular music lack intellectual element.
What about art rock, indie rock, progressive rock, what about intellectually engaging texts of Bob Dylan, (which are accompanied with appropriate music), what about Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band album, etc?

I think it is not always apples and oranges. And even if it is we CAN compare them.
Both are fruit. Apples are usually sweeter, oranges are juicier and contain more vitamin C, etc...they have similar caloric content, apples have more dietary fiber...


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

Whistlerguy said:


> I disagree. There are many classical works that DO have this immediacy and are absolutely accessible on first hearing. For example Vivaldi's Spring first movement, Bach's first movement of 3rd Brandenburg concerto, Mozart's Turkish march and Eine kleine nachtmusic, as well as first movement of 40th symphony, Beethoven's Moonlight sonata, 1st movement of 5th symphony, Ode to Joy from 9th symphony, Orff's O Fortuna, Dvorak's 4th movement of New World Symphony etc.


Yes, but if you are listening _only on the surface_, you are really missing precisely what makes these pieces great art. One may as well listen to the Spice Girls then. They are catchy too.



> Also, I think it is not true that all popular music lack intellectual element.
> What about art rock, indie rock, progressive rock, what about intellectually engaging texts of Bob Dylan, (which are accompanied with appropriate music), what about Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band album, etc?


Rock music does not treat music on micro and macro levels and everywhere in between, where every note has _a reason _for being there-- and not just in terms of music theory. This is an intellectual aspect absent in rock music (this doesn't mean it may show up in brief instances, but it is not throughout an entire song and in every aspect of that song).

In classical music there are motifs, thematic development, a deliberate treatment of each note so that nothing is superfluous (and if there are any superfluous notes, this is regarded as a flaw in the piece). Not even prog rock approaches music this way (at best it offers a superficial _simulation _of certain classical elements). This is an intellectual aspect wholly absent in rock music (as it should be). And this intellectual aspect is a very complex way of expressing a wide variety of emotions. There are _reasons _why Beethoven's _Eroica _sound heroic, and that has to do with the construction (and ultimately the performance) of the piece.

But this intellectual aspect does not make it _superior _to rock music. It wouldn't make sense for rock music to approach composition in this way-- it would cease to be rock music (this is true also for jazz, country, blues, or gagaku).

Classical composition approaches _musical construction _in a very detailed and complex way that no other music deals with in the same way.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

OK, classical music has a system and theory behind it. It has defined form and defined way of the development of musical ideas. I could compare it to sonnet in poetry. All the elements of sonnet are defined and a poet must adhere to these rules in order to write a sonnet.

I agree that this element is lacking in popular music. Actually it is theoretically impossible to achieve in popular music, because in order to achieve it you have to study musical theory extensively.

You are right that it is hard to tell what is exactly superior because popular music and classical work in different paradigms. But, as a casual listener, even without knowledge of theory, I can tell what I personally feel as superior.

In most cases I find classical music superior. And I haven't listened only to excerpts. I have listened to whole pieces of classical music, and to quite a lot of them.

But there are still some popular songs that I consider almost flawless musically even if they are composed without adhering to theory and rules of classical music.
If we compare it to poetry again - maybe we could say that popular music is somewhat like free verse poetry?


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

wolf said:


> Anyone is allowed to say that Madonna is better than Britney, and we classicals don't take offence when pop people think that their music is better. So why are the poplisteners so incredibly sensitive? If they truly thought that their music was as good, would they care the least what we thought?


EVERYONE thinks that the music that he/she listens too is the best there is, or at the very least that it's good. If not they would listen to something else. I'm not sure if poplisteners are more sensitive to criticism or (at worst) ridicule than classical music fans. The way people react to those things has more to do with their personality than with their musical preferences.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> OK, classical music has a system and theory behind it. It has defined form and defined way of the development of musical ideas. I could compare it to sonnet in poetry. All the elements of sonnet are defined and a poet must adhere to these rules in order to write a sonnet.
> 
> I agree that this element is lacking in popular music. Actually it is theoretically impossible to achieve in popular music, because in order to achieve it you have to study musical theory extensively.
> 
> ...


Not to derail the thread, but I think you (several people in this thread, actually) are taking it a bit too far with the words you choose to describe classical music. Not to take anything away from classical music, but phrases such as "intellectually stimulating" are a bit over the top when it comes to music of any kind.

These words should really be reserved for science (and even though I'm not a mathematician, I think they should be reserved for mathematics only - be it quantum mechanics or number theory). When you compare mathematics to classical music you will be baffled that theory of music is just a fraction of mathematics this ' small in the ocean.

Take the so called "most beautiful equation": e^(pi*i)+1=0.

It interwines the five most frequently used constants (1, 0, e, pi and i - the imaginary unit) and the three most basic arithmetic operations (addition, multiplication and exponentiation).


----------



## wolf (May 16, 2009)

Earthling said:


> ...In classical music there are motifs, thematic development, a deliberate treatment of each note so that nothing is superfluous...


Although I most certainly agree with what Whistlerguy says here, I do think that this sentence is a "key" one. The development of the motives, that started even before Haydn, is what is almost completely lacking in pop. The melodies can be pretty, the instrumentation complex, but at most it gives a feeling of sentimentality. Even when there are several motives, they are seldom or ever developed in more than a haphazard way. Perhaps thats why I find Satie and Delius so boring. Pretty music, but nothing else.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> Although I most certainly agree with what Whistlerguy says here, I do think that this sentence is a "key" one. The development of the motives, that started even before Haydn, is what is almost completely lacking in pop. The melodies can be pretty, the instrumentation complex, but at most it gives a feeling of sentimentality. Even when there are several motives, they are seldom or ever developed in more than a haphazard way. Perhaps thats why I find Satie and Delius so boring. Pretty music, but nothing else.


I agree with this. Development of motives is definitely lacking in pop music.
But, still, I think that it is not the only thing that makes music great. Neither is development of motives guarantee of greatness nor is its lack guarantee of non-greatness.

Sometimes even simple melodies can be great if they are prominent enough.
For example opening riff in Smoke on the water is very simple, yet it is great because it is so prominent and memorable. Also the riff in Sweet Child O' Mine which is repeated over and over in the song, yet somehow the song is not boring - I think this riff even if it is simple - it is also great.


----------



## Glaliraha (May 2, 2010)

I believe that all music is, by definition, an experience, consisting purely of the integration of sound and silence, over a (usually) fixed duration. There is therefore no difference between classical music and popular music. Since music is an artform, there is no way to observe and state objectively whether piece A is better than piece B. It is entirely subjective.

Given that people do say that piece A is better than piece B, it is obvious that they are stating which one they prefer. It is for this reason that I say there are 7 billion "best" pieces of music in the world, as "best" in this case is synonymous with "favourite".

Pink Floyd's "Echoes" is _*in fact*_ BETTER than Mozart's "Symphony #40 in G Minor", therefore, because _*I*_ ENJOY it more than the other. The reasons as to why I enjoy it more than the other are irrelevant, and quite possibly inexplicable.


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

Whistlerguy said:


> I agree with this. Development of motives is definitely lacking in pop music.
> But, still, I think that it is not the only thing that makes music great. Neither is development of motives guarantee of greatness nor is its lack guarantee of non-greatness.
> 
> Sometimes even simple melodies can be great if they are prominent enough.
> For example opening riff in Smoke on the water is very simple, yet it is great because it is so prominent and memorable. Also the riff in Sweet Child O' Mine which is repeated over and over in the song, yet somehow the song is not boring - I think this riff even if it is simple - it is also great.


Yes, but the musical construction for a song like "Smoke on the Water" is quite different from a symphony like the _Eroica_. The standards for judging both are very different. You can't listen to "Smoke on the Water" in the same way you would listen to the _Eroica_-- and if you did, it would be a very superficial listening, barely skimming the surface of the piece (this is, in fact, why a lot of non-classical listeners easily find most classical music boring-- _they come to the music with a different set of expectations_).

The standards for judging classical music is largely based on a piece's construction. Being a "catchy tune" is not enough. The reason why Bach, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven are so cherished in the classical community is not because they wrote catchy tunes but because of what they did construction-wise with their work-- a lot of care and precision went into every detail of their music. If they did not do so, they would've been forgotten about long ago.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

OK, they (Mozart, Bach, etc) are not remembered for catchy tunes.

But do you think that Deep Purple will be soon forgotten?
Or the Beatles?

Some popular songs are written very long ago, and yet they are still very popular. They achieved the status of legendary for some reason.

Yesterday is simple song lasting just a little over 2 minutes, but it has very captivating melody and instrumentation and is still extremely popular even if it is composed 45 years ago.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Some popular songs are written very long ago, and yet they are still very popular. They achieved the status of legendary for some reason.


Because we are dealing with so-called popular culture which is relatively new invention that allows not very talented musicians get famous and rich. Musical equipment worth milions is transported in convoy of expensive trucks to huge stadions so the four guys can play couple of simple chords and sing their crude songs to the crowd. It's pathology and it makes litte argument in discussion like this.


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

Whistlerguy said:


> Some popular songs are written very long ago, and yet they are still very popular. They achieved the status of legendary _for some reason_.


[_emphasis _mine]

Yes, for reasons _different_ from why the _Eroica _is part of the standard repertoire.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

And what do you think, what is the reason for immense popularity of some pop and rock songs even decades after they are composed?

Do you think that this reason has absolutely nothing to do with their artistic quality?


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

Whistlerguy said:


> Do you think that this reason has absolutely nothing to do with their artistic quality?


Of course it has to do with their artistic quality-- but the standard for those qualities are very different from those of classical music. Mozart is a terrific classical composer and Jimi Hendrix rocks. But Mozart is a terrible rock musician and Jimi Hendrix is a terrible classical composer.

If you are listening to classical music in the same way you listen to a rock song, you're missing out on 90% of the music entering your ear. If you are listening to a rock song the way you listen to classical, likewise you are missing out on 90%.


----------



## Glaliraha (May 2, 2010)

Did anyone see my post?


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Glaliraha said:


> I believe that all music is, by definition, an experience, consisting purely of the integration of sound and silence, over a (usually) fixed duration. There is therefore no difference between classical music and popular music. Since music is an artform, there is no way to observe and state objectively whether piece A is better than piece B. It is entirely subjective.
> 
> Given that people do say that piece A is better than piece B, it is obvious that they are stating which one they prefer. It is for this reason that I say there are 7 billion "best" pieces of music in the world, as "best" in this case is synonymous with "favourite".
> 
> Pink Floyd's "Echoes" is _*in fact*_ BETTER than Mozart's "Symphony #40 in G Minor", therefore, because _*I*_ ENJOY it more than the other. The reasons as to why I enjoy it more than the other are irrelevant, and quite possibly inexplicable.


You are entirely correct. I'm sure more people here understand this but many don't want to accept it. In the words of old Jackie boy, '[they] can't handle the truth'. People like to believe that because one piece of music uses development of motives or more complex harmonic progressions or some such crap, that it is better than some other piece that doesn't have these features.

It's all just sounds. Listen to the ones you like and ignore the ones you don't.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

Argus said:


> You are entirely correct. I'm sure more people here understand this but many don't want to accept it. In the words of old Jackie boy, '[they] can't handle the truth'. People like to believe that because one piece of music uses development of motives or more complex harmonic progressions or some such crap, that it is better than some other piece that doesn't have these features.
> 
> It's all just sounds. Listen to the ones you like and ignore the ones you don't.


I agree. You want complexity? Study mathematics, not music. Music should be pleasant to the ear.

And get off your high horse because you sound ridiculous. I don't mean to be rude, but compared to, say Niels Bohr (an average one among the top scientists), Mozart is your regular guy, nothing exceptional.


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

To make it clear (again): I'm not interested in ranking music (what would be the point anyway?). But there are reasons why some classical compositions are part of the standard repertoire (and are, over time, expanded to include newer works) and its not merely a popularity contest. In classical music, musical construction _matters_-- whether it is J.S. Bach or Steve Reich.

As a rock song, Pink Floyd's _Echoes _succeeds-- sonically and lyrically it sets a certain tone and atmosphere-- and they knew just how to get that sound. They didn't need to notate every last detail, but wrote in broad strokes and filled in the details more spontaneously and intuitively (Gilmour's solos, Wright's piano, inflections in Gilmour's singing, etc.). There are reasons why _Echoes _is a fine rock song-- otherwise it could've easily turned out very differently.

But _Echoes _is not only constructed differently from Mozart's Symphony No. 40, but the _standards _for its construction are different. Otherwise we could say nonsense: _Pink Floyd is lousy at writing classical music. _But that's not what they were setting out to do, were they?


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

Earthling, I'd like to ask you what do you think about following songs:

The Beatles: Eleanor Rigby, She's Leaving Home, Within You Without You, Norwegian Wood, Strawberry Fields Forever, A Day In Life, Let It Be, Across The Universe ...?
Simple Minds: Belfast Child
Queen: We Are The Champions, Bohemian Rhapsody

Do any of these song come close to what can be considered "art song" in classical realm?

What about some traditional pop songs that are composed by composers then given to singers (unlike most rock songs that rock musicians compose themselves) ? In them structure is predetermined and is much less loose. And also in some pop songs pitch, duration and position in song of every note is predetermined by composer and quite important.


----------



## Glaliraha (May 2, 2010)

Earthling said:


> To make it clear (again): I'm not interested in ranking music (what would be the point anyway?). But there are reasons why some classical compositions are part of the standard repertoire (and are, over time, expanded to include newer works) and its not merely a popularity contest. In classical music, musical construction _matters_-- whether it is J.S. Bach or Steve Reich.


The criteria required for a piece of music to be considered a part of the standard repertoire are completely arbitrary. A work being a part of the standard repertoire does not imply its objective greatness of the music; only its subjective greatness, and therefore only implies that the work is popular.



> As a rock song, Pink Floyd's _Echoes _succeeds-- sonically and lyrically it sets a certain tone and atmosphere-- and they knew just how to get that sound. They didn't need to notate every last detail, but wrote in broad strokes and filled in the details more spontaneously and intuitively (Gilmour's solos, Wright's piano, inflections in Gilmour's singing, etc.). There are reasons why _Echoes _is a fine rock song-- otherwise it could've easily turned out very differently.


Again, the criteria required for a piece of music to succeed as a rock song are also completely arbitrary. Why can _Echoes_ only be considered a fine rock song and not a fine piece of music in general?



> But _Echoes _is not only constructed differently from Mozart's Symphony No. 40, but the _standards _for its construction are different. Otherwise we could say nonsense: _Pink Floyd is lousy at writing classical music. _But that's not what they were setting out to do, were they?


Why do there need to be standards in the construction of a piece of music? An artwork's conception has no bearing on how a listener/viewer/reader will react to the final product itself. In Pink Floyd's _Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun_, Nick Mason plays the floor tom almost exclusively throughout the duration of the song. Does this make him a bad drummer, because he doesn't live up to the high "standards" set by such drummers as Mike Portnoy? Or does it make him a better drummer, because the result is more appealing than anything Portnoy has written? I'm inclined to believe the latter of the two.

The notion of separate genres of music should be done away with. They keep artists hemmed in, too afraid to overstep the boundaries and blur genres, lest they alienate their listeners. The idea of there being separate genres of music also tends to make people believe that there must always be differing standards of construction of the music between each genre, and that in the face of the standards of a different genre, a piece of music may appear to be inferior (thus reinforcing the illusion of objective greatness of art).

"Pink Floyd is lousy at writing classical music," is a statement that need not cross the minds of those who do and those who do not enjoy the music of Pink Floyd. Ideally, people should either think, "Pink Floyd is great," or "Pink Floyd is lousy," as once a piece of music is held up to some accepted standard or another, it can be seen to be quantitatively "superior" or "inferior", which causes much dispute and conflict. The enjoyment of music by humans is threatened by genre.


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

Whistlerguy said:


> Earthling, I'd like to ask you what do you think about following songs:
> 
> The Beatles: Eleanor Rigby, She's Leaving Home, Within You Without You, Norwegian Wood, Strawberry Fields Forever, A Day In Life, Let It Be, Across The Universe ...?
> Simple Minds: Belfast Child
> ...


Even hearing a ten second snippet of a rock song I couldn't confuse it with classical music. Production values in the recording, for one, are very different. But all that aside: Strip away the drums, bass, guitar and chorus on "Let It Be," replace Paul McCartney with a classical tenor and it would sound absurd.

And it isn't simply the fact that a rock song might use instruments we might normally associate with classical music nor that much of it is written down in notation. Anybody can jot down a bunch of notes for a string quartet: Its what you do with those notes. The notes are central to classical composition (to put it in the most elementary way) and involve a more methodical approach than what the immediacy of rock music involves. That doesn't mean that there can be classical reference can be made (as in "She's Leaving Home" or whatever).

"She's Leaving Home" (to pick only one song) is a brilliant song because it does precisely what we wouldn't expect a rock song to do: where are the drums? where are the guitars? --and offers a tender, empathetic look at a young woman's life and parents who don't have the same desires she has (the key to this song is in the lyrics less so than the instrumentation which helps to reinforce this situation). Taken specifically in the context of 1967, this has an even greater resonance. The chorus alternates to the point of view of the parents who have done everything they are "supposed" to do and they don't understand why this isn't enough for their daughter. Its one of the few rock songs that makes me cry. The whole song is wonderfully constructed and if it had been done any other way, it wouldn't be such a great song, worthy of listening again and again and again. The Beatles clearly knew what they were doing and they knew how to do it.

I don't always have the time to explain with each and every piece of music why I like it, though I can back up my reasons for liking it. For some people it may be enough to just say "oh, I like this!" but you are shortchanging yourself, the composer and the performer if one's appreciation stops there. If you can't actually state even basic reasons for liking something, you aren't listening closely enough.

Those reasons, given by generations of musicians and music lovers, gradually congeal to form expected standards from present day musicians. Those standards (whether we like them or not) are the reason why some music sticks around and others don't. It isn't set in stone, but evolves (not neccessarily a progression toward something) according to the needs of people in a particular time, place and culture. The same is true of literature and other arts. Its not my fault this has happened this way, but it appears they usually happen to be right.

Karl Jenkins is not just as good as Beethoven unless you are only listening on the surface. There are reasons why Beethoven is where he is in the classical music community. It isn't popularity, it isn't catchy tunes, it isn't because its cool. Beethoven, if anything, is popular BECAUSE he wrote well, he put a lot of thought and intelligence into it. If he didn't, we would've never heard of the man.

I do want to make it clear that I enjoy rock music and I enjoy classical. I probably listen to more classical these days than rock, but I will still rock out to Mogwai or whatnot on occasion. I can easily cross those "boundaries" easily. If people have a problem with genres other than rock music (or classical music) that's their own problem to work out if they so choose.



Glaliraha said:


> Ideally, people should either think, "Pink Floyd is great," or "Pink Floyd is lousy," as once a piece of music is held up to some accepted standard or another, it can be seen to be quantitatively "superior" or "inferior", which causes much dispute and conflict. The enjoyment of music by humans is threatened by genre.


Can you give any reasons WHY Pink Floyd is great? If you can't, then you aren't giving Pink Floyd their due. There's are reasons why much of their work is good. The future of music (and all arts) is threatened by people who can't even state basic reasons why a rock song or a piece of classical music is good. If you don't understand the different genres and the ways in which music operated in those different genres, you can't make those distinctions. The future of music cannot survive on musical illiteracy.

There's a reason why universities offer "music appreciation" courses. They aren't required in order to enjoy classical music (or other kinds of music) but it helps deepen one's appreciation for it by showing the reasons WHY some music "works" better than others.


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

Here's a wonderful online resource for starters: Listening to Music. He goes a bit too quickly over things for those who don't have any musical background IMO, and lots of supplemental reading might be needed for these lectures. But its quite good.

And a good introductory book: Copland's What to Listen for in Music.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think that, with any kind of music (or art?), the key thing is engagement, as Earthling suggests. I'd also add passion and developing perception. Whether you like 1950's R&B, Baroque classical music or world music, it doesn't really matter which one is "better" than the other. I tend to think that they're all equal, & what you get out of any style or genre of music depends on the effort you put in. I for one grew up with classical, my parents were always listening to recordings of the classics. So obviously I've developed a bias, but they also listened to things like Louis Armstrong or Pink Floyd. As a child, I never thought about ranking them, I just enjoyed them for what they were - great music. Now, I've developed a real passion for classical, (almost) to the exclusion of all else. I do also like jazz, but 95% of what I listen to, whether it be in recorded form or live in concert, is classical music of some sort. I think that non-classical music can be equally as complex as classical. Just listen to some John Coltrane, Charlie Parker or Art Tatum (the latter's piano "improvisations" have been performed and recorded by classical musicians like Marc Andre Hamelin). I don't think it's musicians that are worried about crossing the boundaries of genre or style, it's the fans who tend to be sectarian. The language of all music has some level of universality, whether one is listening to something from the folk realm, or jazz, or rock, or classical, it's all about humanity telling it's stories through sound. That's simply what it is, no matter what part of the world or period it comes from...


----------



## Glaliraha (May 2, 2010)

Earthling said:


> Can you give any reasons WHY Pink Floyd is great?


Pink Floyd is great because I _like_ them, just as Pink Floyd is not great because my mum _doesn't_ like them.



> If you can't, then you aren't giving Pink Floyd their due.


It's not my job to analyze the music of Pink Floyd and attempt to provide an objective analysis of its greatness.



> There's are reasons why much of their work is good.


It is because people like it.

Pop music doesn't count. The millions of tweens who go wild over Justin Bieber only think they like him and his music, and it's because they've been told to.



> The future of music (and all arts) is threatened by people who can't even state basic reasons why a rock song or a piece of classical music is good.


Why do think this is the case? For every person who can't say why they like a piece of music, there are others who can. Also, in creating art, a person need not know (though it would be useful) how or why what they're creating is appealing to them, but merely that it _is_ appealing.



> If you don't understand the different genres and the ways in which music operated in those different genres, you can't make those distinctions.


The idea of separate genres was invented to account for the differences in music in different parts of the world and in different time periods. All music, no matter where or when it was created, is a product of the effects of an environment on an individual. Why would a piece of music written in 1600 be superior to one written in 2000 in one way, but inferior in another, and vice versa? The criteria used to "judge" the worth of a piece of music, in all genres, are completely arbitrary. A piece of music one does not like is, quite simply, not good. People who say that Renaissance music is crap are not ignorant; they merely have an opinion.



> The future of music cannot survive on musical illiteracy.


The listeners of music need not know anything about music to enjoy it, however, the fact that there are people who care about the future of music is sufficient to keep music alive.



> There's a reason why universities offer "music appreciation" courses. They aren't required in order to enjoy classical music (or other kinds of music) but it helps deepen one's appreciation for it by showing the reasons WHY some music "works" better than others.


It is because the universities want to convert people to "classical music" by proving that it is superior to "popular music".


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

Well, let's just say that the greatest classical music has both the direct hearing potential (catchy tune, cool chords) as the extremely complicated goods (counterpoint, harmonic planning, formal plan, orchestration...) to back it up, making it a more interesting long term hearing experience.

Let's not forget, there are some objective critera why classical music is better then popular....


----------



## Glaliraha (May 2, 2010)

Rasa said:


> Well, let's just say that the greatest classical music has both the direct hearing potential (catchy tune, cool chords) as the extremely complicated goods (counterpoint, harmonic planning, formal plan, orchestration...) to back it up, making it a more interesting long term hearing experience.
> 
> Let's not forget, there are some objective critera why classical music is better then popular....


Such as...?


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

> [Pink Floyd is good] because people like it.


And here is the root of our disagreement: I say there are people that_ recognise_ it is good which is why they like it.

I am not saying there is some quality that makes some music objectively "superior" to other music. I'm not interested in "superiority." All music has its own merits, whether or not we want to recognise it or not (_even _Justin Bieber).

Now I don't understand why "pop music doesn't count" (The Beatles? The Beach Boys?). Aren't you making a distinction of objective superiority? Why all of a sudden does your musical taste objectively trump theirs? You don't like Justin Bieber any more than your mum doesn't like Pink Floyd. Thanks to the recording industry and band promotion, we know Pink Floyd exists-- and there were people who listen to Pink Floyd "because they're told to."



> It is because the universities want to convert people to "classical music" by proving that it is superior to "popular music".


Funny, I've taken a course in 1989, and I've read/listened to a few other series since then, and I've _never _come across a book or university course that asserted such a ridiculous notion.


----------



## Wumbo (Jun 29, 2010)

To answer your topic's question, I would propose this hypothetical scenario:

You are a film director with unlimited funds. You are dedicated to evoking a particular mood in your audience, and you are going to use music to help achieve this. Can you imagine a situation where a non-classical track would be more appropriate than a classical one? I think, even though classical has a wide range of emotion and social influence, it would take a very limited imagination not to conceive the possibility of a scene that could do better with a rap song, or a rock song, or Jazz, or whatever.

In that way, you could define a track as 'better' classical or otherwise, in particular scenarios. Can a non-classical music track be better than a classical one without context? I don't know, because I think in this world we always perceive things in the context of which we experience them. By our personal history, by our surroundings, and by our understanding of the social climate such works may be interacting with. It's a fool who uses the same key for every lock.


----------



## 151 (Jun 14, 2010)

Wumbo said:


> Can you imagine a situation where a non-classical track would be more appropriate than a classical one?


There are countless, countless amount of films from blockbuster down, through world cinema down to music videos and shorts which don't use "classical" tracks. Pretty stupid scenario. Not all films have music backdrops.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Erm, most of orchestral or piano soundtracks are poor pastiche, the most moving emphasizing soundtracks are non-classical, eg. the famous Taxi Driver.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

A piece of music must be judged on it's own terms.
Film music is not chosen for any other reason other than it _works_ in a given context for a particular director. 
Film music very rarely stands up to scrutiny of it's composition and structure as 'absolute music' as by it's very nature it is there only to _enhance_ a scene.
It also rarely transfers convincingly to the concert hall in my opinion. That doesn't mean it's not great film music though.


----------



## Wumbo (Jun 29, 2010)

Well that's just my point  If Classical music isn't always great film music (it often is, but not always), then that means in that scenario it CAN'T be better. If we are only judging music by how well it can be received in a concert hall, then that is equally unfair to other genres. If the time and the place is me sitting in a comfortable chair with my headphones, then the music is judged by my mood and my current thoughts (a scenario very similar to a movie, only it's real).

If we are trying to say whether classical music in a concert hall is better than rock music at an outdoor festival, then I think we are comparing apples to oranges. What are we supposed to be measuring? The level of enjoyment? The level of social significance? The level of complexity and rarity? If those are the questions, then I say on all three counts classical music is being beaten in this generation. Swarming crowds of people jumping up and down, messages that are pertinent today and not just memories of history, solos that have never been more intricate. For rarity, classical music is so widely available and widely heard that even a masterpiece is regarded with familiarity, rather than reverence. But you might call this again an unfair comparison. We should judge them by how well they did in their respective times, right? I begin to lose the meaning of this exercise when the only acceptable answer is 'classical is better' and you will simply wait until the terms are only such that classical weighs favourably in. Here are those terms: 100+ years ago, in a concert hall, number of organized musicians well organized by a single composer, noir films and proven longevity.

To be clear, I think that works, if they are to judged against each other, must be individual works, not giant collections. Otherwise no decent data can be brought forth to make any claims. Although, in this case, I would say Classical is disadvantaged for the history of recent works is much more reliable and thorough than what we know about works composed 300 years ago. (I guess someone was trying to do this with Pink Floyd, but hahaha... I didn't see much research).


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Wumbo said:


> Well that's just my point  If Classical music isn't always great film music (it often is, but not always), then that means in that scenario it CAN'T be better. If we are only judging music by how well it can be received in a concert hall, then that is equally unfair to other genres. If the time and the place is me sitting in a comfortable chair with my headphones, then the music is judged by my mood and my current thoughts (a scenario very similar to a movie, only it's real).
> 
> If we are trying to say whether classical music in a concert hall is better than rock music at an outdoor festival, t*hen I think we are comparing apples to oranges*. What are we supposed to be measuring? The level of enjoyment? The level of social significance? The level of complexity and rarity? If those are the questions, then I say on all three counts classical music is being beaten in this generation. Swarming crowds of people jumping up and down, messages that are pertinent today and not just memories of history, solos that have never been more intricate. For rarity, classical music is so widely available and widely heard that even a masterpiece is regarded with familiarity, rather than reverence. But you might call this again an unfair comparison. We should judge them by how well they did in their respective times, right? I begin to lose the meaning of this exercise when the only acceptable answer is 'classical is better' and you will simply wait until the terms are only such that classical weighs favourably in. Here are those terms: 100+ years ago, in a concert hall, number of organized musicians well organized by a single composer, noir films and proven longevity.
> 
> To be clear, I think that works, if they are to judged against each other, must be individual works, not giant collections. Otherwise no decent data can be brought forth to make any claims. Although, in this case, I would say Classical is disadvantaged for the history of recent works is much more reliable and thorough than what we know about works composed 300 years ago. (I guess someone was trying to do this with Pink Floyd, but hahaha... I didn't see much research).


Exactly my point.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Earthling said:


> All music has its own merits, whether or not we want to recognise it or not (_even _Justin Bieber).


This may be so, but there seem to be some in this thread who argue that because all music has some merit, all music is of equal value, or significance, or 'quality'.

The notion is silly, of course. A McDonald's hamburger has merit, but it's hardly comparable to a meal cooked with fresh ingedients by someone who knows what they're doing.

Plenty of music is ephemeral, disposable and forgettable. What is played today of the orchestral, chamber, instrumental & operatic repertoire, is that which time has shown to be of real and lasting value. It has, in fact, value even outside the circumstances of its original creation; you don't have to have been living in Vienna in 1800 to respond to _Eroica_ today. I doubt the same will be said for Pink Floyd in 150 years. When there's no one left who saw them play, knew them, even knows anyone who knew them, will their music still speak to people? 
Fat chance.... Why? Well, how much popular music from 1800 is still around? Only that which was seized upon by some competent composer, and elevated into some kind of form where it might transcend its vulgar origins. If you can turn something from commercial pap into art, it might stand a chance of surviving. But it's not easy to do...
cheers,
G


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

Glaliraha said:


> Such as...?


The amount and diversity of chords used, the mastery of how they follow eachother (abrutly, with voice leading), mastery of counterpoint and how many voices can superimpose and fit together, orchestration and it's researches, the joy of themes and their developement, and how forms are constructed...


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Glaliraha said:


> Did anyone see my post?


If you are referring to your post #12 in this thread, I think everyone was so embarrassed at such an asinine, shallow, ego-driven approach to music, that we all skipped over it for your own sake. Goodness knows why you'd draw attention to it.
"If I like it, it's good. If I don't, it's not. There is no other standard."
This is your (paraphrased) assessment? Perhaps as you get older (when you turn 11, or 12 perhaps) your worldview will change to reflect a little nuance.
Good luck!
G


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

GraemeG said:


> This may be so, but there seem to be some in this thread who argue that because all music has some merit, all music is of equal value, or significance, or 'quality'.
> 
> The notion is silly, of course. A McDonald's hamburger has merit, but it's hardly comparable to a meal cooked with fresh ingedients by someone who knows what they're doing.
> 
> ...


The Beatles are still played today. If recording equipment had been around in 1800 maybe some more popular music of that time would be remembered.

Recording changed everything. Not always for the better either.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Petwhac said:


> The Beatles are still played today. If recording equipment had been around in 1800 maybe some more popular music of that time would be remembered.


Nah, disagree on that one. Recording won't make a difference. There are still plenty of Edison wax cylinders around from players built 1900-1920. Have a look at some of the songs on those cylinders. Does anyone sing them today, despite the fact they could easily be transcribed (presuming the original sheet music was unavailable)?
Nup. No chance. They are 'pop songs' as irredemably rooted in 1916 as a Monkees single is in the 1960s. They have as much relevance for someone born in 1986 as the Monkees will have for someone born in 2030.

Two of the Beatles are still alive. There are still huge personal links to their music, never mind that it was played live only 40 years ago. That's not the test. You need to get a full human generation removed from the music, to strip away all the 'ah, this reminds me of my schooldays/army days/summer holidays' element that surrounds the music you listened to as a kid. People aren't listening to this kind of music for its intrinsic qualities. It's a form of reminisence.

cheers,
G


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

GraemeG said:


> Nah, disagree on that one. Recording won't make a difference. There are still plenty of Edison wax cylinders around from players built 1900-1920. Have a look at some of the songs on those cylinders. Does anyone sing them today, despite the fact they could easily be transcribed (presuming the original sheet music was unavailable)?
> Nup. No chance. They are 'pop songs' as irredemably rooted in 1916 as a Monkees single is in the 1960s. They have as much relevance for someone born in 1986 as the Monkees will have for someone born in 2030.
> 
> Two of the Beatles are still alive. There are still huge personal links to their music, never mind that it was played live only 40 years ago. That's not the test. You need to get a full human generation removed from the music, to strip away all the 'ah, this reminds me of my schooldays/army days/summer holidays' element that surrounds the music you listened to as a kid. People aren't listening to this kind of music for its intrinsic qualities. It's a form of reminisence.
> ...


Scott Joplin? Duke Ellington? Edith Piaf? ...


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Earthling said:


> Scott Joplin? Duke Ellington? Edith Piaf? ...


Well, the second two are still well within the cultural memory, being most active around the 40/50's & later.
Joplin seemed to straddle pop and art; but surely you'd agree he's pretty niche music today? If anything, I reckon he supports my case; hugely popular in 1895, but these days completely fringe but for Maple Leaf Rag and his 'resurrection' in _The Sting_.

That's another distinction between art music and pop music; art music is not dependent on the human personality of its first performer. The _Hammerklavier_ sonata does not suffer from the fact that Beethoven is no longer around to play it to people, but who, in 80 years time, is going to go along to hear someone sing covers of Billy Joel or Bob Dylan songs?
cheers,
G


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

10 pages of in print CDs on Amazon seems to indicate Scott Joplin is more than a niche (and some of those CDs are indeed covers by other musicians). Much of jazz has always relied mostly on standards rather than original compositions (and each performance, even by the same artists, often are done very differently).

I also don't think it is always true that popular music is dependent on the performer. Perhaps not so much in the case of Billy Joel, but certainly in the case of Bob Dylan there are over a thousand covers of his music, some which are just as popular (if not more) than the original (Peter, Paul and Mary's cover of "Blowing in the Wind" is a chief example). Joe Cocker's cover of "A Little Help from My Friends" is almost as popular as the Beatles' original. Johnny Cash's cover of "Hurt" is in fact more well known by general listeners than the original song by Nine Inch Nails. Some people don't even realise that the Animals' "House of the Rising Sun" was written decades before they recorded it.

Here's an interesting site I came across: *Second Hand Songs*

There are plenty others that may fall by the wayside: Country Joe's "I'm-Fixin'-to-Die-Rag" is not as resonant as Dylan's "Blowing in the Wind" because it is so specifically dealing with Vietnam. I'm not aware of any cover of that song-- what would be the point? Some music dates more badly than others. But there is a universal quality to some popular songs that do resonate still and will continue to because they deal with universal themes in a memorable way: _Sympathy for the Devil, She's Leaving Home, I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry, Bridge Over Troubled Water._ Popular musicians cover these songs today, and will continue to do so in the future because they deal creatively and memorably with topics that we experience in some form or fashion today. Not all songs are strictly tied to the personality of the performer-- if this were so, there wouldn't be 173 covers of "Yesterday" (one of which is a notable cover by Ray Charles).

People that go to concerts today enjoy hearing classic cover tunes, and some musicians have devoted entire albums to covers. I don't think it is as simple and clear-cut as what you are making it out to be, though I suppose only time will tell and we won't be around to see it. Not _all _popular songs are mere forgettable little ditties.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Oh, look, I agree there are exceptions; a few ostensibly 'pop' songs turn out to have been timeless 'folk' songs in disguise (Greensleeves, anyone?), but for the most part, they're just ephemera, and of no lasting value, however much they might be 'good' to a BB poster.

When I search Amazon.co.uk for 'Music' and Scott Joplin, it finds 276 matches. That's reasonably niche I reckon. Not that Amazon searches prove much - except that the ability to do covers improves your count; Pearl Jam has 521 matches, the Monkees a mere 260. Some others: Billy Joel 551, Fats Waller 522, Edith Piaf 1,034, Elton John 1,073, Bing Crosby 1,138, Rolling Stones 1,318, Glenn Miller 1,601 (how many covers _there_?), Beatles 2,251, Duke Ellington 2,309, Elvis 2,608.
Covers _really_ help the composers who are beyond the 'cult of the performer'; Beethoven manages 16,678 and Mozart 21,391.

Still, the examples you list are all still very recent. I'm not decrying covers either - rather the opposite; that is the bedrock of classical music - and how can one man play all the instruments in a symphony orchestra anyway ;-) - but if a piece of music is utterly dependent on its originating composer/performer for its 'greatness', then it wasn't great to begin with.

I don't think a straight cover-count defines anything either; is it White Christmas that's the most 'covered' of all time? - it's probably not something people listen to much any more.
cheers,
G


----------



## Glaliraha (May 2, 2010)

The Monkees have faded, and the Beatles will too, as they made pop songs, which are more or less interchangeable with each other. *I'm A Believer* and *Hey, Jude* might be the most popular songs of each, but they don't have the same effect as classical music.

However, these are bad examples. The Beatles and The Monkees never intended for their music to be anything more than throwaway pop (unlike John Lennon, after the Beatles). Whereas bands like Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Tool, Opeth, Porcupine Tree and King Crimson are comprised of artists, making music for artistic ends. Pink Floyd's *Echoes* is just as epic an undertaking as Holst's *The Planets*, with similar intentions for both (maybe Pink Floyd were a bit more abstract). I really don't see there being a line between *The Planets* and *Echoes*, except for the fact that one is written for the "sacred" orchestra, and the other for the "virulent" rock band.

Progressive rock (and metal) is a form of classical music as they follow in the tradition of making purely artistic music, which can be loud and bombastic (System Of A Down and Wagner), small and intimate (Porcupine Tree and Handel), epic (Pink Floyd and Bach), psychedelic (Tool and Paganini) or anything else the artists wish to express, which at times may be completely abstract (King Crimson and Schoenberg). Progressive music is not a genre, as the bands and artists usually named as such are merely the ones who break free of convention enough that they can't be pigeon-holed as anything else, and are therefore deemed progressive.

The method of composition should not matter in any way, whether it be one person's careful placing of individual notes for a string quartet, or an hours-long jam session with a guitarist, bassist and drummer. To say that the method is what determines a piece's quality is to speak out of one's ****.

Also, the minimal prominence of, for example, 19th century pop music in today's society does not mean anything one way or the other. Some music survived, other music didn't. That's all there is to it. Quality is entirely subjective. Let's say, perhaps, that a 19th century pop song was unearthed, and deemed to be crap by the standards of Schubert's Lieder (for example). The difference in perceived quality will set it apart in some way from the other music of the time, and as people come to hear the song, some may grow to like it, discovering that 19th century pop is the kind of music that they like and want to hear more of. So what if the Beatles aren't widely remembered in 100 years? This doesn't change the fact that they were extremely popular in their time, and have made their mark in history, whether they remain recognized or not.

One last thing, recording doesn't necessarily mean that the artists who were recorded will remain known to people. It simply makes it easier for people to unearth hidden treasures at some point in the future. In 200 years, someone will find and open a 240-year-old safe and find someone's entire Beatles collection, and will use advanced technology to figure out how to play the music, thereby perpetuating the existence of the Beatles' music. It's much easier now to preserve things, because of technology, which means that 20th century pop will be better recorded (in history books) and preserved in 200 years, than 200-year-old pop currently is.


----------



## 151 (Jun 14, 2010)

Just wait until we can capture the music in our heads, tap into unheard frequencies and optimise dopamine levels through nanotechnology, then you'll know what absolute music is.

And I promise then that classical music will be nothing.


----------



## Glaliraha (May 2, 2010)

151 said:


> Just wait until we can capture the music in our heads, tap into unheard frequencies and optimise dopamine levels through nanotechnology, then you'll know what absolute music is.
> 
> And I promise then that classical music will be nothing.


Very good point. Are you a fan of Aphex Twin, by any chance?


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

(NOTE: I'm saying "you" here in a very general sense-- sorry for the sermon)

The problem as I see it is there are two typical views taken on this matter: (1) The absolutist/objectivist point of view: some genres of music are inherently, objectively and absolutely better than other genres (pop music is ephemeral and therefore is not as good as classical music) or (2) The totally relativist/subjectivist point of view: all genres (and all music) are the same, everything is all the same regardless (all distinctions between genres should be abolished, all are equally as good). Either way, the "problem" has been solved in advance and you don't even have to bother listening closely to the music.

The world of music is a lot more diverse and interesting than constructing hierarchies, _or _making pointless ejaculations with no reference to the music itself.

Neither is a particularly nuanced view and neither is based on the slightest bit of musical literacy or any creative engagement with the music itself-- and that's where I take issue with both points of view, and what I've been arguing for. Music is diverse and there is no one monolithic standard by which to judge music (the objective view). But this does not mean "let's toss out all standards" (the subjective view). Each piece of music must be taken on its own merits-- and which is also embedded within its own tradition(s), and historical context. Genres exist, and there are some blurring of some boundaries. The fact that they exist is not a problem to abolish, nor is it a reason to automatically assert the superiority of some genres over others. Genres are a key to understanding the music before you in a given moment.

Taking a piece on its own merits means engaging with the music itself on its own terms. It makes no sense to compare Bach to the Beach Boys any more than it makes sense to compare baseball and cricket. No one game is superior to another-- both have their own merits.

In the end, our likes and dislikes are all subjective-- but those subjective likes and dislikes come about through the merits (or lack thereof) that can indeed be pointed out (however clearly) in a piece of music. If one is not engaged with listening to the music on its own merits, then it is their own prejudices getting in the way (yes, I am prejudiced-- I don't care for 95% of country music, 99% of rap, etc.).

I don't care if Bach is "superior" to Mozart or if Beethoven is "superior" to Led Zeppelin or if the Beatles are "superior" to the Rolling Stones. I'm not really sure why anyone else would care either except that they feel the need to reassure themselves that they are listening to "the right thing." Why worry about superiority or inferiority if *you* can find something of value in it. Why justify something in mere comparison to something else? What good is there in that?

I don't listen to Beethoven because he is superior to Led Zeppelin. I don't listen to him because others say he is superior. When I listen to Beethoven, I don't give a damn about Beethoven. When I listen to Led Zeppelin, I don't give a damn about Beethoven.

An opinion that isn't based on one's _own _experience isn't much of an opinion. I'd value the opinion of someone who gave _his own _reasons for not liking a composer (even if I disagreed) than someone who just says "Well, they aren't as good as Mozart." This is an _evasion _from one's own experience with the music if this is all one has to say. If you can't listen to a piece of music and know within yourself why you like it-- even if you cannot clearly articulate it-- without resorting to merely ranking them and without resorting to a mere "I just like it, that's all" then you haven't listened closely. Maybe they haven't gotten a lot of experience listening to music. Maybe you need to listen to a few more times (I know I can't reach a tentative opinion on just a couple hearings). On Amazon, when I see a review like that ("Not as good as x" or "This is awesome!") without any further explanation why they think this, I put it down as an unhelpful review. _Every. Single. Time. _Such a review has told me nothing about the musician, only about their own preferences. Why should I care whether you liked something or not? Tell me what it is that you hear in it yourself, with your own ears, don't just sing the praises of someone, don't just say "it was amazing!" _*What *beauty did you witness, *what *mystery? _

+++​
*"What the reader should strive for, then, is a more active kind of listening. Whether you listen to Mozart or Duke Ellington, you can deepen your understanding of music only by being a more conscious and aware listener--not someone who is just listening, but someone who is listening for something."* (Aaron Copland, _emphasis _in the original)

OK, I'm off my bloody soapbox.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Earthling said:


> (NOTE: I'm saying "you" here in a very general sense-- sorry for the sermon)
> 
> The problem as I see it is there are two typical views taken on this matter: (1) The absolutist/objectivist point of view: some genres of music are inherently, objectively and absolutely better than other genres (pop music is ephemeral and therefore is not as good as classical music) or (2) The totally relativist/subjectivist point of view: all genres (and all music) are the same, everything is all the same regardless (all distinctions between genres should be abolished, all are equally as good). Either way, the "problem" has been solved in advance and you don't even have to bother listening closely to the music.
> 
> ...


Sometimes pointless ejaculations are good. Giggity, giggity.

You make a better point than most here, but I still disagree with a lot of what you say.

This discussion reminds me of the one about religion in the Articles section. There are things people know. Then there are things people think. The problem seems to arise when people think what they think is not what they think but what they know.



> If you are referring to your post #12 in this thread, I think everyone was so embarrassed at such an asinine, shallow, ego-driven approach to music, that we all skipped over it for your own sake. Goodness knows why you'd draw attention to it.
> "If I like it, it's good. If I don't, it's not. There is no other standard."
> This is your (paraphrased) assessment? Perhaps as you get older (when you turn 11, or 12 perhaps) your worldview will change to reflect a little nuance.
> Good luck!
> G


All you did there was belittle the poster and his point. You didn't provide any kind of reason as to why you disagree with him.

If anything you have the shallow approach to music by thinking music has an inherent value that isn't just a reflection on the valuer. Perhaps when you get older (when you turn 11 or 12 perhaps) your worldview will change to reflect a little nuance.

That post of Glaliraha that you disliked so much is the only post in this whole thread that I agree with. However, I disagree with that members later comments where he seems to contradict his own viewpoint. You can't pick and choose. If you take the stance of music having no value or all music having value, you can't make distinctions between the Monkees, Pink Floyd and Bach (other than physical differences). There is no inbetween, it's an 'all in' position.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Are newspapers better than novels?
Are game shows better than sit-coms?
Are apples better than bananas?


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Petwhac said:


> Are newspapers better than novels?
> Are game shows better than sit-coms?
> Are apples better than bananas?


As good as.

The rest depends on the respondent of the questions.

Another view would be that those kind of questions are nonsense.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Petwhac said:


> Are newspapers better than novels?
> Are game shows better than sit-coms?
> Are apples better than bananas?


Bad comparisons. You put forth three times couple of totally diffrent things: newspaper is kind of publication, novel is literary genre etc, etc.

The answer to the question is simple: yes. Yes, because you can write classical music washed from all values and popular music that will have some. Not to mention non-classical-non-popular music (eg. jazz).

PF's Echoes are obviously better than work of some untalented minimalist that wrote his 2-minutes crap for piano solo couple of minutes before I sent this post. Untalented minimalist, wherever you are, if you read this, don't get mad. You can still be a good man.

More generally, classical music is always higher and simply better that rock music or anything like that. There is no sense in being cool guy who pretend to not belive in any categories of better and worse music. If someone likes Pind Floyd's Echoes better than most of classical music written in similiar aesthetics then he prefers worse music and therefore he has to learn more about ways of appreaciating musical art or he is deaf eggplant. Thank you.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

I agree with the person who said that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder - i.e. music by itself bears no values. Music is what we make of it - there is no better or worse music as these terms are relative. There is no objective way to determine which piece of music is better and which is worse.

Rave music moves you? However peculiar that may sound to me - so be it. I am not in the position to judge other people's taste in music and I don't think anyone else is.

I for one enjoy a lot of different genres of music - classical and non-classical. Lately I've been listening to jazz fusion, progressive metal/rock, symphonic rock/power metal, neoclassical metal, hard rock, jazz and funk (and by funk I meant 70's UK funk, not Black Eyed Peas or some 'crap'); Liszt, Chopin, Bach, Rachmaninov.

Give this piano transcription of an Opeth song (A Fair Judgement) a listen, if you will: http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8...GYWlyK0p1ZGdlbWVudCslMjgyMDA0LTIwMDUlMjkubXAz

This is the original track:


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Bad comparisons. You put forth three times couple of totally diffrent things: newspaper is kind of publication, novel is literary genre etc, etc.
> 
> The answer to the question is simple: yes. Yes, because you can write classical music washed from all values and popular music that will have some. Not to mention non-classical-non-popular music (eg. jazz).
> 
> ...


A newspaper uses the same 26 letters the same words (often) the same structures (sentences, paragraphs etc).
The point I am making is that popular music and 'art' music have their own lineages, their own criteria for judging them, their own history and their own 'classics'

Plenty of pop songs will be around in 100 years because they are great pop songs and plenty of piano sonatas and symphonies have already been forgotten because they were not great.

It is completely useless to compare the two genres.

From what you say I doubt if you are able to distinguish a good pop song from a bad one or a good symphony from a bad one.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> The point I am making is that popular music and 'art' music have their own lineages, their own criteria for judging them, their own history and their own 'classics'


Nope. Or yes. Both yes and no. They both have diffrent criteria for judging them, but same is with... uhm... football players. When you say that Figo is (was) great you mean that he is great because he changed score of many world-famous matches and he was world-class player. But when you watch some local tournament with third-league teams you can often call one of players great too. Great because he plays good for the standards of minor tournament with minor teams. But when you look at all football as a whole you will have to admit that Luis Figo was great player by all means and this unknown player you also called great was great only in particular circumstances.



> From what you say I doubt if you are able to distinguish a good pop song from a bad one or a good symphony from a bad one.


I'm sorry, but I belive I am able to do it and I am in, say, first thousand of world's best good music distinguishers.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Nope. Or yes. Both yes and no. They both have diffrent criteria for judging them, but same is with... uhm... football players. When you say that Figo is (was) great you mean that he is great because he changed score of many world-famous matches and he was world-class player. But when you watch some local tournament with third-league teams you can often call one of players great too. Great because he plays good for the standards of minor tournament with minor teams. But when you look at all football as a whole you will have to admit that Luis Figo was great player by all means and this unknown player you also called great was great only in particular circumstances.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I belive I am able to do it and I am in, say, first thousand of world's best good music distinguishers.


 In your football analogy you are still comparing like with like. A student sonata with Beethoven sonata. Beethoven's is more likely better.

A Beethoven Sonata with an Oscar Peterson solo? No point in comparing.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> In your football analogy you are still comparing like with like.


Isn't all music a music just like all football is football? Euro Tournament will give you opportunity to enjoy greatest players with perfect technical skills playing most impressing football. Local tournament will give you simple pleasure of watching weaker players playing much simpler and less skillfull way. Same is with music. Both can be good and both can give you pleasure but both world-class football players and classical music are in some way better than the rest which is simply not as rich and sophisticated which, in many ways, equals this terrible word: better.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Isn't all music a music just like all football is football?


Aren't apples, bananas, and cherries all fruit?

Aren't newspapers, comic books, novels, and essays all writing?


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Aramis said:


> Isn't all music a music just like all football is football? Euro Tournament will give you opportunity to enjoy greatest players with perfect technical skills playing most impressing football. Local tournament will give you simple pleasure of watching weaker players playing much simpler and less skillfull way. Same is with music. Both can be good and both can give you pleasure but both world-class football players and classical music are in some way better than the rest which is simply not as rich and sophisticated which, in many ways, equals this terrible word: better.


Yes, but those worldclass football players can do anything those local players might be able to do, and do it a lot better at that. Could however, say, Ligeti, Messiaen or Shostakovich write a series of hit songs like Lennon & McCartney or Holland, Dozier & Holland? If not those pop guys had a skill that their classical colleagues for all their technical superiority didn't have.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Aren't apples, bananas, and cherries all fruit?


Fruit is term invited by humans to describe some kind of plants which not all are consumed the same way. You can also say that hop is a fruit - do you eat chops? I suppose not. All music is consumed by listening while some frouits are for eating, some are for preparing drinks and some are inedible or even dangerous to your health.



> Aren't newspapers, comic books, novels, and essays all writing?


No, newspaper is piece of paper on which writings are published.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Could however, say, Ligeti, Messiaen or Shostakovich write a series of hit songs like Lennon & McCartney or Holland, Dozier & Holland?


Well, Bach wrote a hit song, you probably heard it - Whiter Shade of Pale by Procol Harum.

You can take tune from almost every composer which was not completely avant-garde and make it a hit song, you just have to... ruin it a little bit, reduce material, add some beats and voila.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Aramis said:


> You can take tune from almost every composer which was not completely avant-garde and make it a hit song, you just have to... ruin it a little bit, reduce material, add some beats and voila.


Well, classical composers can compile a medley of popular folk tunes and call it a rhapsody or put folk tunes into a symphony as well


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

Aramis said:


> No, newspaper is piece of paper on which writings are published.


Novels are printed on paper too...? In fact, many novels (Dickens, Dostoevsky) were originally published in newspapers as serials.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Argus said:


> All you did there was belittle the poster and his point. You didn't provide any kind of reason as to why you disagree with him.


 It's beyond the realms of discussion, that's why. If you think that your own personal like/dislike response to music is the only valid judging criteria, there's no room for debate. No-one with that attitude can be persuaded to any other way of thinking - almost by definition. Perhaps at some point the scales will drop from their eyes. 



> If anything you have the shallow approach to music by thinking music has an inherent value that isn't just a reflection on the valuer.


So, thinking music could be _more_ than just my personal response to it - that's the shallow approach? Perhaps you might explain what an in-depth approach could involve? 
G


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

GraemeG said:


> It's beyond the realms of discussion, that's why. If you think that your own personal like/dislike response to music is the only valid judging criteria, there's no room for debate.


Right. If something is good merely because you say so, there can be no criteria. Inherent in such a position is that the music itself can _never_ have any merit in itself-- the value of a piece of music is entirely conferred upon by the listener. You can't argue with a solipsism.


----------



## wolf (May 16, 2009)

Earthling said:


> ...*I don't listen to Beethoven because he is superior to Led Zeppelin. I don't listen to him because others say he is superior. When I listen to Beethoven, I don't give a damn about Beethoven. When I listen to Led Zeppelin, I don't give a damn about Beethoven. *...


Hear, hear. It seems that people just can't differ between what is considered "better" intellectually, and "better" in that you love the music you listen to. The trouble with the likes of me is that we DO NOT want to hear Led Zeppelin, ever. Nor would I dream of putting on a CD with country, rap, rock, pretty tunes. They bore me. So why should I listen to it? I certaibly not condemn those who like it, nor do I run out of a room with other people around, when something like that is played.

But some of you would snort digustedly if someone told you that you should listen to rap, "you just have to listen to it in a different set of mind". If you absolutely deny this, why cannot the likes of me have the right to deny that we listen to Zeppelin in the wrong way, that we never ever can stand it? I for one, have listened to Hendrix and Zeppelin for many years, I know what hooked me, and it doesn't one bit anymore.

To love classical is allowed, but if you do not love anything else, then you must be a haughty one, only pretending not to like some sort of popular music, out of sheer snobbery...? That's what I always feel, even in a forum like this.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Fruit is term invited by humans to describe some kind of plants which not all are consumed the same way. You can also say that hop is a fruit - do you eat chops? I suppose not. All music is consumed by listening while some frouits are for eating, some are for preparing drinks and some are inedible or even dangerous to your health.
> 
> No, newspaper is piece of paper on which writings are published.


Music is _listening material_. I love Wagner, Stravinsky, Beethoven. I also love Stevie Wonder, Bill Evans etc but I don't compare them. No point.

Newspapers and novels are _reading material._


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

My opinion is that different genres CAN be compared, the same way we CAN compare apples and oranges. The only reason why people don't do it is because they feel it is unfair. Comparing popular music with classical music by the same standards is unfair, because classical would almost always win in some categories and popular would maybe win in some other categories.

If we define greatness as:

replayability + depth of emotion + sincerity (integrity) + entertainment value + historical significance + beauty of melody + intellectual stimulativity

and then rate each piece on the scale from 0 to 10 on all of these cateogries and sum up the ratings - we can compare any piece of music to any other piece of music.

It would still be subjective, but we would at least have solid reason for why we think one piece is great and other is not.

So, I'm going to compare now, Beethoven's Ninth symphony with John Farrar's "You're the one that I want"

So,

9th Symphony = replayability (9) + depth of emotion (10) + sincerity/integrity (10) + entertainment value (8) + historical significance (10) + beauty of melody (10) + intellectual stimulativity (9) = 9+10+10+8+10+10+9 = 66

Ninth symphony has total of 66 points.

You're The One That I Want = replayability (8) + depth of emotion (7) + sincerity/integrity (4) + entertainment value (10) + historical significance (6) + beauty of melody (9) + intellectual stimulativity (2) = 8 + 7 + 4 + 10 + 6 + 9 + 2 = 46

You're The One That I Want has total score of 46. While it is a great pop song (has a good replayablity, depth of emotion, entertainment value and very beautiful catchy melody) it has lower total score (46<66) than 9th symphony, which clearly shows that 9th symphony is a greater piece of music.

Each piece of music can be rated according to this scale, with possible results from 0 (total crap) to 70 (perfect).

However many people will not like this scale because some categories are more important to them than others. This is perfectly OK. The only thing they should do is to put coefficients before each category so that they can emphasize which categories are more important to them.

So, greatness can be defined both as

Greatness = 1 x replayability + 2 x depth of emotion + 3 x sincerity/integrity + 1 x entertainment value + 2 x historical significance + 1 x beauty of melody + 2 x intellectual stimulativity

but also as:

Greatness = 2 x replayability + 2 x depth of emotion + 1 x sincerity/integrity 2 x entertainment value + 1 x historical significance + 2 x beauty of melody + 1 x intellectual stimulativity

and in many other ways depending on person.

For me personally (and I would also TRY to be objective) greatness is defined like this =

*Greatness = 2 x replayability + 3 x depth of emotion + 4 x sincerity/integrity + 2 x entertainment value + 3 x historical significance + 2 x beauty of melody + 2 x intellectual stimulativity.
*
So maximum possible score is 20+30+40+20+30+20+20 = 180

On this scale Beethoven's Ninth would have

9th Symphony = 2 x replayability (9) + 3 x depth of emotion (10) + 4 x sincerity/integrity (10) + 2 x entertainment value (8) + 3 x historical significance (10) + 2 x beauty of melody (10) + 2 x intellectual stimulativity (9) = 18+30+40+16+30+20+18 = 172

While "You're The One That I Want" would have

You're The One That I Want = 2 x replayability (8) + 3 x depth of emotion (7) + 4 x sincerity/integrity (4) + 2 x entertainment value (10) + 3 x historical significance (6) + 2 x beauty of melody (9) + 2 x intellectual stimulativity (2) = 16+21+16+20+18+18+4 = 113

Using this scale the difference in greatness between 9th symphony and "You're The One That I Want" is relatively bigger (113 < 172)


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

wolf said:


> Hear, hear. It seems that people just can't differ between what is considered "better" intellectually, and "better" in that you love the music you listen to. The trouble with the likes of me is that we DO NOT want to hear Led Zeppelin, ever. Nor would I dream of putting on a CD with country, rap, rock, pretty tunes. They bore me. So why should I listen to it? I certaibly not condemn those who like it, nor do I run out of a room with other people around, when something like that is played.
> 
> But some of you would snort digustedly if someone told you that you should listen to rap, "you just have to listen to it in a different set of mind". If you absolutely deny this, why cannot the likes of me have the right to deny that we listen to Zeppelin in the wrong way, that we never ever can stand it? I for one, have listened to Hendrix and Zeppelin for many years, I know what hooked me, and it doesn't one bit anymore.
> 
> To love classical is allowed, but if you do not love anything else, then you must be a haughty one, only pretending not to like some sort of popular music, out of sheer snobbery...? That's what I always feel, even in a forum like this.


Like I said before. You want intellectual stimulation? Study mathematics, do not listen to music. Listening to music revolves around the pleasure to the ear. The intellectual stimulation of music compared to mathematics (or any other science, but mathematics is the most prominent example here) is very shallow.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Like I said before. You want intellectual stimulation? Study mathematics, do not listen to music. Listening to music revolves around the pleasure to the ear. The intellectual stimulation of music compared to mathematics (or any other science, but mathematics is the most prominent example here) is very shallow.


It's a vacuous response that equates 'intellectual stimulation' to mathematics. The ear is a useless organ by itself. It is the connection it has to the brain that gives meaning to the auditory stimulation. You remember the brain? The place where your intellect resides...?
GG


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

GraemeG said:


> It's a vacuous response that equates 'intellectual stimulation' to mathematics. The ear is a useless organ by itself. It is the connection it has to the brain that gives meaning to the auditory stimulation. You remember the brain? The place where your intellect resides...?
> GG


Like I said. Music was never meant to be an intellectual stimulation. Mozart, Bach, Chopin and all the rest of them were creating music for the pleasure of the people who paid them. Do you really think kings and queens were intellectuals? They were your regular joe - most of them would be working a regular job nowadays. They weren't "the elites" because of their intellectual superiority - it was because they constrained the masses.

Shakespeare didn't write his plays for intellectual stimulation - he wrote them to entertain the masses.

The intellectual stimulation of science is FAR superior to that of music which was never meant to be intellectual stimulation means (?) in the first place. Like it or not - you won't become an intellectual through listening to classical music. You may end up a snob, but certainly not an intellectual.

Being an intellectual comes down to what you do with your brain, how you use it - not what kind of music you listen to. I assune you are bad at mathematics and this is why my comment stings so much. You want to be seen as an intellectual and look for an easy way out - one that doesn't require you to use your brain. There's no shortcuts here, though.


----------



## Glaliraha (May 2, 2010)

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Like I said. Music was never meant to be an intellectual stimulation. Mozart, Bach, Chopin and all the rest of them were creating music for the pleasure of the people who paid them. Do you really think kings and queens were intellectuals? They were your regular joe - most of them would be working a regular job nowadays. They weren't "the elites" because of their intellectual superiority - it was because they constrained the masses.
> 
> Shakespeare didn't write his plays for intellectual stimulation - he wrote them to entertain the masses.
> 
> ...


Music was not meant to be anything but what people made of it. If a composer wants to make a piece of music he considered intellectual, then it is. If a listener interprets a piece of music as intellectual, then it is.

All music already exists. We simply have yet to discover it all.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Novels are printed on paper too...? In fact, many novels (Dickens, Dostoevsky) were originally published in newspapers as serials.


Och man, but novel is also name of genre, newspaper is not. "Newspaper" is like "book", it cointains writings like novel or articles but is not a writing itself, just like empty canvas is not a painting, right?



> Music is listening material. I love Wagner, Stravinsky, Beethoven. I also love Stevie Wonder, Bill Evans etc but I don't compare them. No point.


Okay, I see, you go back to your previous statement after avoiding counterargues and writing half-answers. You can't defend it. I love Bill Evans too.



> Mozart, Bach, Chopin and all the rest of them were creating music for the pleasure of the people who paid them.


I thought that Bach wrote his music to praise God. Chopin wasn't paid for his compositions. He was paid for piano lessons and stuff, he composed for something else than money. Lepiej kup sobie szybko tamtą biografie żeby nie strzelać wiecej takich numerów.



> Music was never meant to be an intellectual stimulation.


It was - by composers in recent times. Does their vision count less than baroque or classical composers, which, by the way, also had more diffrent ideas than just "to give ear a pleasure"?


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

Aramis said:


> I thought that Bach wrote his music to praise God. Chopin wasn't paid for his compositions. He was paid for piano lessons and stuff, he composed for something else than money. Lepiej kup sobie szybko tamtą biografie żeby nie strzelać wiecej takich numerów.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Sebastian_Bach

Says he was being paid for playing and composing.



> It was - by composers in recent times. Does their vision count less than baroque or classical composers, which, by the way, also had more diffrent ideas than just "to give ear a pleasure"?


Fair enough.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> Like I said. Music was never meant to be an intellectual stimulation. Mozart, Bach, Chopin and all the rest of them were creating music for the pleasure of the people who paid them. Do you really think kings and queens were intellectuals? They were your regular joe - most of them would be working a regular job nowadays. They weren't "the elites" because of their intellectual superiority - it was because they constrained the masses.
> 
> Shakespeare didn't write his plays for intellectual stimulation - he wrote them to entertain the masses.
> 
> ...


If you think that mathematics and science are the only forms of intellectual stimulation, then your understanding of words "intellectual" and "intelligence" is very limited. You focus only on one form of intelligence - mathematical and logical intelligence. What about other types of intelligence? You neglect them.

See this: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences

There are many types of intelligence such as:

* Spatial
* Linguistic
* Logical-mathematical
* Kinesthetic
* Musical
* Interpersonal
* Intrapersonal
* Naturalist

they all combined with General Intelligence or G factor constitute what we call intelligence.

For writing Shakespearean plays or Beethoven symphonies mathematical-logical intelligence is not very important, but, in case of Shakespeare, huge amount of interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence is needed, and in case of Beethoven, interpersonal, intrapersonal, music and even spatial intelligence is needed, and for both of them of course, G factor is needed as well.

The same way intelligence is needed for creating great works of art, it is also needed for appreciating the art.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> If you think that mathematics and science are the only forms of intellectual stimulation, then your understanding of words "intellectual" and "intelligence" is very limited. You focus only on one form of intelligence - mathematical and logical intelligence. What about other types of intelligence? You neglect them.
> 
> See this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences
> ...


Most theories of intelligence define it as a single entity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence

I'm not sure why I should adhere to the one that, not surprisingly, supports your claims.

My stance remains unchanged. Science is the true intellectual stimulation. Einstein, Gauss, Newton, Hawking and the like are in my eyes much more intelligent than, say, Mozart or Bach, or Chopin. Sure, I admire their works, but they cannot be compared with works of said scholars.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

It could be argued that for making great works of art even greater intelligence is needed than for science. Science begins and ends with pure logic. For creating great art you have to have both great logical abilities and understanding of inner workings of art and also good understanding of human condition. It isn't surprising that people who are regarded as greatest geniuses ever usually weren't scientists, or at least they weren't ONLY scientists.

See some lists of estimated IQs of some geniuses:

http://www.kids-iq-tests.com/famous2.html
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Cox300.aspx
http://www.free-iqtest.net/genius-iq.asp

As you can see, in many cases writers, artists, poets and composers have IQ that is greater than that of scientists.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> It could be argued that for making great works of art even greater intelligence is needed than for science. Science begins and ends with pure logic. For creating great art you have to have both great logical abilities and understanding of inner workings of art and also good understanding of human condition. It isn't surprising that people who are regarded as greatest geniuses ever usually weren't scientists, or at least they weren't ONLY scientists.
> 
> See some lists of estimated IQs of some geniuses:
> 
> ...


What are these websites? Are you trying to amuse me? Kids-iq-tests? You do know that these are estimates that have nothing to do with real IQ tests, right? IQ tests were devised in XX century.

These IQ scores are rough guesses based on... achievents. Last time I checked that's not how intelligence is measured. (Evenmoreso - measuring the IQ of a child is very inaccurate because some children develop faster than others, but that doesn't mean that in the end their intelligence will reach higher plateau. The fraction of child prodigies who have achieved great things in their adult life is compareable with the percentage of people who weren't given such nicknames.)

I've flicked through your list and most of the names listed are scientists... Swedenborg and Goethe were scientists, too.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

OK, even if science is a greater intellectual challenge than music (which it probably indeed is), it doesn't mean that music can't be intellectually challenging both when you listen to it, and even more so when you compose it.

There is no point in comparing these things. In some cases science is more challenging in some other cases music is more challenging. 

Some other arts such as literature can be even more challenging. Think about how great genius is needed to write novels such as Brothers Karamazov or Anna Karenina? Or Magic Mountain?

What about opera?

There you have combined great music with great drama.

What is the point of arguing that music (and other art) is less intellectually challenging than science?

Let's imagine that all intelligent people were dedicated to science and none to art. We would live in an incredibly boring world and we would know much less about human condition.

I could argue that you can learn more about psychology from Dostoevsky than from Freud and Jung.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> OK, even if science is a greater intellectual challenge than music (which it probably indeed is), it doesn't mean that music can't be intellectually challenging both when you listen to it, and even more so when you compose it.
> 
> There is no point in comparing these things. In some cases science is more challenging in some other cases music is more challenging.
> 
> ...


I'm not arguing with you. I'm arguing with the viewpoint that people listen to [classical] music for the intellectual stimulation/because it is intellectually challenging rather than for the mere pleasure of listening. Same goes for poetry and literature in general.

If one is looking for intellectual challenge when listening to music then one is looking in the wrong place. Sure, it may be so to some minor degree, but certainly nowhere near as much as science.

I'm not trying to diss musicians/composers/artists (I always try to give credit where it's due). What I'm trying to say is that proclaiming classical music's superiority over non-classical music based on the percieved intellectual superiority is laughable because that must be one of the worst criterium to judge music one can imagine.

As for psychology - I wish you hadn't brought it up. I'm an avid "psychology hater" (compareable to Temperance Brennan from the Bones series). I consider it unscientific (how can you extrapolate experiments performed on college students to the whole human race is beyond me).


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> If one is looking for intellectual challenge when listening to music then one is looking in the wrong place. Sure, it may be so to some minor degree, but certainly nowhere near as much as science.


The problem with your viewpoint is that you assume that intellectual challenges can only be judged by criteria of difficulty. So what is more difficult and more challenging - this is superior type of intellectual stimulation.
But in reality there are many substantially different TYPES of intellectual challenges. Reading Dostoevsky or Thomas Mann or Goethe is substantially different TYPE of intellectual activity from solving mathematical problems. By doing maths you can learn a lot about maths and exercise your brain in some abstract way, but you will learn absolutely nothing about other things. Do you really think that the only point of intellectual challenges is mere brain exercise?
If this is true, then people who want intellectual stimulation would only do maths or physics and never try any other type of intellectual endeavor.

By doing maths or some other logic puzzles you will NEVER challenge your mind in the same way as you do when you listen to Beethoven or read Goethe. Maths gives your brain some logic and general exercise, but maths is absolutely unstimulating to some other mental functions.

By assuming that the harder is always better, you dismiss everything but the hardest (such as theoretical maths or quantum physics).

This picture shows probably (one of) the hardest types of exercise:










But if you only do this, most of your muscles (such as leg muscles, pectoral muscles, abdominal muscles etc) will stay unstimulated and will NOT grow stronger and bigger.

If you only do chin-ups (probably the hardest type of physical exercise) but neglect all the other physical exercises you will not exercise and develop your body adequately.

If you only do maths and science (probably the hardest type of intellectual exercise) but neglect all the other types of intellectual stimulation you will not develop your mind in adequate and balanced way.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> The problem with your viewpoint is that assume that intellectual challenges can only be judged by criteria of difficulty. So what is more difficult and more challenging - this is superior type of intellectual stimulation.
> But in reality there are many substantially different TYPES of intellectual challenges. Reading Dostoevsky or Thomas Mann or Goethe is substantially different TYPE of intellectual activity then solving mathematical problems. By doing maths you can learn a lot about maths and exercise your brain in some abstract way, but you will learn absolutely nothing about other things. Do you really thing that the only point of intellectual challenges is mere brain exercise?
> If this is true, then people who want intellectual stimulation would only do maths or physics and never try other types of intellectual endeavors.
> 
> By doing maths or some other logic puzzles you will NEVER challenge your mind in the same way as you do when you listen to Beethoven or read Goethe. Maths gives your brain some logic and general exercise, but maths is absolutely unstimulating to some other mental functions.


I'm not talking about high school mathematics (or 'science'), which is closer to sudoku than to real, academic, higher mathematics.

Mathematics is probably the only objective way of describing reality. Read David Deutsch - quite possibly our reality is a purely mathematical reality.

As for the picture - I think deadlift and squats are much more demanding and WILL result in overall muscle growth - add to that flat bench press and you're good to go.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> Mathematics is probably the only objective way of describing reality. Read David Deutsch - quite possibly our reality is a purely mathematical reality.


If you want 100% objectivity, then it is true. But in order to have absolute mathematical objective view of reality you have to put enormous amount of data in your calculation (such as positions, speeds and energies of all subatomic particles, which is by the way, impossible to have, not only because of the limitations of technology but also because of Heisenberg's Uncertainity Principle) and you have to know all the correct physical equations which will describe the behavior of objects in reality.

Because it is impossible, we, sapient human beings MUST find other non-100%-objective ways of understanding reality. It is better to come to solution that is 90% true (using other approaches), then to TRY to come to solution that is 100% true (using only mathematics and physics) and fail.

Physicians are generally untalented for mathematics, but they have great intuition, great interpersonal communication abilities and great understanding of diseases which makes them very good at treating patients and curing illnesses.

Mathematicians, on the other hand are usually untalented for medicine.

(Of course there are exceptions that are talented for both maths and medicine)


----------



## 151 (Jun 14, 2010)

KaerbEmEvig said:


> I'm not talking about high school mathematics (or 'science'), which is closer to sudoku than to real, academic, higher mathematics.


So why don't you show us some maths which is more intellectually challenging than classical music?

so far, what you've typed has been child's play.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

151 said:


> So why don't you show us some maths which is more intellectually challenging than classical music?


Number theory? I could name every field of [higher] mathematics and my statement would hold true.

Say, Ulam spiral: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulam_spiral

Or Sacks spiral: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacks_spiral



> so far, what you've typed has been child's play.




???



Whistlerguy said:


> If you want 100% objectivity, then it is true. But in order to have absolute mathematical objective view of reality you have to put enormous amount of data in your calculation (such as positions, speeds and energies of all subatomic particles, which is by the way, impossible to have, not only because of the limitations of technology but also because of Heisenberg's Uncertainity Principle) and you have to know all the correct physical equations which will describe the behavior of objects in reality.


You have made an argument against determinism, not the mathematical approach to life. Chaos theory, probability and other things you've mentioned are still part of mathematics. Like I said - I urge you to read about David Deutsch's views. He considers the wavefunction to be the ultimate reality (in his eyes particles and such are like pixels on the screen of your LCD - reality - the computation behind those pixels; universe/multiverse is a purely mathematical entity that we see through its physical manifestation).

I'm talking about mathematical models that are used to describe basically anything. Mathematics can explain why we call Moonlight Sonata music and a working car engine noise.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

At the risk of opening a can of worms.

If there is a God I'm sure he/she/it is a mathematician!

Nooooo not another theological debate.....sorry!


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> I'm talking about mathematical models that are used to describe basically anything. Mathematics can explain why we call Moonlight Sonata music and a working car engine noise.


But there is no mathematical function or model that can create Moonlight Sonata out of thin air, or that can predict how the melody will progress if just several first notes are entered into calculation.
If it was that easy to create good music we wouldn't need composers. It would be enough to have good computer program, several mathematical models, and voila, computer creates music on its own.

Maybe it is already possible, but such programs are incredibly primitive, and all the masterpieces so far were composed by humans, not only in classical music, but in pop music as well.

Music is not just progression of melody or chords. It has emotion. It has to do with composers social views and philosophy. It contains deliberate musical jokes. It contains wit. It contains passion. Such things can hardly be achieved by mathematical modeling. Music is not just sounds and their properties and progression in time. There is no music without listener. Music is about how the sounds affect the listener. For the computer that plays a symphony, the sound it creates is meaningless - it's just string of zeros and ones. Only when I or someone else listens to the music it becomes alive and it have some meaning.

There is no computer program nor mathematical model that can predict 4th movement of a symphony if first three movements are known.

If we want to be absolutist, we can in the final instance reduce everything to matemathics. But such mathematics is so extremely advanced and complicated that no scientists will ever understand it.

Humor, emotion, passion, wit, etc. is created by interaction of 100,000,000,000 (100 billion) neurons in brain and each of them is connected with 10,000 others. It is huge number of neural connections. By the way interactions between neurons are far from simple. It's not like transistors and binary code. Interaction between just 2 neurons can happen in many, many different ways depending on the presence of certain chemicals, neurotransmiters, hormones, nutritients, general state of the neurons, etc, etc. One neuron is WAY more complicated than one transistor, and interaction between 2 neurons is much, much more variable then interaction between 2 transistors.

The only way for computer to compose symphony as great as Beethoven's Eroica is to be able to simulate entire brain of composer as great as Beethoven, including all neurons (to the subatomic levels) and all the interaction between neurons.

And even then, the job is not finished. Someone has to PERFORM this symphony, and this requires huge symphonic orchestra, talented and well trained musicians and conductor, etc. Do you know how complex and subtle are hand movements of someone playing violin?

So, in order to recreate in purely mathematical way great human achievements in art and other non-mathematical disciplines you need superhuman mathematics and extremely advanced computers, and extreme quantities of data that is unobtainable because of the very nature of reality (Hesisenberg Principle).

So, because it is almost theoretically impossible to create great art using just mathematics and to study other disciplines using only mathematical methods, WE MUST RESPECT OTHER HUMAN ABILITIES SUCH AS INTUITION, LANGUAGE, MOVEMENTS, INTERPERSONAL AND INTRAPERSONAL INSIGHT, EMOTION, BODY LANGUAGE, CREATIVITY, ART, MEDICINE, etc.

By the way what about ethics? Ethics can't be derived from mathematics! (except by simulation of the brain, which is also theoretically impossible) It's theoretically impossible. What about suffering? Numbers and mathematical patterns can't suffer. What about joy? etc, etc, etc...

So my position is that either

1) there is a lot of reality beyond mathematics and theoretically indescribable by purely mathematical methods

OR

2) In theory you can reduce everything to mathematics but this is practically impossible because of

a) enormous amount of data is needed
b) extremely advanced technology is needed
c) even if a) and b) are not issues any more there is STILL Heisenberg's Principle which prevents us from obtaining ALL the necessary data.
d) total and absolute knowledge of physics is needed (and maybe even this is impossible to gather because of Heisenberg's Principle and similar things)


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> But there is no mathematical function or model that can create Moonlight Sonata out of thin air, or that can predict how the melody will progress if just several first notes are entered into calculation.
> If it was that easy to create good music we wouldn't need composers. It would be enough to have good computer program, several mathematical models, and voila, computer creates music on its own.
> 
> Maybe it is already possible, but such programs are incredibly primitive, and all the masterpieces so far were composed by humans, not only in classical music, but in pop music as well.
> ...


I have the feeling you've missed the point and are not answering my post at all.

I never said anything you assert I did in the post above. I never said computers could emulate composers (but they can to some degree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cope already). Music is just that: 'progression of melody or chords', 'sounds and their properties and progression in time'. The rest is our brain.

You're arguing against points I did not even make. I never said determinism is correct (this is what you are trying to refute in your post basically).


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> have the feeling you've missed the point and are not answering my post at all.
> 
> I never said anything you assert I did in the post above. I never said computers could emulate composers (but they can to some degree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cope already). Music is just that: 'progression of melody or chords', 'sounds and their properties and progression in time'. The rest is our brain.
> 
> You're arguing against points I did not even make. I never said determinism is correct (this is what you are trying to refute in your post basically).


Then what are you trying to say?

I think that mathematics is just one of the ways to approach reality and not always the best way.
I think that mathematics is not the ultimate reality, but just a product of human mind that allows us to understand quantitative and spatial relations in reality.

Definiton of mathematics from Wikipedia:



> Mathematics is the study of quantity, structure, space, and change.


There are many other things beyond quantity, structure, space and change.

These other aspects of reality are treated by other sciences and especially by philosophy.


----------



## 151 (Jun 14, 2010)

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Number theory? I could name every field of [higher] mathematics and my statement would hold true.
> 
> Say, Ulam spiral: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulam_spiral
> 
> Or Sacks spiral: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacks_spiral


Thanks, that kept me occupied for about 5 seconds. All I see is a bunch of graphic equalisers.

Anything that can be represented in numbers can be represented in alternate forms.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

KaerbEmEvig said:


> My stance remains unchanged. Science is the true intellectual stimulation. Einstein, Gauss, Newton, Hawking and the like are in my eyes much more intelligent than, say, Mozart or Bach, or Chopin. Sure, I admire their works, but they cannot be compared with works of said scholars.


I don't know why you seem to want to equate 'intellectual stimulation' to either ultimate intellectual _challenge_, or becoming more 'intelligent'. I don't think any are arguing that case here, which you are so industrially trying to demolish.
What we're talking about is a more general stimulation; something that involves every part of your 'intellect' (or your soul, or spirit, or whatever unscientific sort of term you care to use).
This kind of thing, for instance. _Physics World_ Jan 2005. "Einstein and his love of music" by Brian Foster, Oxford Univ. An excerpt: "Music was not only a relaxation to Einstein,it also helped him in his work. His second wife, Elsa, gives a rare glimpse of their home life in Berlin. "As a little girl, I fell in love with Albert because he played Mozart so beautifully on the violin," she once wrote. "He also plays the piano. Music helps him when he is thinking about his theories. He goes to his study, comes back, strikes a few chords on
the piano, jots something down, returns to his study."
And:
"Towards the end of his life, as he felt facility leaving his left hand, he laid down his violin 
and never picked it up again. However, Einstein never lost his love for the instrument. 
As he once said, "I know that the most joy in my life has come to me from my violin".
regards,
G


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

151 said:


> Thanks, that kept me occupied for about 5 seconds. All I see is a bunch of graphic equalisers.
> 
> Anything that can be represented in numbers can be represented in alternate forms.


It's because you don't understand it. What do you expect me to show you when you are an ignorant fool? I can't show you anything more complicated because you won't understand one bit.

If the fact that prime numbers are not random and we can predict region prime-rich doesn't baffle you, then you are just that - an ignorant fool. If the fact that electrical current's behaviour can be described using an imaginary unit (i^2=-1) doesn't baffle you, then you are just that - an ingorant fool.

You are a snob who thinks he is an intellectual because he listen to certain kind of music. Laughable.



GraemeG said:


> I don't know why you seem to want to equate 'intellectual stimulation' to either ultimate intellectual _challenge_, or becoming more 'intelligent'. I don't think any are arguing that case here, which you are so industrially trying to demolish.
> What we're talking about is a more general stimulation; something that involves every part of your 'intellect' (or your soul, or spirit, or whatever unscientific sort of term you care to use).
> This kind of thing, for instance. _Physics World_ Jan 2005. "Einstein and his love of music" by Brian Foster, Oxford Univ. An excerpt: "Music was not only a relaxation to Einstein,it also helped him in his work. His second wife, Elsa, gives a rare glimpse of their home life in Berlin. "As a little girl, I fell in love with Albert because he played Mozart so beautifully on the violin," she once wrote. "He also plays the piano. Music helps him when he is thinking about his theories. He goes to his study, comes back, strikes a few chords on
> the piano, jots something down, returns to his study."
> ...


Fair enough. But you first need to be an intellectual to require intellectual stimulation. Otherwise the whole concept is void in my opinion. Listening to classical music doesn't make you one despite what 151 might think.



Whistlerguy said:


> Then what are you trying to say?
> 
> I think that mathematics is just one of the ways to approach reality and not always the best way.
> I think that mathematics is not the ultimate reality, but just a product of human mind that allows us to understand quantitative and spatial relations in reality.
> ...


By reality I mean the natural world, natural phenomena - not describing Shakespeare with mathematical models (which is possible, but quite stupid to say the least). You've changed the subject because we've been talking about approaches towards natural phenomena and I said that the best approach there is, is the mathematical approach because it is 100% objective and credible.


----------



## 151 (Jun 14, 2010)

KaerbEmEvig said:


> You are a snob who thinks he is an intellectual because he listen to certain kind of music. Laughable.


You don't know anything about me.

Intellectually challenging, yes, but no more than music. You might understand things through numbers which I take as being sounds. Every integer is a phonetic or a digit to me.

Say you do understand numbers, what do you intend to do with them?

You're an ignorant fool for not being able to understand music.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

151 said:


> You don't know anything about me.
> 
> *Intellectually challenging, yes, but no more than music.* You might understand things through numbers which I take as being sounds. Every integer is a phonetic or a digit to me.
> 
> ...


----------



## 151 (Jun 14, 2010)

was that your "Givemebreak" face?

.....

I actually had a psychotic experience with numbers, that's the reason for my avatar; 151.

I'll ask again, because I'm curious, what are you going to do with numbers?

I refer to everything as being musical so forgive my ignorance.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

151 said:


> was that your "Givemebreak" face?
> 
> .....
> 
> ...


If you think that music is more intellectually challenging than, say, topology, graph theory, theory of information, quantum mechanics, set theory or dynamical systems - then that is laughable. I suppose it's because you have no idea about higher mathematics. You think it looks the way it is done in high school.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> Fair enough. But you first need to be an intellectual to require intellectual stimulation. Otherwise the whole concept is void in my opinion. Listening to classical music doesn't make you one despite what 151 might think.


So you think that only Einstein, Hawking and the company should play chess, do crosswords, solve Rubik's cubes, read intelligent novels and plays, and, yes, listen to some music that is a little more advanced than Brittney Spears?

I am not a snob and I have never been. I don't think that listening to classical music will make me an intellectual. But I do think that listening to classical music will expand my mind in some way and will bring to me much pleasure.

Type of mind expansion that you can achieve through classical music, poems, plays and novels is theoretically unachievable through the sole study of mathematics.

If you spend your whole life just solving equations and wondering if prime numbers are randomly distributed among integers or not, you will too, end up being ignorant fool.

Do you really think that intelligence is only needed in mathematics and natural sciences???

You think that people who are great authors or composers are stupid just because they don't care too much about mathematics?

You think someone stupid could write Shakespearean plays or novels such as War and Peace?

I will tell you what is behind all reality - it is LOGIC. Mathematics is just one field in which logic is applied.

Without logic you can't write great novels, without mathematics you can.

And even if you have excellent knowledge and talent for mathematics, this is not guarantee that you will act intelligently in other aspects of life.

In my class in high school there were some students exceptionally talented for maths, they had all A's in maths and some of them even went to regional and state competitions. However, they were not so talented for other subjects. I write much better essays than my best friend who is way better than me in mathematics. Then again, there is my other friend who is so good in using the language, writing essays and understanding of literature, but he is not very interested in maths.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

BTW, all the official IQ tests are mainly based on purely LOGICAL questions. Some questions lean more into mathematical way of thinking, some other question lean toward verbal intelligence, analogies, and other verbal and non-mathematical ways of thinking.

If you made an IQ test that contains ONLY questions about maths, this test would be extremely inaccurate assessment of someones intelligence.

Some people who are quite stupid generally, but very talented for mathematics would have fantastic results on this test, while some others who are generally intelligent and well balanced, but without exceptional maths talents would end up as just average (or even below average).


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

Have you ever heard about wisdom and common sense.
Everyone has it to some degree, but in order to be really wise and to use your common sense in effective and flexible way you have to be very intelligent, and not in strictly mathematical sense.


----------



## 151 (Jun 14, 2010)

I'm laughable to you? You laugh at people who love music?

Do you talk to women this way? 

If I'm not mistaken, none of those theories are yours. Music is my way of understanding everything. I like to read books too but there's no real challenge to it.

I chose not to pursuit maths in _*grammar school*_, just like I chose music over Oxford/Cambridge. I'm actually not long out of 'high school.'

I'm very much interested in the practical application of science. I just think that high art is the same as high mathematics.


----------



## Boccherini (Mar 29, 2010)

151 said:


> I'm laughable to you? You laugh at people who love music?
> 
> Do you talk to women this way?
> 
> ...


Wow, what a quotation; Could you elaborate that statement?


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> So you think that only Einstein, Hawking and the company should play chess, do crosswords, solve Rubik's cubes, read intelligent novels and plays, and, yes, listen to some music that is a little more advanced than Brittney Spears?
> 
> I am not a snob and I have never been. I don't think that listening to classical music will make me an intellectual. But I do think that listening to classical music will expand my mind in some way and will bring to me much pleasure.


I didn't say you did. It was directed at 151 - read carefully. I noticed that you are a reasonable person, don't worry.



> Type of mind expansion that you can achieve through classical music, poems, plays and novels is theoretically unachievable through the sole study of mathematics.
> 
> If you spend your whole life just solving equations and wondering if prime numbers are randomly distributed among integers or not, you will too, end up being ignorant fool.


Mathematics is philosophy done scientifically. Mathematics isn't just numbers or equations. Quantum mechanics explains what we are made of. Uncertanity prinicple (mathematics, too) explains how it is possible that particles can appear out of nothing -so called virtual particles.

Energy-time uncertainty principle - at first one would think that all it means is that one cannot be certain of time and energy at the same time, but apparently this simple equation causes particles to spontanously appear and disappear in space devoid of any matter - mind-boggling.



> Do you really think that intelligence is only needed in mathematics and natural sciences???
> 
> You think that people who are great authors or composers are stupid just because they don't care too much about mathematics?
> 
> You think someone stupid could write Shakespearean plays or novels such as War and Peace?


Look, we are getting off-track here. I never intended to say what you imply I did. My point is - one should not discriminate against non-classical music and call it inferior for it's supposed intellectual inferiority. I have pointed out that the supposed difference is so small compared to the difference between music and science, that it isn't the best criterium to judge music by. That's it. That's all I'm trying to say.



> I will tell you what is behind all reality - it is LOGIC. Mathematics is just one field in which logic is applied.
> 
> Without logic you can't write great novels, without mathematics you can.


Mathematics is a language. The universal medium of logic.



> In my class in high school there were some students exceptionally talented for maths, they had all A's in maths and some of them even went to regional and state competitions. However, they were not so talented for other subjects. I write much better essays than my best friend who is way better than me in mathematics. Then again, there is my other friend who is so good in using the language, writing essays and understanding of literature, but he is not very interested in maths.


They don't teach mathematics in high school (I think I've made that clear earlier). all they teach you in high school is the basic mathematical apparatus. Mathematics is nothing like what they teach you in high school.

You are talking about people being good at calculations (because that's what they grade you for in high school - basically). Einstein sucked at calculations and yet he was a great mathematician. I suck at calculations and yet I'm somewhat (compared to people who have studied mathematics extensively I still suck) good at mathematics.

Mathematics isn't anything except a language one uses to describe reality. A language that anyone can understand and be certain of it's vocabulary. There are no exceptions, no ifs, no double meaning, no interpretation.



Whistlerguy said:


> Have you ever heard about wisdom and common sense.
> Everyone has it to some degree, but in order to be really wise and to use your common sense in effective and flexible way you have to be very intelligent, and not in strictly mathematical sense.


Common sense is your brain computing behind the screen based on your previous experiences.


----------



## The Cosmos (Oct 2, 2009)

KaerbEmEvig said:


> I didn't say you did. It was directed at 151 - read carefully. I noticed that you are a reasonable person, don't worry.
> 
> Mathematics is philosophy done scientifically. Mathematics isn't just numbers or equations. Quantum mechanics explains what we are made of. Uncertanity prinicple (mathematics, too) explains how it is possible that particles can appear out of nothing -so called virtual particles.
> 
> ...


Gosh man ! I've hardly even read through this thread, but you need to get high before writing your insights! It would make a lot more sense that way .


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> Mathematics is philosophy done scientifically. Mathematics isn't just numbers or equations. Quantum mechanics explains what we are made of. Uncertanity prinicple (mathematics, too) explains how it is possible that particles can appear out of nothing -so called virtual particles.


So you now dismiss all the other philosophers without mathematical background as unscientific? This is probably true for ancient philosophers, but in 20th and 21st century philosophy is extremely advanced and is far from unscientific. And contemporary philosophy is not the same thing as mathematics.

Logic is subfield of philosophy and mathematics is subfield of logic.



> Look, we are getting off-track here. I never intended to say what you imply I did. My point is - one should not discriminate against non-classical music and call it inferior for it's supposed intellectual inferiority. I have pointed out that the supposed difference is so small compared to the difference between music and science, that it isn't the best criterium to judge music by. That's it. That's all I'm trying to say.


Well, music itself is a science. There is a science called music theory. Without good knowledge of this science and without extensive study, Mozart and Beethoven would never be able to compose the things they did. If you are musically talented you can make a good pop song immediately without any studying of musical theory, but in order to write a symphony you have to be extremely well-trained and educated in field of music theory.

Things like melody, harmony, counterpoint, rhythm, orchestration, etc... are advanced disciplines studied in detail at music academies.

And there is no mathematician today nor in the past who is/was able to deduce all this science of music theory from pure mathematics.

Once I tried to compose music with notes arranged according to some very beautiful looking mathematical functions, but the result was miserable. It didn't sound good.



> Mathematics is a language. The universal medium of logic.


No. Mathematics is mathematics and language is language. Even books on mathematics are written in languages such as English, German, Spanish, etc. If you don't learn a natural human language such as English first, you can't learn mathematics. Try teaching topology someone who doesn't know any human language.

Language is much more fundamental thing then mathematics. Language is what is behind all reasoning, including mathematical reasoning.

Words come before maths.



> They don't teach mathematics in high school (I think I've made that clear earlier). all they teach you in high school is the basic mathematical apparatus. Mathematics is nothing like what they teach you in high school.
> 
> You are talking about people being good at calculations (because that's what they grade you for in high school - basically). Einstein sucked at calculations and yet he was a great mathematician. I suck at calculations and yet I'm somewhat (compared to people who have studied mathematics extensively I still suck) good at mathematics.


You say it because you haven't attended MY high school. We learned much more in mathematics then simple calculations.

We learned theorems and we learned how to prove them. We learned about geometrical constructions (some of which are quite advanced). We learned a lot about geometry in general (and not just things such as calculating area of circle or volume of cube or pyramid) We learned about integrals and differential equations. We had many problems to solve that were not just about solving simple equations or calculations. We learned about real world applications of some maths etc. We combined different fields of maths in solving some problems, etc.



> Common sense is your brain computing behind the screen based on your previous experiences.


Yes, but this computation is MUCH more advanced than even the most advanced theoretical mathematics today. We are still unable to mathematically describe reasoning, common sense, emotions, wisdom, etc.

Even if we construct a computer that could simulate the entire brain one day, we will still be unable to understand inner workings of the brain.

We will just input enormous amount of date in computer and it will run based on this data and simple physical equations. It will work, but we will still be unable to know the principles of human mind. (And not even the computer running the simulation will know it - the same way as computer can play symphony from MP3 file, but from its point of view it is just string of 1s and 0s - the computer doesn't understand the symphony that it is playing)


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> So you now dismiss all the other philosophers without mathematical background as unscientific? This is probably true for ancient philosophers, but in 20th and 21st century philosophy is extremely advanced and is far from unscientific. And contemporary philosophy is not the same thing as mathematics.


Never said that. Their philosophy can still be described the way the ancient philosopher did it.



> Logic is subfield of philosophy and mathematics is subfield of logic.


I think that this statement is untrue. Yes, logic emerged from philosophy, but it certainly is not a subfield of philosophy - it is the tool one uses to conduct philosophy. Mathematical logic is a mathematical approach to logic, which means that it is logic spoken in the mathematical language: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics#Notation.2C_language.2C_and_rigor

Logic is subfield of epistemology, which can be studied using mathematics (there even is a mathematical proof that it is impossible to know everything - not sure how they've done it, though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems).



> Well, music itself is a science. There is a science called music theory. Without good knowledge of this science and without extensive study, Mozart and Beethoven would never be able to compose the things they did. If you are musically talented you can make a good pop song immediately without any studying of musical theory, but in order to write a symphony you have to be extremely well-trained and educated in field of music theory.
> 
> Things like melody, harmony, counterpoint, rhythm, orchestration, etc... are advanced disciplines studied in detail at music academies.


I know that (I've mentioned that several times in this thread). To be frank - music theory is field of mathematics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_theory#Mathematics



> And there is no mathematician today nor in the past who is/was able to deduce all this science of music theory from pure mathematics.


I think you are not aware how far mathematics reaches. Read the Wikipedia article about music theory. Melodies, rythms, scales, pitches - it's all mathematics. Composers are mathematicians despite their narrow interests in mathematics (music theory).



> Once I tried to compose music with notes arranged according to some very beautiful looking mathematical functions, but the result was miserable. It didn't sound good.


Not sure what you are trying to say here. I've explained it many times and seems it's not getting to you yet. Mathematics isn't what you were taught in high school. Read a book about higher mathematics and you might understand. Equations are a VERY small fraction of what people mean by the term mathematics. It is a drop of water in the ocean we call mathematics.



> No. Mathematics is mathematics and language is language. Even books on mathematics are written in languages such as English, German, Spanish, etc. If you don't learn a natural human language such as English first, you can't learn mathematics. Try teaching topology someone who doesn't know any human language.


Ok, this is so wrong. Have you ever attended a mathematical analysis lecture? It can be conducted without speaking a single word. It would look like this (note, this is just an example that has nothing to do with mathematical analysis):









Sheets and sheets of paper with 'weird' symbols written all over them. Not a single word in a language other than mathematics. Do you think that mathematical theorems are written in English? No, they are written using mathematical language. Sure they can be transcribed to another language, but that would be pointless - it would only reduce the number of potential readers. This is the main reason mathematical notation was devised starting from 16th century.



> Language is much more fundamental thing then mathematics. Language is what is behind all reasoning, including mathematical reasoning.
> 
> Words come before maths.


I think you are getting a bit too far. It's obvious you haven't studied quantum mechanics and particle physics. Our reality is a mathematical reality. We are made of particles and particles are wavefunctions, which are characterised by probability distribution - that's pure mathematics.

Mathematics is a field of science but at the same time it is also a language: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics#Notation.2C_language.2C_and_rigor



> You say it because you haven't attended MY high school. We learned much more in mathematics then simple calculations.
> 
> We learned theorems and we learned how to prove them. We learned about geometrical constructions (some of which are quite advanced). We learned a lot about geometry in general (and not just things such as calculating area of circle or volume of cube or pyramid) We learned about integrals and differential equations. We had many problems to solve that were not just about solving simple equations or calculations. We learned about real world applications of some maths etc. We combined different fields of maths in solving some problems, etc.


Look, geometrical constructions are still just calculations. Whether you represent them as equations or geometrical constructs does not matter in the least. Integrals and differential equations are still just calculations.

I am talking about real, higher mathematics and it's obvious you haven't touched that at all or you wouldn't have made many of your statements because they are simply not true.

Read the Wikipedia article (whole of it): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics and you will see for yourself. Read the Wikipedia article on music theory and you will see for yourself that it is a tiny subfield of mathematics.



> Yes, but this computation is MUCH more advanced than even the most advanced theoretical mathematics today. We are still unable to mathematically describe reasoning, common sense, emotions, wisdom, etc.


I think you are not aware how far this kind of research has gone. We are able to reproduce rat's brain with computer: http://www.popsci.com/scitech/artic...brain-spontaneously-develops-complex-patterns

I think you are talking about things you do not know much about and this results in so many false statements.



> Even if we construct a computer that could simulate the entire brain one day, we will still be unable to understand inner workings of the brain.


Wrong. Another false statement.



> We will just input enormous amount of date in computer and it will run based on this data and simple physical equations. It will work, but we will still be unable to know the principles of human mind. (And not even the computer running the simulation will know it - the same way as computer can play symphony from MP3 file, but from its point of view it is just string of 1s and 0s - the computer doesn't understand the symphony that it is playing)


If consciousness will arise in an artificial [computer simulation of the] brain then we will know for sure that consciousness is the product of neurons firing and neurons producing complex networks.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_and_mathematics

http://www.cut-the-knot.org/language/index.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_and_art


----------



## 151 (Jun 14, 2010)

Like I was trying to explain before,

maybe your knowledge of high mathematics isn't quite high enough if you can't think of an intellectually challenging way to understand music.

You can't be saying that the most intellectually challenging thing is to read about quantum mechanics and the sort, theories which have been approved because that would be self-defeating. You have to work out some things for yourself. You're obviously the type to live by book definitions rather than experimenting and experiencing things for yourself.

What kind of observations have you made?

What is going on in your mind now which is more intellectually challenging than my idea of music?


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> I know that (I've mentioned that several times in this thread). To be frank - music theory is field of mathematics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_theory#Mathematics


Music theory is not a FIELD of mathematics. It is just very closely related to mathematics. Why don't mathematicians study counterpoint on mathematics departments of university? Why aren't the greatest composers mathematicians? Why didn't Gauss or Newton or Einstein write fantastic symphonies?



> I think you are not aware how far mathematics reaches. Read the Wikipedia article about music theory. Melodies, rythms, scales, pitches - it's all mathematics. Composers are mathematicians despite their narrow interests in mathematics (music theory).


Composers are not mathematicians (OK some people are both composers AND mathematicians) but you don't become mathematician automatically by being composer. I am sure there are many great composers who don't give a damn about mathematics.
Also, good knowledge of music theory is not enough for writing good music. It's not just simple theory. It's not just complicated theory too. There is also intuition, creativity, musical jokes, emotions, etc.
What about program music? It is designed to express non-musical ideas. Vivaldi's Four seasons, Beethoven's 6th symphony and ALL operas have subject matter that is beyond music and outside music.










This is not language of mathematics in any absolute idealized sense. It is just language that people invented in order to describe mathematical concepts. There is no "language of mathematics". In order to understand these symbols someone had to explain their meaning to you in natural language such as English. Without explanation and without knowledge about meaning of these symbols (which were all invented and described by people through conventions) they are meaningless.



> It's obvious you haven't studied quantum mechanics and particle physics. Our reality is a mathematical reality. We are made of particles and particles are wavefunctions, which are characterised by probability distribution - that's pure mathematics.


I haven't studied it on advanced academic level, but I have read a lot about these things and it's very fascinating subject matter for me. But I am not going to jump to conclusions such as "mathematics is the ultimate reality". Mathematics is just a science that people invented and I don't want to elevate it to the status of religion.



> Read the Wikipedia article (whole of it): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics and you will see for yourself. Read the Wikipedia article on music theory and you will see for yourself that it is a tiny subfield of mathematics.


You are going too far. You could argue that everything is just a tiny subfield of mathematics. Then why don't all people just study mathematics? Why don't we close all the other university departments?
What is the point of studying literature, diplomacy, art, history, rhetoric, biology, chemistry, medicine, music, etc. Why don't just study mathematics?
The problem is that mathematics doesn't (and can't) cover everything.


> I think you are not aware how far this kind of research has gone. We are able to reproduce rat's brain with computer: http://www.popsci.com/scitech/articl...mplex-patterns


Yes we can! But this is just imitation and simulation. We entered all the physical data about neurons in the computer together with physical equations that describe their behavior and, of course, it works on computer. But we don't know HOW and WHY it works.

We can absolutely understand how Windows Vista works, because every single line of code is known and we also know what is the meaning and the function of the every single line of code.

But we can't know how brain works.

The farthest we can go in understanding how brain works is to COPY its code by scanning the brain and entering obtained data together with physical equations in computer and turn the computer on. Computer will work and it will reproduce the behavior of brain, but we will still NOT UNDERSTAND THE CODE ITSELF.



> If consciousness will arise in an artificial [computer simulation of the] brain then we will know for sure that consciousness is the product of neurons firing and neurons producing complex networks.


Maybe it will arise, maybe it won't.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

But even if it does arise, we will still don't know the real nature of the consciousness and its inner workings.

All that we achieve with this is

obtain the code (scanning the brain)
obtain the programs that will run the code (physical equations)
enter the code and equations in the computer

This is still far from understanding the code. The only thing that we would achieve in this way is the transfer of the process of cognition and consciousness from one medium (physical brain) to another medium (digital computer). But the process itself remains completely mysterious to us.

In order to really UNDERSTAND the process behind consciousness we have to study it directly and use other methods not only mathematics, and it is much harder to achieve than simulating the brain.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

If mathematics was so useful in music, anyone could be a great composer. All you would have to do is to learn mathematical foundations of music and apply it to composing. And yes, you would compose BEAUTIFUL MUSIC. It would be perfectly harmonious and pleasing to ear. But it would lack deeper meaning, emotions, passion etc, unless you are indeed talented.

Mathematics can ASSIST us a lot in writing music. But mathematics alone is not enough for writing great music.

I could bet that some great musical ideas can't be derived just from the knowledge of mathematics.

Give me ONE mathematical theory or function that would be able to exactly deduce just the simple motive of 40th Mozart's symphony.










Derive it from maths. Give me mathematical function that can describe this. Give me mathematical theory that can unambiguously explain why all the notes in this motive should have exactly the pitch and duration that they have, and why they should be exactly in that order and not in some other.

Try to explain this motive mathematically the best that you can. And remember this is just a simple motive, which is very small in comparison to the whole symphony.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> Music theory is not a FIELD of mathematics. It is just very closely related to mathematics. Why don't mathematicians study counterpoint and mathematics departments of university? Why aren't the greatest composers mathematicians? Why didn't Gauss or Newton or Einstein write fantastic symphonies?


You are confusing things quite a lot lately. Music theory is a field of mathematics because pitch, rythm, harmony and scales are all mathematical concepts whether you like it or not. Why mathematicians don't study counterpoint? For the same reason they don't study protein folding or compound chirality (both are applied mathematics) - those are very specific cases of applied mathematics.

I think you aggression comes from the fact you do not understand what mathematics really is. You cling to the notion that you were taught mathematics at high school - no, you were not. You haven't seen real mathematics in your life, I'm afraid. Have you ever seen the show called Numb3rs? Even though it contains many errors, it is still a lot closer to mathematics than what you've seen in high school is.

http://members.cox.net/mathmistakes/music.htm

http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~fiore/1/musictotal.pdf

Music theory is a mathematical approach to music, that's what it is.



> Composers are not mathematicians (OK some people are both composers AND mathematicians) but you don't become mathematician automatically by being composer. I am sure there are many great composers who don't give a damn about mathematics.
> Also, good knowledge of music theory is not enough for writing good music. It's not just simple theory. It's not just complicated theory too.


If they use music theory which uses mathematical concepts, then yes - they are in some way mathematicians. Sure, they do not deal with.

Mathematical models (people who use them are to some degree mathematicians): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_model

Applied mathematics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Applied_mathematics

Noticed "mathematics of music" among the applied mathematics fields?

You've started making straw-man arguments already. I never said that a firm grasp of music theory is enough to create great pices of music. I suppose it is so because you were unable to refute my claims and thus had to change them considerably. How about you respond to my posts and not your twisted version of my posts?



> This is not language of mathematics in any absolute idealized sense. It is just language that people invented in order to describe mathematical concepts. There is no "language of mathematics". In order to understand these symbols someone had to explain their meaning to you in natural language such as English. Without explanation and without knowledge about meaning of these symbols (which were all invented and described by people through conventions) they are meaningless.


Someone had to describe English to you, too - I think you are forgetting that fact. You were taught English by mimicry. That is also how they teach mathematics. What's the difference? There's none. English is just arbitrary as the language of mathematics.

There is a language of mathematics and I've already proved that by supplying you with links to Wikipedia articles. Remember, I will not repeat myself for the third time - two times should be sufficient:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_as_a_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics#Notation.2C_language.2C_and_rigor

If you repeat this ******** again I will simply ignore your posts knowing that your are unable to partake in a discussion.



> I haven't studied it on advanced academic level, but I have read a lot about these thongs and it's very fascinating subject matter for me. But I am not going to jump to conclusions such as "mathematics is the ultimate reality". Mathematics is just a science that people invented and I don't want to elevate it to the status of religion.


You don't have to jump to these conclusions - i don't value your opinion as much as I value opinion of Hawking, Deutsch, Everett and many others. Surprised?



> You are going too far. You could argue that everything is just a tiny subfield of mathematics. Then why don't all people just study mathematics? Why don't we close all the other university departments?
> What is the point of studying literature, diplomacy, art, history, rhetoric, biology, chemistry, medicine, music, etc. Why don't just study mathematics?
> The problem is that mathematics doesn't (and can't) cover everything.


I am going too far? I'm simply paraphrasing genius known by the name Carl Freidrich Gauss: "Königin der Wissenschaften" - "the Queen of the Sciences". Biology, chemistry and other natural sciences are simplification of mathematics. They still use mathematical models - just cover most of it with words.

We have models for population growth, for disease spread. It's all mathematics. We have models of brainwaves - mathematics yet again. Harmony and acoustics are subfields of mathematics. I never said we should drop all of the simplifications. I never said we should cover history using mathematics. You are yet again making an assertion I said things I did not say.



> Yes we can! But this is just imitation and simulation. We entered all the physical data about neurons in the computer together with physical equations that describe their behavior and, of course, it works on computer. But we don't know HOW and WHY it works.
> 
> But we can't know how brain works.
> 
> The farthest we can go in understanding how brain works is to COPY its code by scanning the brain and entering obtained data together with physical equations in computer and turn the computer on. Computer will work and it will reproduce the behavior of brain, but we will still NOT UNDERSTAND THE CODE ITSELF.


I think you did not understand the experiment. The experiment shows that neuronal activity happen spontanously. Neurons form networks by themselves. Brainwaves (alpha, beta, gamma) appear spontanously.

The experiment was about simulating only 10,000 neurons (small region of rat's brain) with a supercomputer. A high end desktop is needed to simulate just a single neuron because they are simulating particle behaviour.

How it works? Spontanously, that's how it works. Neurons fire and form networks spontanously. That's the final answer. Why it works? Because laws of physics allow it to - that's the best answer you can get for such an unscientific question.



> Maybe it will arise, maybe it won't.
> See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
> 
> ...


No, it remains mysterius to those who expect something more than "neurons firing". Most biologists don't, most neuroscientists don't, I don't - I assume you do. Fair enough - you might be disappointed with the results then.

I think people who conduct these experiments and study the brain know better than you - don't you think? I don't think you are in the position to tell them they're wrong.



Whistlerguy said:


> If mathematics was so useful in music, anyone could be a great composer. All you would have to do is to learn mathematical foundations of music and apply it to composing. And yes, you would compose BEAUTIFUL MUSIC. It would be perfectly harmonious and pleasing to ear. But it would lack deeper meaning, emotions, passion etc, unless you are indeed talented.
> 
> Mathematics can ASSIST us a lot in writing music. But mathematics alone is not enough for writing great music.
> 
> ...


You are yet again asserting I said things I did not say. I never said composers are talentless - far from it. This shows that you haven't touched higher mathematics and explains your poor understanding of mathematics (and I'm not trying to offend you here, just stating a fact - don't take it as an insult). Mathematics doesn't work like that: insert data, get results. Mathematics is tied to philosophy. There is a huge list of unsolved problems in mathematics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conjectures


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

Maybe you are right about the random nature of the inner workings of brain. It is probably true, but it is somewhat disheartening. And still, it's debatable is the mechanism of brain really random or IT JUST APPEARS RANDOM AT THE LEVEL OF SINGLE NEURONS.

Will we ever understand how is apparently random firings of neurons related to articulated logical thoughts such as:

"I like Italian culture" or "Seven plus two equals nine".

When I refer to inner workings of mind (and brain) I am wondering about qustions such as:

In which way is apparently random interaction of billions of neurons related to our apparently organized, logical mind and to our articulated thoughts and judgments such as "Seven plus two equals nine." ?

In computer programming we know exact relationship between the code and the working of program and the output.

Will we ever know the relationship between physical function of brain (billions of neurons and their connections and interactions) and content of our mind which appears highly logical, organized and intelligent and is able to make range of judgements from very simple

"Two plus two equals four"

to extremely advanced and abstract such as

"I wonder how inner workings of brain relate to output of our mind"

This is very advanced thought in which our mind wonders about its own nature.

-------
Now, on other topic.

You convinced me that basic musical concepts such as scales are BASED on mathematics.

But there is a lot more in music than can be described by mathematics.

What composers know (and mathematicians don't) is how to use these very concepts and tools effectively and creatively to achieve desired results. This can't be learned through study of mathematics.



> I am going too far? I'm simply paraphrasing genius known by the name Carl Freidrich Gauss: "Königin der Wissenschaften" - "the Queen of the Sciences". Biology, chemistry and other natural sciences are simplification of mathematics. They still use mathematical models - just cover most of it with words.
> 
> We have models for population growth, for disease spread. It's all mathematics. We have models of brainwaves - mathematics yet again. Harmony and acoustics are subfields of mathematics. I never said we should drop all of the simplifications. I never said we should cover history using mathematics. You are yet again making an assertion I said things I did not say.


Also, ONLY NATURAL sciences can be described as simplifications of PHYSICS (not mathematics - mathematics is just tool to describe physics and other sciences). But what about other disciplines?

What about ethics? How to describe it mathematically?

How to define mathematically "good" and "evil"?

You can mathematically describe the mass of 1 kilogram.

But until the stone of this mass hits you into your head you can't really understand what 1 kilogram means.


----------



## Glaliraha (May 2, 2010)

This thread is killa.


----------



## 151 (Jun 14, 2010)

2:45 Re-state my assumtions. 
1. Mathematics is the language of nature. 
2. Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers. 3. If you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge, therefore there are patterns everywhere in nature.

A quote from the film, Pi.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> ...


I apologize for not including your post, but you have left too much blank space and it would be tiresome to edit the whole thing.

Will we ever know the inner workings of our brain? Depends on whether Moore's Law will hold true for the upcoming decades (it probably will as we already have materials that can surpass silicon - now we need an affordable technology of mass production); maybe quantum computation will be better at simulating the brain, I have no idea (I bet people who devise them do).

Random isn't the right word - spontanous is much, much better.

Actually, aesthetics can be studied using mathematics (golden ratio - I'm sure you must have heard of it; it's the positive solution of the following equation: x^2-x-1=0; the equation comes from yet another equation: (a+b)/a=a/b=x => a=bx => x=(bx+b)/bx => bx^2-bx-b=0 => x^2-x-1=0; it also the the limit of the ratios of successive terms of the Fibonacci sequence - it is equal to (sqrt5+1)/2 ).

Golden ratio can also be found in nature: http://www.google.com/images?um=1&h...io+nature&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&start=0

Isn't that beautiful? It's no wonder pentagrams have been ascribed magical powers - they are full of golden ratio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagram#Golden_ratio

Aesthetics are tied to mathematics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_beauty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_and_art

Did you know that Chopin's Nocturnes and Etudes follow the rule of the golden ratio or the Fibonacci sequence (note that Chopin himself was probably not aware of that fact; same goes for Debussy and many others)?

I am all for the behaviouristic approach to ethics as it explains decissions one would call immoral going by the book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Ethics can be studied using mathematics, too - Game Theory.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

I understand that mathematics is connected to art. I understand that it can be very useful in art. I know that aesthetics is connected with mathematics.

But I am certain that mathematics can't describe all art nor all aesthetics.

Mathematical approach is not enough for full understanding of art.

Also, sometimes artists intentionally choose imperfect or "ugly" (dissonant, disharmonic) elements in order to suggest some emotions.

And sometimes they combine ugly and beautiful elements in ways that are more beautiful than each of them on their own.

I know mathematics is great and important, but you are overrating it a little.

You can learn all about Fibonacci sequences, golden rations and other mathematical aspects of art, but this will not transform you into Beethoven or Picasso.

Some aspects of ethics can certainly studied using mathematics. But, mathematics is just tool in this case. Mathematics can't define fundamental ethical concepts.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

If mathematics is so powerful, can you explain why Gauss, Euler, Einstein and the like aren't greatest artists?

And why such geniuses like Da Vinci and Goethe didn't dedicate most of their time to mathematics (of course, they did study mathematics to some extent, but it wasn't their primary focus)


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> If mathematics is so powerful, can you explain why Gauss, Euler, Einstein and the like aren't greatest artists?
> 
> And why such geniuses like Da Vinci and Goethe didn't dedicate most of their time to mathematics (of course, they did study mathematics to some extent, but it wasn't their primary focus)


It's called interest. By the way - Da Vinci was an engineer first and foremost. Despite having scored very high on my maturity exam in the field of physics, I don't find down to Earth physics all that interesting (contrary to quantum physics and the like).

(I don't mean to brag. I took physics, mathematics, biology, chemistry, English and native Polish all on extended level - without studying; scored 90% in physics, 84% in mathematics, 68% in biology [most likely full score in physiology, genetics and microbiology, complete lack of knowledge of botany, which really bores me], 32% in chemistry [basically only physical chemistry], 95% in English/100% in spoken English, 70% in Polish/90% [spoken] in topic presentation; wanted to see how much I've understood and remember after high school.)

Right now I study biotechnology to fill the gaps in my understanding of chemistry and biology.

I think that neuroscientific approach is fully capable of understanding ethics and aesthetics and as we've agreed - all natural sciences stem from mathematics for the word itself stands for "learning, study, science" (from the Greek μάθημα (máthēma)).

I hope to work in the field of pharmacology (and get a Ph.D. in this field), which is closely related to mathematics (especially combinatorics and geometry in general) now that we can produce basically any compound with little effort.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> I think that neuroscientific approach is fully capable of understanding ethics and aesthetics and as we've agreed - all natural sciences stem from mathematics for the word it self stands for "learning, study, science" (from the Greek μάθημα (máthēma)).


No they are all derived from physics, and mathematics is just tool used for studying physics.

BTW, during the course of history physicists were usually smarter than mathematicians (and more respected).

People like Einstein, Tesla, Hawking, Newton, etc were primarily physicists. (Of course they were great in mathematics too, especially Newton who made significant contributions in pure mathematics as well)

Also, in many cases for great scientific discoveries and especially for inventions there is a lot of things needed beyond the knowledge of mathematics.

What about chemistry? It's exact science and very advanced science. It is based on physics and it uses a lot of mathematics, but it developed its own methods (which are beyond the scope of mathematics) that give accurate results in most cases, and its applications are extremely numerous. (pharmacy, metalurgy, plastics, etc)


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> No they are all derived from physics, and mathematics is just tool used for studying physics.


Depends on how we define mathematics. Sure, it is the tool and the language of physics, but it can be a science in its own right. The quotation above (the one from the movie Pi) explains this connection very nicely - mathematics is the language of nature - from hurricanes, through shells and bones to flower petals. I adhere to the definition that mathematics is the Queen of Sciences and that all natural sciences stem from it.



> BTW, during the course of history physicists were usually smarter than mathematicians (and more respected).
> 
> People like Einstein, Tesla, Hawking, Newton, etc were primarily physicists. (Of course they were great in mathematics too, especially Newton who made significant contributions in pure mathematics as well)


I don't think you can separate the two. Physicists were ALWAYS mathematicians. The field of physics cannot exist without mathematics (wether verbal like Arabic Algebra or non-verbal European post-16th century mathematics). Quantum mechanics is basically pure mathematics because it eludes common sense.

Take a look at the list of great/famous mathematicians:

http://www.famousmathematician.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematicians

Who do you see? Einstein, Newton, Boltzmann, Morse, Bohr, Born, Hawking (physicists), Zuse, Turing (computer theorists).

Why they had ineterests other than pure mathematics? Because back then countries did not have enough money for something as abstract as pure mathematics - people needed things that could be readily applied to real life. They needed immidiate results and physics could provide that. Back then people were interested in many different fields because we didn't know as much as we do now. Nowadays specialisation is needed.



> What about chemistry? It's exact science and very advanced science. It is based on physics and it uses a lot of mathematics, but it developed its own methods (which are beyond the scope of mathematics) that give accurate results in most cases, and its applications are extremely numerous. (pharmacy, metalurgy, plastics, etc)


It still uses mathematics, just avoids using numbers and variables. I study biotechnology and have the insight from the inside. Let's be frank - it's because chemists usually suck major balls when it comes to using mathematical apparatus that is devoid of words.

Take for example this problem: find the integer factors in the reaction of gold with aqua regia. It can be done the standard, 'non-mathematical' (it is still a mathematical approach in disguise, though) way or the purely mathematical way:

Au + NO3- + H+ + Cl- → AuCl4- + NO2 + H2O

a) redox reactions - the usually used method

b) assign variables to compounds/particles:

x Au + y NO3- + 2z H+ + 4x Cl- → x AuCl4- + y NO2 + z H2O

Derive linear equations from the reaction based on specific particles/charge:

O: 3y=2y+z => y=z
charge: -y+2z-4x=-x => 3x=2z-y=2y-y=y => 3x=y

X is our parametre - we can choose it freely: let's say x=1 => y=z=3

This means our reaction must have following integers:

1 Au + 3 NO3- + 6 H+ + 4 Cl- → 1 AuCl4- + 3 NO2 + 3 H2O

That's the correct answer.

Now, the approach that uses redox reactions (which are still mathematics just devoid of the mathematical vocabulary) assumes that you know these reaction. It is useless when dealing with completely novel reactions.

The universal, mathematical approach that uses linear equations (I have devised this method on my own in high school) doesn't require the user to even understand what the reaction means.

When dealing with more than 3 variables (really complicated reactions) one can use the determinant to solve the linear equations. I know I'm right here because I've scored a perfect 10/10 on this, when half of the lab class scored 0/10 and the rest didn't go past 5/10. Why? Precisely because we were given reactions we have never seen before.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

Check this :
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=191399&sectioncode=1

It deals with blind worship of mathematics.

Excerpt from this text:



> "Einstein memorably remarked in 1921 that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality". "


You said:


> Why they had ineterests other than pure mathematics? Because back then countries did not have enough money for something as abstract as pure mathematics - people needed things that could be readily applied to real life. They needed immidiate results and physics could provide that. Back then people were interested in many different fields because we didn't know as much as we do now. Nowadays specialisation is needed.


It's ridiculous. You are actually saying that they would all study only pure mathematics if they weren't forced economically to study other things?

This is really ridiculous.

Why, then, today, in 21st century, in the most economically developed countries so many intelligent people study other things and not only mathematics.

According to your theory I would expect that anyone living in Sweden or Switzerland with IQ higher than 150 would study only mathematics and nothing else.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> Check this :
> http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=191399&sectioncode=1
> 
> It deals with blind worship of mathematics.
> ...


What I'm saying is that physics was held in higher regard than pure mathematics because it gave immidiate results. Machines, cars, bridges, buildings. As I have pointed out - every great physicist was also a great mathematician. The gains from advancements in pure mathematics are much more ethereal, so to speak.

An interesting article, but it makes it clear that it deals with an outcast in the society of scientists. Sure, Einstein could have said that, but that doesn't undermine the fact his theories were purely mathematical (he couldn't possibly have reached speeds approaching the speed of light, could he?).


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

Do you know that physics itself greatly influenced development of mathematics and that some branches of pure mathematics are intentionally developed in order to help in the advancement of physical theories?

IMO, the most ethereal thing is philosophy. It deals with fundamental nature of reality, knowledge, reasoning, logic etc. Physics is also extremely important because it also deals with fundamental nature of reality, but in more down to earth way and without asking metaphysical questions.
Mathematics is IMO artificial invention of people that obeys laws of logic and that is extremely good at predicting many things about physical world.

I would define mathematics as "logical fiction" because some of the mathematical objects and concepts are just fiction, because they can't be applied to reality and don't even exist in reality.
However this fiction is extremely logical and coherent, and it is extremely successful when used in natural sciences such as physics.

Mathematics is, IMO, extremely advanced tool, mental machine, (or software) that we run by using our brain and that allows us to calculate and to predict many great things about the nature. But, in the first place mathematics itself was invented by this mind and by people.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> Do you know that physics itself greatly influenced development of mathematics and that some branches of pure mathematics are intentionally developed in order to help in the advancement of physical theories.


Of course I do know that.=] What's the point of owning a Porsche if you have no highways to break the speed limits on, lol.



> IMO, the most ethereal thing is philosophy. It deals with fundamental nature of reality, knowledge, reasoning, logic etc. Physics is also extremely important because it also deals with fundamental nature of reality, but in more down to earth way and without asking metaphysical questions.
> Mathematics is IMO artificial invention of people that obeys laws of logic and that is extremely good at predicting many things about physical world.


If you look at nature, you will know that the language of nature is mathematics. I've shown you the pictures of animals and plants such as sunflowers. There's a field called sociophysics. The name is a bit confusing because the field is about using mathematical models to predict social behaviours (such as civil wars, ethnic cleanses, wars - yes, we can predict them, too).

Quantum mechanics and general relativity are at the core of physics and they are purely mathematical concepts. The multiverse theory (I urge you to read Everett) is also a purely mathematical concept.



> I would define mathematics as "logical fiction" because many of the mathematical objects and concepts are just fiction, because they can't be applied to reality and don't even exist in reality.
> However this fiction is extremely logical and coherent, and it is extremely successful when applied to natural sciences such as physics.


I think the above statement is far-fetched. Nowadays applied mathematics includes so called pure mathematics disciplines (such as number theory => cryptography):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_mathematics

Pure mathematics can be considered a forge of tools that we will need later on. You see, the imaginery unit is part of pure mathematics and yet it is abundant in equations that decribe natural phenomenon we call electrical current.



> Mathematics is, IMO, extremely advanced tool, mental machine, (or software) that we run by using our brain and that allows us to calculate and to predict many great things about the nature. But mathematics itself was invented by this mind and by people.


I don't think we can say that we have invented mathematics - more like, we have invented its vocabulary. Mathematics exists on its own. General relativity equations are true whether or not someone has formulated them - the same goes for wavefunctions of quantum mechanics.

BTW, I'm glad we have basically come to an agreement. You are one of the few people who were able to discuss without resorting to insults or ad-hominem arguments.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> General relativity equations are true whether or not someone has formulated them - the same goes for wavefunctions of quantum mechanics.


This is highly debatable. And even if they are true, there is the question why are they true?

All the physics is based on experiments and observations. Through observation we make hypotheses and then we form theories (using mathematics) and then we try to prove the theories with more experiments.

However all the judgments of physics are a posteriori.

All the laws of physics are formulated through induction.

If we see that the stone has fallen every time we drop it, we assume it will behave in the future in the same way. This is basically inductive reasoning. And this is behind all physics.

However, inductive reasoning isn't logically valid. There is nothing in the logic that prevents reality from obeying physical laws. Obeying physical laws is from the purely logical point of view as reasonable and as logical as not obeying them.

Our belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is just that - a belief, and not knowledge. This belief is based on assumption (inductive reasoning) that the nature will continue to obey the same physical laws. At the same time obeying them is not logical necessity.

This rises new and fundamental question?

Why nature always behave in the same way and obeys the same laws, even if we know that this is not the only logically possible scenario?

Logically, it would be perfectly possible, for example, that different set of laws of physics is valid for each day of the weak.

But, so far, it seems that nature always obeys the same laws. Why is that so?

I think there are two possible answers:

either

a) we live in computer simulation, so that all the physical laws and equations are entered in the computer that runs the simulation and no one has yet decided to modify these equations in the program. Many questions about the nature of such computer could be asked.

or

b) there is God who asserts His will through forcing the nature to always obey His laws of physics.
(maybe this could also explain miracles, and they would be defined as extraordinary situations in which God allows nature to behave in ways that are in conflict with laws that are usually valid)


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> This is highly debatable. And even if they are true, there is the question why are they true?
> 
> All the physics is based on experiments and observations. Through observation we make hypotheses and then we form theories (using mathematics) and then we try to prove the theories with more experiments.
> 
> ...


Or there is an infinite number of possible computer simulations and we happen to be in one of them. David Deutsch (among many others).

I think why laws do not change is because of a phenomenon called symmetry breaking. The state in which all possible routes (to different sets of laws) are possible is unstable and even a single slightest perturbation (say dE*dt>=h Energy-Time Uncertanity Principle) will cause the symmetry to break and form a stable system (one with constant laws).

In my opinion the Many-Wolrds Interpretation (one that proposes a Multiverse instead of a Universe) adheres to Ockham's Razor the most. It explains why our set of laws allows for life - because there's an infinite number of worlds, etc.

It's very hard to explain - you should really read Everett's work and books by David Deutsch.


----------



## 151 (Jun 14, 2010)

Interesting last couple of posts!

What do you two think of this article? It was in the newspaper yesterday.



> "The key to unravelling the Plato Code lies in a Greek musical scale of 12 notes popular among followers of the earlier philosopher Pythagoras."


----------



## wolf (May 16, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> It's ridiculous. You are actually saying that they would all study only pure mathematics if they weren't forced economically to study other things?
> 
> This is really ridiculous.
> 
> According to your theory I would expect that anyone living in Sweden or Switzerland with IQ higher than 150 would study only mathematics and nothing else.


Nono, not Sweden or Switzerland, Norway or Switzerland. Sweden imported by far the must muslims in any European country - in % of population - so they aren't so rich now.

But I have to agree with Whistlerguy here, although his opponent certainly strikes me as being super-intelligent, why is it that anyone with intelligenc is supposed to care about mathematics only? I, for one, can easily understand advanced science, more in biologics and physics than in math really. Intellectual stimulation is important, but if I - as I really do - am getting more pleasure, more stimulation and euphoria, by listening to Mozart, why should I have to have a carreer in mathematics? If I read an article of something very complicated, it can give me pleasure, and I do understand it! But since listening to Bach or Mozart is more exhilarating, does that imply that I have to be less intelligent then KarbEwig? Could Einstein, even if he tried all his life write anything like Bach? No. Even if he wanted to, he couldn't.

Mozart as a tiny kid, was very interested in math, but the euphoria that music produced in him - noone in musical history has worshipped music more than Mzt - was so great that he chose a carreer in it. Who says that if he had chosen a carreer in mathematics, he wouldn't have been great at it? Don't judge him because of his vulgarities, why should he have to be very interested in mathematics, when composing stimulated him by far the most? If his father had forced him to be a mathematician, who says that he couldn't or wouldn't, *in the end, after years of studies and company with other scientists*, have sounded as intellectual as KarbEwig here?

I shouldn't have started this useless thread, so many clever folks in here - Whistler Guy, KarbEwig, Earthling and others, have such good arguments, but they will never agree on the main issue. Nor will I. In my heart I agree with Aramis though...


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I think a lot of success in classical music has to do with people wanting to feel superior by listening to what is more "intellectual music". Not saying that applies to anybody posting here, but there are a lot of people throughout history who would attend classical performances as a class thing, not because they understood the details or even enjoyed the music. In the end, you can add up all the intricate things in classical music done with music theory and what not, but if it isn't good music I'm not going to listen to it. I find Beethoven and several other composers to be "catchy". Then again sometimes I find songs consisting of jangling keys to be catchy and stuck in my head. Some artists composing in music genres that might be considered "popular music" do pay very close attention to the details that go into their songs, and some of them even know music theory. Of course the approach to composition is different in different genres. The sounds are different, made with different instruments for different purposes. Other genres are just as emotionally stimulating as classical music or have a lot of technical parts to them. Genres such as jazz, post-rock or math rock, although not approaching classical music in the extensive use of music theory. Some classical music is written with a purpose in mind to showcase certain aspects of music theory, which I find really interesting to listen to. However, I prefer a composer who can take those aspects and turn it into a solid piece of music.


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

Cnote11 said:


> I think a lot of success in classical music has to do with people wanting to feel superior by listening to what is more "intellectual music". Not saying that applies to anybody posting here, but there are a lot of people throughout history who would attend classical performances as a class thing, not because they understood the details or even enjoyed the music.


This can not be overstated. It is, and probably always will be, inherit part of classical music culture. A matter of class either in terms of education/intelligence or money or social influence or whatever. Sometimes I see people who listen to classical music without even enjoying, as people who buy expensive sport gear without even one mile run.

In that sense, is it important whether non-classical art can be as good as classical if we can't enjoy the classical art as much as someone can enjoy non-classical? I know a guy who never listens to any classical music, but has a blues band and has 3 albums out already (many of his own songs, and some remakes) and thus has far more "artistic life" than I will ever have. The right question is the question of our ability to properly "consume" art - classical or non-classical.

I do have some understanding for people who are a bit zealot-like due to the fact that classical music is their profession. I can't always recognize those people either in life or on forums, but I do understand that fear for job has to be ventilated.

Also, in real life, I aviod mentioning that I listen to classical music, I wish I kept that secret even from my paretns and sister (yes, they also have prejudices on classical music).

edit: not really a secret for family, secret is a strong word - they know i listen to it but we never talk about it. and for most of my friends, it actually is a secret.


----------



## motpasm23 (May 30, 2009)

Cnote11 said:


> I think a lot of success in classical music has to do with people wanting to feel superior by listening to what is more "intellectual music". Not saying that applies to anybody posting here, but there are a lot of people throughout history who would attend classical performances as a class thing, not because they understood the details or even enjoyed the music.


Have you read Adorno? If not, check out "the fetish character of music and the regression of listening." At least I think that's what it's called...it's been a couple years. Unfortunately that same sentiment creates the counter-effect of people rejecting classical music because they don't want to be perceived as (old-fashioned) snobs.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

motpasm23 said:


> Have you read Adorno? If not, check out "the fetish character of music and the regression of listening." At least I think that's what it's called...it's been a couple years. Unfortunately that same sentiment creates the counter-effect of people rejecting classical music because they don't want to be perceived as (old-fashioned) snobs.


Link?

http://www.musiccog.ohio-state.edu/Music839B/Approaches/Adorno.html - this? I'm not sure because it's rather short.


----------



## motpasm23 (May 30, 2009)

KaerbEmEvig said:


> http://www.musiccog.ohio-state.edu/Music839B/Approaches/Adorno.html - this? I'm not sure because it's rather short.


That's it. Didn't realize it was online, I read it for a class on culture and society in college. His writings on music are very interesting, from both a philosophical and musical perspective. This is probably one of his more famous and interesting essays, and it's even a short read.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I think a lot of success in classical music has to do with people wanting to feel superior by listening to what is more "intellectual music". Not saying that applies to anybody posting here, but there are a lot of people throughout history who would attend classical performances as a class thing, not because they understood the details or even enjoyed the music.

This can not be overstated. It is, and probably always will be, inherit part of classical music culture. A matter of class either in terms of education/intelligence or money or social influence or whatever. Sometimes I see people who listen to classical music without even enjoying, as people who buy expensive sport gear without even one mile run.

There has always been a social status aspect connected with art... but this is a true of heavy metal or rap or Elizabethan poetry as it is of classical music. Certainly... there are many for whom the social status is the most important aspect. They listen to a given music because its cool or trendy or the girls like it or it lends an aura of sophistication to the listener/participant. Even within the realm of "classical" music there may be those who continually praise the latest music because it makes them look so much more "with it" or current than others... or who conversely embrace the most obscure medieval music because "no one else listens to this stuff and it makes me unique." But seriously... I imagine that few who participate in an online dialog about classical music are merely posers. Who are they going to impress here? In all likelihood I presume most who participate in the discussions here are passionate about a form of music and wish to share this enthusiasm with others, and thrill to the idea of engaging in discussions with others who share their passion.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I think a lot of success in classical music has to do with people wanting to feel superior by listening to what is more "intellectual music". Not saying that applies to anybody posting here, but there are a lot of people throughout history who would attend classical performances as a class thing, not because they understood the details or even enjoyed the music.
> 
> This can not be overstated. It is, and probably always will be, inherit part of classical music culture. A matter of class either in terms of education/intelligence or money or social influence or whatever. Sometimes I see people who listen to classical music without even enjoying, as people who buy expensive sport gear without even one mile run.
> 
> There has always been a social status aspect connected with art... but this is a true of heavy metal or rap or Elizabethan poetry as it is of classical music. Certainly... there are many for whom the social status is the most important aspect. They listen to a given music because its cool or trendy or the girls like it or it lends an aura of sophistication to the listener/participant. Even within the realm of "classical" music there may be those who continually praise the latest music because it makes them look so much more "with it" or current than others... or who conversely embrace the most obscure medieval music because "no one else listens to this stuff and it makes me unique." But seriously... I imagine that few who participate in an online dialog about classical music are merely posers. Who are they going to impress here? In all likelihood I presume most who participate in the discussions here are passionate about a form of music and wish to share this enthusiasm with others, and thrill to the idea of engaging in discussions with others who share their passion.


Sure, but some maz just as well be passionate snobs.


----------

