# What is "Profundity"?--Revisited!



## Strange Magic

Back in 2016, we had a wonderful exchange of views on the nature of profundity in the arts. The whole objectivist/subjectivist thang was aired as part of the discussion, as was the linked Understanding versus Appreciating a work. These topics have a life of their own, but I enjoyed this thread very much and trust that others might also. Just my opinion. But just try the first page....

See 4chamberedklavier's post below for link to old thread.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

Strange Magic said:


> Back in 2016, we had a wonderful exchange of views on the nature of profundity in the arts. The whole objectivist/subjectivist thang was aired as part of the discussion, as was the linked Understanding versus Appreciating a work. These topics have a life of their own, but I enjoyed this thread very much and trust that others might also. Just my opinion. But just try the first page....
> 
> www.talkclassical.com/threads/what-is-profundity?


Just a minor correction, if you don't mind - here's a typo in the url (not the displayed text). It's also missing the numbers at the end, so it redirects to an error page. This url should work: What is "profundity"?


----------



## Strange Magic

4chamberedklavier said:


> Just a minor correction, if you don't mind - here's a typo in the url (not the displayed text). It's also missing the numbers at the end, so it redirects to an error page. This url should work: What is "profundity"?


Thank You Very Much!


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> Back in 2016, we had a wonderful exchange of views on the nature of profundity in the arts. The whole objectivist/subjectivist thang was aired as part of the discussion, as was the linked Understanding versus Appreciating a work. These topics have a life of their own, but I enjoyed this thread very much and trust that others might also. Just my opinion. But just try the first page....
> 
> www.talkclassical.com/threads/what-is-profundity?


I've long had the notion that the greats of the 1700s and 1800s were so different from us today.

For JsB, what was profound in his view of reality? Probably his religion. 
LvB? Probably his God concept along with his views of humans (politics, morals, human ignorance).
Schubert, Chopin, Catholicism?

But they couldn't know how they came to be alive, or their place in this big universe. We know better today (but we're kept humble because we don't have a complete theory of physics or cosmological origins).

I've never thought much about this wide chasm, because music is such a big subject for me by itself.


----------



## EdwardBast

What is it? Dictionary definitions are fine as they are. How do they apply to music? In complex ways that require analytical skills, aesthetic sophistication, and usually 8.000 or more words to explain for any given work. Hundreds of analyses and critical commentaries address the profundity of individual works, though often without mentioning that specific word. Many hear the profundity of musical works without having what it takes to explain it in words. Hardly surprising for a nonverbal art form.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

What's most interesting to me is how many of the arguments in that thread are almost verbatim of the ones being made in recent threads, even though some different posters are making them. As much as things change the more they stay the same, I guess. I'm fine viewing profundity as a deeply personal experience. I can analyze works I feel are profound--Tristan und Isolde, Neon Genesis Evangelion, War & Peace, Paradise Lost, Vertigo, Mozart's 41st Symphony, etc.--until the cows come home, but at the end of the day such analysis doesn't matter much unless one feels it on a gut level.


----------



## Strange Magic

My Post #19 from the original thead.........

I'm not at all sure the the noun "profundity" can be applied to music, in an attempt to categorize it. It seems best to reserve the terms "profound, profundity" to truly illuminating, penetrating insights or discoveries that pierce through a jumble of seemingly isolated and discrete facts about reality and reveal to us an underlying deep truth that knits together many disparate facts into a unity. Examples would be the Theories (using the term as scientists use it) of Special and General Relativity, Evolution by Natural Selection, Plate Tectonics, and many recently verified discoveries in astronomy and cosmology. These are profound. There are areas of mathematics that are profound, and doubtless others will bring forth other examples. But Music? Art? We find ourselves back again in a forest of tautologies and of competing definitions and of opinions about who was great, what was great, or deep or profound. However, in cante flamenco for instance, where the song can be very jondo or grande, the measuring rod is simpler and generally accepted: to what extent does the performance, delivered within the recognized confines and accepted usages of the art form, move the listener, directly, emotionally, to empathetic sorrow, tears? Maybe not the same as the Eroica, but the criterion for profundity is clearly laid down here. In the more formal arts, such clarity of criteria is rarely found and often widely disputed.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> My Post #19 from the original thead.........
> 
> I'm not at all sure the the noun "profundity" can be applied to music, in an attempt to categorize it. It seems best to reserve the terms "profound, profundity" to truly illuminating, penetrating insights or discoveries that pierce through a jumble of seemingly isolated and discrete facts about reality and reveal to us an underlying deep truth that knits together many disparate facts into a unity. Examples would be the Theories (using the term as scientists use it) of Special and General Relativity, Evolution by Natural Selection, Plate Tectonics, and many recently verified discoveries in astronomy and cosmology. These are profound. There are areas of mathematics that are profound, and doubtless others will bring forth other examples. But Music? Art? We find ourselves back again in a forest of tautologies and of competing definitions and of opinions about who was great, what was great, or deep or profound. However, in cante flamenco for instance, where the song can be very jondo or grande, the measuring rod is simpler and generally accepted: to what extent does the performance, delivered within the recognized confines and accepted usages of the art form, move the listener, directly, emotionally, to empathetic sorrow, tears? Maybe not the same as the Eroica, but the criterion for profundity is clearly laid down here. In the more formal arts, such clarity of criteria is rarely found and often widely disputed.


Great compositions of music could be called profound (by me) because humans have used the physics all around them to express themselves, ascent up through their long history.

The greatest mystery is not
that we have been flung at random
among the profusion of the earth
and the galaxy of the stars,

but that in this prison,
we can fashion images of ourselves,
sufficiently powerful,
to deny our nothingness!

Andre Malraux


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> My Post #19 from the original thead.........
> 
> I'm not at all sure the the noun "profundity" can be applied to music, in an attempt to categorize it. It seems best to reserve the terms "profound, profundity" to truly illuminating, penetrating insights or discoveries that pierce through a jumble of seemingly isolated and discrete facts about reality and reveal to us an underlying deep truth that knits together many disparate facts into a unity. Examples would be the Theories (using the term as scientists use it) of Special and General Relativity, Evolution by Natural Selection, Plate Tectonics, and many recently verified discoveries in astronomy and cosmology. These are profound. There are areas of mathematics that are profound, and doubtless others will bring forth other examples. *But Music? Art? We find ourselves back again in a forest of tautologies and of competing definitions and of opinions about who was great, what was great, or deep or profound...*


When I first saw the title of this OP, my first thought was (given the 2 past l-o-n-g threads): clickbait. The above confirms it (to me anyway). What can possibly be said here that hasn’t been in those preceding threads?


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Luchesi: *
> but that in this prison,
> we can fashion images of ourselves,
> sufficiently powerful,
> to deny our nothingness
> 
> Andre Malraux


A very fine passage from Malraux! The American poet Robinson Jeffers (whose brother was an astronomer of repute) spent most of his life and work on the place of humankind in the universe. He thought that people spent far too much time on celebrating their special place and specialness, speaking at times of humanity's incestuous relationship with itself. He preached constantly of the need for humankind to turn outward instead and to learn to cherish the great outer world/universe all around them. He and Malraux would have had an interesting discussion.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> When I first saw the title of this OP, my first thought was (given the 2 past l-o-n-g threads): clickbait. The above confirms it (to me anyway). What can possibly be said here that hasn’t been in those preceding threads?


DaveM, we can count on you always to question the motives and attitudes of other posters and posts. You are free to pass on this thread, and thus bury it in the oblivion you think it deserves.


----------



## Strange Magic

Again, from the original thread:

:[Another poster] posits that profundity in art does not differ from profundity in what he terms philosophy, by which I suppose he subsumes science as a branch of philosophy. But then he states that the elements of reality to which art refers belong to a world of internal reality, which is to say they are subjective in nature. We are again in "a world of feeling", with all that implies, because your feelings may differ profoundly from mine. But I propose that [that poster] offer an example of a profound piece of art (let's specify that this be a painting or piece of sculpture), and we can consider whether it be profound or not in the sense that I propose that plate tectonics or the concept of an expanding universe is profound. I think the difference will be clear.

I personally have no problem with accepting that anyone can postulate that any piece of music or art is profound, if we simultaneously state that the term may have no real significance "objectively"-- it is merely convention to express our subjective personal preferences.[,,,,,,] The well of subjectivity may be deep indeed, and our experience of its waters quite moving, but that we ought not allow our primary definition of profundity to be tied to such variable and uncertain phenomena as personal experience; it is an exact parallel with our previous discussions on "greatness" in art.:


----------



## Becca

Apparently I had this to say back in 2016...

_"I think that the key to the concept of being profound is that the word root and early usage meant having deep insight into a topic. However, as with so much else in language, particularly in recent times, the word has been increasingly used in different contexts where the original meaning would be less applicable, e.g. music and art. As a result the meaning of the term has become very fuzzy. This then brings us directly to Becca's First Law of Threads - the fuzzier the word/concept, the longer the thread."_

Things haven't changed.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> DaveM, we can count on you always to question the motives and attitudes of other posters and posts. You are free to pass on this thread, and thus bury it in the oblivion you think it deserves.





Strange Magic said:


> But Music? Art? We find ourselves back again in a forest of tautologies and of competing definitions *and of opinions about who was great, what was great,* or deep or profound.


Well, the motive is obvious and IMO disingenuous so yes, I’ll pass on it. Nice try with the gaslighting though.


----------



## Strange Magic

Becca, the old saying is "Not new jokes, just new audiences". We have a host of new members for whom this is fresh material. And you know that I regard spirited discussion to be a key part of posting on TC.


----------



## Forster

My instinct is to say that profundity is seriously overrated.The serious and the tragic are, for reasons best known to the tragedians in particular, accorded greater importance than the smile and the laugh. Humour is just as valid a part of the human experience, but note how many comedians want to be "taken seriously"...literally.


----------



## Mandryka

EdwardBast said:


> What is it? Dictionary definitions are fine as they are. How do they apply to music? In complex ways that require analytical skills, aesthetic sophistication, and usually 8.000 or more words to explain for any given work. Hundreds of analyses and critical commentaries address the profundity of individual works, though often without mentioning that specific word. Many hear the profundity of musical works without having what it takes to explain it in words. Hardly surprising for a nonverbal art form.


Is there not a Lacanian tendency in contemporary musicology? Alastair Williams, Seth Brodsky, possibly Slavoj Zizec. I’ve tried and failed to make much headway but I’d like to - you need to be part of a university environment to get initiated into it I think.

The composer Wolfgang Rihm is very interesting too vis-a-vis psychological profundity in music, though very few of his writings have appeared in English. He’s quite articulate about how his music was influenced by ideas about psychological profundity. He was impressed by Antonin Artaud, The Theatre of Cruelty.


----------



## Mandryka

Strange Magic said:


> Back in 2016, we had a wonderful exchange of views on the nature of profundity in the arts. The whole objectivist/subjectivist thang was aired as part of the discussion, as was the linked Understanding versus Appreciating a work. These topics have a life of their own, but I enjoyed this thread very much and trust that others might also. Just my opinion. But just try the first page....
> 
> See 4chamberedklavier's post below for link to old thread.


One idea maybe worth thinking about is that there are aspects of the normal human mentality which are more or less suppressed by mainstream culture, to such an extent that the subject is barely conscious of them, and music in performance can tap into them, bring them to the surface. Sound, especially the ritualised juxtaposition of sounds, effects people. I would say there are examples in Sofronitsky, something like the way he plays the Schumann’s opus 11 sonata seems to me deep. Constantin Sylvestri’s Missa Solemnis another deep musical performance.


----------



## Woodduck

I suspect that this thread exists mainly for the purpose of keeping the contentious "objective/subjective" controversy alive for those who can't get enough of repeating themselves. I'll try to avoid falling into that trap by offering a caution: the term "profound" in art is commonly used to mean nothing more than "very moving to me." If that's all it's going to come down to - and that would be consistent with the view that all artistic judgments are valid only for the individual making them - then we can all just agree that "profundity" in art is essentially a vacuous and useless notion, and save ourselves and each other some time we can spend more profitably elsewhere.

Personally, I don't happen to think that "profundity," as applied to art, is merely a pretentious way of referring to a personal emotional reaction. I think some works of art are capable of conveying much more complex meanings and resonances - both emotional and intellectual - than others, meanings and resonances which, although they won't be identical for all perceivers, can be seen and explored. For example, people will never stop exploring Shakespeare's plays and Wagner's operas - the books keep being written and published - while there will never be a need to say a word about vast numbers of works that give every bit as much pleasure. The profundity in art lies not in "how much it means to me" - i.e., how much I like it - but in the _range of meanings_, and in _what kinds of meanings_, it is seen to be capable of conveying and provoking.

This view does of course assume that art actually has the capacity to mean something, with the corollary that the range of meanings a given work will convey is determined to a major degree by the nature of the work - which is to say, that meaning is not merely something imposed by the audience. I must therefore call the following statement (from post #6 above) of no value to our understanding:

_"I'm fine viewing profundity as a deeply personal experience. I can analyze works I feel are profound--Tristan und Isolde, Neon Genesis Evangelion, War & Peace, Paradise Lost, Vertigo, Mozart's 41st Symphony, etc.--until the cows come home, but at the end of the day such analysis doesn't matter much unless one feels it on a gut level."_

Analyses of works of may have little immediate value to those who don't "feel it on a gut level," but one would be a fool to dismiss the perceptions of thoughtful individuals whose deeply felt observations might awaken us to things we hadn't realized were there until we were given a key with which to unlock their secrets. Anyone who's achieved any significant level of appreciation of any art has surely benefitted from the insights of others. Personally, I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to thinkers who have assisted in my awakening to depths of meaning I might otherwise have come to perceive more slowly, if all.


----------



## Woodduck

Forster said:


> My instinct is to say that profundity is seriously overrated.The serious and the tragic are, for reasons best known to the tragedians in particular, accorded greater importance than the smile and the laugh. Humour is just as valid a part of the human experience, but note how many comedians want to be "taken seriously"...literally.


Humor isn't all the same. It can be shallow or deeply resonant - "profound," in a sense. We can laugh at slapstick and sex jokes, or we can laugh at penetrating satire that acknowledges the tragedy of life.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> :[Another poster] posits that profundity in art does not differ from profundity in what he terms philosophy, by which I suppose he subsumes science as a branch of philosophy. But then he states that the elements of reality to which art refers belong to a world of internal reality, which is to say they are subjective in nature. We are again in "a world of feeling",* with all that implies, because your feelings may differ profoundly from mine.* But I propose that [that poster] offer an example of a profound piece of art (let's specify that this be a painting or piece of sculpture), and *we can consider whether it be profound or not in the sense that I propose that plate tectonics or the concept of an expanding universe is profound.* I think the difference will be clear.


As the "other poster," I will caution you against assuming you know what others mean and reporting on their views without checking to be sure you're not misrepresenting them. I take exception to the words I've put in bold above. "With all that implies" may not mean the same thing to you as it does to me (in fact I'm sure it doesn't), and neither I nor anyone else (to my knowledge) has ever suggested that art can be profound _"in the sense"_ that a scientific theory can be. The task is to say in what sense the word can be used of art. I've attempted to make an approach to that question before, and I do so here in post #19.



> I personally have no problem with accepting that anyone can postulate that any piece of music or art is profound, if we simultaneously state that the term may have no real significance "objectively"-- it is merely convention to express our subjective personal preferences.[,,,,,,] The well of subjectivity may be deep indeed, and our experience of its waters quite moving, but that *we ought not allow our primary definition of profundity to be tied to such variable and uncertain phenomena as personal experience; *it is an exact parallel with our previous discussions on "greatness" in art.:


Who is the "we" that ought not to allow exactly what? What is the "primary" definition that we ought not to apply? Why shouldn't the word "profound" refer to personal experience? Words are words, not things. They mean what they are used to mean. Defending your personal favorite definition of "profundity" may not be a worthwhile project.


----------



## Strange Magic

Taking a look at Edmund Burke and his _Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful, _here is Wikipedia: "According to Burke, _the Beautiful_ is that which is well-formed and aesthetically pleasing, whereas _the Sublime_ is that which has the power to compel and destroy us. The preference for the Sublime over the Beautiful was to mark the transition from the Neoclassical to the Romantic era."

Equating the Sublime with the Profound for the purposes of this discussion (and I think the link is very sound), we might link the Beautiful with Joy and with Pleasure while Burke tells us that notions of the Sublime are linked to awe and terror--terror of death included. When the thoughtful and the observant contemplate the vastness of nature and of the universe, there is a subconscious (or sometimes conscious) realization that our powers are as nothing compared with the solemnity and awesomeness of extra-human reality. We see things such as the Grand Canyon, see distant stars and galaxies, contemplate the endless rotation of the Earth and the orbiting of our moon about Earth and of Earth and the other planets around the sun, and contemplate the sun's inner furnace endlessly fusing hydrogen into helium for the billions of years that the solar system has existed, the enormous grandeur and inexorability of the greater outer world can easily lead to that Burkean Terror of death, of the idea of the puniness and irrelevance of our existence, that we could be crushed like insects by the enormous forces and structures around us.

The surest pathway to the Sublime (aka the Profound) and its realization by us is through science. Science gives us both the tools to discover and to observe more fully the full extent of that inhuman grandeur around us, and also through the working out of sound though always incomplete explanations and realizations of the nature of these enormous phenomena. Einstein, upon observational confirmation--by an eclipse of the sun and the bending of starlight around it--said that something snapped inside him--a cusp experience--as he contemplated the phenomenon itself but also this confirmation of his General Theory of Relativity. Carl Sagan remarked that the realization that the sun was a star (and his first view through a telescope of Saturn) were the catalysts that suddenly compelled him to become an astronomer.

So I repeat my thesis that profundity/sublimity in the Burkean sense is not really present in the arts to anywhere the degree that it is in science. The "Theories" of Relativity, the Expanding Universe, Plate Tectonics, Evolution, so many more, are what inspire, for me anyway, the most accurate and intense feelings of profundity.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Woodduck: "*Who is the "we" that ought not to allow exactly what? What is the "primary" definition that we ought not to apply? Why shouldn't the word "profound" refer to personal experience? Words are words, not things. They mean what they are used to mean. Defending your personal favorite definition of "profundity" may not be a worthwhile project."


The "we" is Us a la Pogo. The general, corporate Us. I have given, just above, a structured way of understanding the Profound as a general reaction of awe and of terror to the extra-human universe all around us. This universe is capable of being recognized and agreed upon by *all* with the wit to do so, whereas in Art that is not the case--there, the discussions and disagreements are never-ending and what art is profound is strictly in the eye and mind of each observer.

I deliberately used [another poster] to depersonalize our disagreements.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Forster said:


> My instinct is to say that profundity is seriously overrated.The serious and the tragic are, for reasons best known to the tragedians in particular, accorded greater importance than the smile and the laugh. Humour is just as valid a part of the human experience, but note how many comedians want to be "taken seriously"...literally.


What would this mean then?:
"Wagner is known for his music’s ability to transform, and _Meistersinger _fails in this respect. Since it is supposedly a comic opera -- in reality, it is far from comic, offering none of the chuckles of a _Nozze di Figaro _or _L’elisir d’Amore_ -- _Meistersinger _doesn’t contain the raw emotional struggles of _Tristan und Isolde _or the psychological conflict of _Die Walkure_. If we could see some of the classic Wagnerian energy and drama in this opera, _Meistersinger_ would certainly be better. Ironically, _Meistersinger _was composed between _Tristan und Isolde _and the finale to _Der Ring des Nibelungen_, two of the most powerful pieces of music ever written.
Wagner, with _Meistersinger_, was trying something different, testing his artistic abilities. As a writer of comedy, one must admit, Wagner is not sublime." -Alkis Karmpaliotis (appreciateopera.org/post/ranking-richard-wagner-s-operas)


----------



## 59540

Woodduck said:


> As the "other poster," I will caution you against assuming you know what others mean and reporting on their views without checking to be sure you're not misrepresenting them.


That seems to be characteristic of that particular poster.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> That seems to be characteristic of that particular poster.


Constant as the North Star. Your presence here will ensure the thread's longevity. Awaiting, as usual, content.


----------



## Forster

hammeredklavier said:


> What would this mean then?:


You ask this in response to my post saying that 'profundity is overrated'. I can't comment on your piece about Wagner, but I don't think I need to. 'Profundity', like 'complexity' (or 'simplicity') might be a dimension of music that is evident to different degrees, partly according to the music's content, and partly according to the listener's receptiveness to it.

What it isn't, IMO (and I doubt anyone would be surprised by this) is a dimension of necessarily greater worth than any other dimension. Whether 'profundity' refers to specific subject content (such as 'tragedy'), or to technique or approach (such as a layered and complex symphony like Mahler's 9th), or to a depth of 'emotional response, I see no reason why it should be of greater import than other styles or subject content or emotional response.

Yesterday, I was listening to music that I found particularly energising, prompting me to think "deep thoughts" about what I want out of my retirement and causing me to recoil from the image of settling into a sober, staid, slowly ageing lifestyle (or, maybe, deathstyle). I wanted my youth back (how many retirees must have had that thought?) and resolved to spend more time listening to the energising, and less to the allegedly 'meaningful'.

That means less RVW and Mahler and more Simple Minds. So 'profundity' is as much an attitude as it is anything else so far identified.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> What would this mean then?:
> "Wagner is known for his music’s ability to transform, and _Meistersinger _fails in this respect. Since it is supposedly a comic opera -- in reality, it is far from comic, offering none of the chuckles of a _Nozze di Figaro _or _L’elisir d’Amore_ -- _Meistersinger _doesn’t contain the raw emotional struggles of _Tristan und Isolde _or the psychological conflict of _Die Walkure_. If we could see some of the classic Wagnerian energy and drama in this opera, _Meistersinger_ would certainly be better. Ironically, _Meistersinger _was composed between _Tristan und Isolde _and the finale to _Der Ring des Nibelungen_, two of the most powerful pieces of music ever written.
> Wagner, with _Meistersinger_, was trying something different, testing his artistic abilities. As a writer of comedy, one must admit, Wagner is not sublime." -Alkis Karmpaliotis (appreciateopera.org/post/ranking-richard-wagner-s-operas)


Whoever Alkis Karmpaliotis is, he is neither a good listener nor a good thinker.


----------



## fbjim

It's a little difficult to define it for abstract music, I think. It's not a word I use a lot, but then again, I mostly listen to abstract music, and only rarely get into liturgical, lieder, or opera. 

Usually for me it's a combination of depth - music that, by whatever means, rewards you for putting in closer listening, repeated listening, or any other sort of effort - while not blunting the emotional affect. I sometimes find excessively "correct" or "learned" elements (particularly fugues) to slightly diminish the emotional affect of a work, though this isn't a hard rule, and many extremely affecting works can be both highly emotional and theoretically fascinating, such as Beethoven Op. 111.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Forster: "*So 'profundity' is as much an attitude as it is anything else so far identified." I think you are correct here. The arts, IMO, can only conjure up the emotions of pleasure (joy especially), tranquility, excitement, gloom, sadness--all emotions, often quite powerful. But this is not profundity in my view. I return to my original Post #19 of the old thread that; "I'm not at all sure the the noun "profundity" can be applied to music, in an attempt to categorize it. It seems best to reserve the terms "profound, profundity" to truly illuminating, penetrating insights or discoveries that pierce through a jumble of seemingly isolated and discrete facts about reality and reveal to us an underlying deep truth that knits together many disparate facts into a unity."


----------



## Becca

Round and round it goes, where it stops, nobody knows.


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> Analyses of works of may have little immediate value to those who don't "feel it on a gut level," but one would be a fool to dismiss the perceptions of thoughtful individuals whose deeply felt observations might awaken us to things we hadn't realized were there until we were given a key with which to unlock their secrets. Anyone who's achieved any significant level of appreciation of any art has surely benefitted from the insights of others. Personally, I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to thinkers who have assisted in my awakening to depths of meaning I might otherwise have come to perceive more slowly, if all.


A certain _enfant terrible_ of Youtube-based classical music criticism one told a story about how he couldn't understand Elliot Carter's piano concerto, and read Charles Rosen's writings on it- he mentioned that he came away incredibly impressed with the insights Rosen provided, a better understanding of what Carter was doing in the work, was astonished at Carter's skill at composing- and then realized it didn't matter because he still didn't enjoy listening to it.


I don't think it's useless at all to ignore writings on works we don't like or understand, and I think many works with depth will leave listeners pondering it and wondering if they should listen to it again and again - I think, though, that if one feels compelled to seek out understanding of works they may not immediately like on a "surface" level, it means that the work _did_ speak to them on some level enough to draw them back in, even if it's just a feeling of beguilement, or confusion. The stuff we truly have no affinity for, either repels us, or we just classify as "boring".


----------



## Forster

Strange Magic said:


> It seems best to reserve the terms "profound, profundity" to truly illuminating, penetrating insights or discoveries that pierce through a jumble of seemingly isolated and discrete facts about reality and reveal to us an underlying deep truth that knits together many disparate facts into a unity."


Can you give an example of a piece of music that offers a " penetrating insight"?


----------



## EdwardBast

fbjim said:


> It's a little difficult to define it for abstract music, I think.


Yes, it is. How about: For music composed under a model of expressive aesthetics, that is, Romantic and much 20thc music, profundity often consists in metaphorically exemplifying a coherent, relatable, and universal passage of inner life in a particularly eloquent and poignant way.


----------



## Mandryka

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, it is. How about: For music composed under a model of expressive aesthetics, that is, Romantic and much 20thc music, profundity often consists in metaphorically exemplifying a coherent, relatable, and universal passage of inner life in a particularly eloquent and poignant way.


Why coherent? Indeed, what is coherence in music?
It’ll be a lot of work to explain how the metaphor works I think.


----------



## Mandryka

Here’s a piece 20th century music, aesthetically expressive, which the composer says is supposed to be a metaphor of a universal passage of inner life: Wolfgang Rihm’s _Lichtzwang_






The composer says it is inspired by some ideas he found in Celan about the unknowability of others - I’ll spell out Rihm’s thoughts if anyone’s interested.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mandryka said:


> Why coherent? Indeed, what is coherence in music?
> It’ll be a lot of work to explain how the metaphor works I think.


Metaphorical exemplification is a standard term in musical aesthetics used in preference to expression because it forestalls the potential implication that an emotion is being attributed to the composer. So instead of saying "this melody expresses sadness," which invites the question "Whose sadness?," one might say that through various features (slow descending line, frequent sigh motives, dark voicings, whatever) the melody metaphorically exemplifies sadness — a more neutral statement with less historical baggage. Virtually all abstract musical content attains meaning by virtue of elaborate systems of metaphor.

Coherent meaning well-formed in a way sufficiently sustained as to give a unified impression.


----------



## Strange Magic

Forster said:


> Can you give an example of a piece of music that offers a " penetrating insight"?


 I cannot. My experience is that art does not offer penetrating insights into anything. It can and does generate libraries of commentary attempting to claim that art does. I will affirm that art can provide an insight into the history and the _Zeitgeist _of particular times and places just as can other branches of inquiry. I would like to see others' examples of artworks that exhibit "penetrating insights". The Black Paintings of Goya show us the horrors that can grip an unbalaced mind, but we knew that already from the daily news feed.


----------



## Strange Magic

EdwardBast said:


> Metaphorical exemplification is a standard term in musical aesthetics used in preference to expression because it forestalls the potential implication that an emotion is being attributed to the composer. So instead of saying "this melody expresses sadness," which invites the question "Whose sadness?," one might say that through various features (slow descending line, frequent sigh motives, dark voicings, whatever) the melody metaphorically exemplifies sadness — a more neutral statement with less historical baggage. Virtually all abstract musical content attains meaning by virtue of elaborate systems of metaphor.
> 
> Coherent meaning well-formed in a way sufficiently sustained as to give a unified impression.


This reads like an aesthete's version of the ongoing findings of neurology, psychology, brain chemistry, the workings of the limbic system. It is translated into terms already familiar to the explainers of the arts


----------



## Mandryka

EdwardBast said:


> Metaphorical exemplification is a standard term in musical aesthetics used in preference to expression because it forestalls the potential implication that an emotion is being attributed to the composer. So instead of saying "this melody expresses sadness," which invites the question "Whose sadness?," one might say that through various features (slow descending line, frequent sigh motives, dark voicings, whatever) the melody metaphorically exemplifies sadness — a more neutral statement with less historical baggage. Virtually all abstract musical content attains meaning by virtue of elaborate systems of metaphor.
> 
> Coherent meaning well-formed in a way sufficiently sustained as to give a unified impression.


When you said “coherent” it prompted me to go back to Schoenberg’s 1909 letter to Busoni - you probably know it. What an extraordinary modern letter, with its talk of music “not built but expressed” and “liberation from all forms.” _Musique informelle _and_ Neue Einfachheit._



https://www.csun.edu/~liviu7/603/Chapter%204-Schoenberg.pdf



The way you gloss the operation of musical metaphor is interesting, as if these things like slow descending lines have a natural as opposed to a conventional meaning. Not sure that can be made out, it needs detailed empirical support. I don’t know how much work has been done in the area since Cooke’s _The Language of Music._


----------



## EdwardBast

Mandryka said:


> The way you gloss the operation of musical metaphor is interesting, as if these things like slow descending lines have a *natural as opposed to a conventional meaning*. Not sure that can be made out, it needs detailed empirical support. I don’t know how much work has been done in the area since Cooke’s _The Language of Music._


Not an opposition. They're mutually reinforcing and inextricably intertwined. Peter Kivy explained the natural aspect by saying music expresses emotion by "isomorphism with human expressive behavior including gesture, posture, and utterance." Musical figures chosen for such natural isomorphism, if echoed by multiple composers, especially when used in conjunction with expressive texts, soon become conventional figures as well. And conventional figures nearly always have natural underpinnings.

There's lots of literature since Cooke, including the whole sub-field of musical semiotics and an enormous amount of writing by aestheticians.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> A very fine passage from Malraux! The American poet Robinson Jeffers (whose brother was an astronomer of repute) spent most of his life and work on the place of humankind in the universe. He thought that people spent far too much time on celebrating their special place and specialness, speaking at times of humanity's incestuous relationship with itself. He preached constantly of the need for humankind to turn outward instead and to learn to cherish the great outer world/universe all around them. He and Malraux would have had an interesting discussion.


Thanks. That chimes a chord with me, because I'd rather turn outward when doing music instead of puffing up my relationship with myself and others. And it's the opposite in science subjects, wherein I very much include myself (and others when feasible), and try to put myself into the phenomena, for the perspective (it's difficult to put this in words).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Forster said:


> My instinct is to say that profundity is seriously overrated.The serious and the tragic are, for reasons best known to the tragedians in particular, accorded greater importance than the smile and the laugh. Humour is just as valid a part of the human experience, but note how many comedians want to be "taken seriously"...literally.


To me, the best art often combines both. Mozart's late great operas are all very funny, but not lacking in the profound rendering of human emotions: The Count's apology/Countess's forgiveness in Figaro, the arrival of the Stone Guest in Don G., the seduction of Fiordiligi in Cosi... I do agree with you, however, that it's a shame comedy is often less appreciated for its profundity than tragedy. A comedy film like Preston Sturges's Sullivan's Travels has had a bigger impact on my aesthetic philosophy than any tragedies ever have.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> the term "profound" in art is commonly used to mean nothing more than "very moving to me." If that's all it's going to come down to - and that would be consistent with the view that all artistic judgments are valid only for the individual making them - *then we can all just agree that "profundity" in art is essentially a vacuous and useless notion*, and save ourselves and each other some time we can spend more profitably elsewhere.


I don't think I would agree with that at all. Why is what people--whether an individual or group of individuals--find "very moving" a "vacuous and useless notion?" If I am aware that others find a work of art profoundly moving, I am more likely to want to experience that art to see if it moves me. If it does, great! I will join the chorus of those moved. If it doesn't, then, depending on my level of interest, I may seek to understand what aspects others are moved by and, at the very least, be more empathetic with them, even if I am not sympathetic with their feelings. 

As for the rest, I don't disagree that some art seems to possess more potential than others to provoke this "profoundly moved" feeling--who would argue otherwise? 



Woodduck said:


> Analyses of works of may have little immediate value to those who don't "feel it on a gut level," but one would be a fool to dismiss the perceptions of thoughtful individuals whose deeply felt observations might awaken us to things we hadn't realized were there until we were given a key with which to unlock their secrets. Anyone who's achieved any significant level of appreciation of any art has surely benefitted from the insights of others. Personally, I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to thinkers who have assisted in my awakening to depths of meaning I might otherwise have come to perceive more slowly, if all.


I agree. I would not (would never) argue for dismissing others' perceptions and views. The entire ethos of the "subjectivist" position is the opposite of that. I do value understanding what others perceive in art (and even in life) that I do not; but I do that with all art and with all people. I'm just as curious about what teenagers see in the latest pop music artists as I am in what you see in Wagner. I also agree with your appreciation of those who've "awoken" my perception and appreciation to these qualities; but I'm also intrigued by the mysterious and unarticulated aspects of why some are attracted to certain music, of which I think we've often only scratched the surface of understanding.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Strange Magic said:


> Taking a look at Edmund Burke and his _Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful, _here is Wikipedia: "According to Burke, _the Beautiful_ is that which is well-formed and aesthetically pleasing, whereas _the Sublime_ is that which has the power to compel and destroy us. The preference for the Sublime over the Beautiful was to mark the transition from the Neoclassical to the Romantic era."
> 
> Equating the Sublime with the Profound for the purposes of this discussion (and I think the link is very sound), we might link the Beautiful with Joy and with Pleasure while Burke tells us that notions of the Sublime are linked to awe and terror--terror of death included. When the thoughtful and the observant contemplate the vastness of nature and of the universe, there is a subconscious (or sometimes conscious) realization that our powers are as nothing compared with the solemnity and awesomeness of extra-human reality. We see things such as the Grand Canyon, see distant stars and galaxies, contemplate the endless rotation of the Earth and the orbiting of our moon about Earth and of Earth and the other planets around the sun, and contemplate the sun's inner furnace endlessly fusing hydrogen into helium for the billions of years that the solar system has existed, the enormous grandeur and inexorability of the greater outer world can easily lead to that Burkean Terror of death, of the idea of the puniness and irrelevance of our existence, that we could be crushed like insects by the enormous forces and structures around us.
> 
> The surest pathway to the Sublime (aka the Profound) and its realization by us is through science. Science gives us both the tools to discover and to observe more fully the full extent of that inhuman grandeur around us, and also through the working out of sound though always incomplete explanations and realizations of the nature of these enormous phenomena. Einstein, upon observational confirmation--by an eclipse of the sun and the bending of starlight around it--said that something snapped inside him--a cusp experience--as he contemplated the phenomenon itself but also this confirmation of his General Theory of Relativity. Carl Sagan remarked that the realization that the sun was a star (and his first view through a telescope of Saturn) were the catalysts that suddenly compelled him to become an astronomer.
> 
> So I repeat my thesis that profundity/sublimity in the Burkean sense is not really present in the arts to anywhere the degree that it is in science. The "Theories" of Relativity, the Expanding Universe, Plate Tectonics, Evolution, so many more, are what inspire, for me anyway, the most accurate and intense feelings of profundity.


An interesting post, and while I appreciate the thrust of it I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion that science is superior to the arts in evoking the sublime. Certainly it is the profession of scientists to contemplate, model, and theorize about many aspects of the sublime that you discuss in this post, but that's part of the problem: if the sublime is that which evokes terror and awe, I think both of those emotions are based, at least partially, on our ignorance. Terror is the existential fear we fear when faced with the unknown that may be hostile towards us; awe is a similar thing, but without the fear.

Science's entire job is to transfer this unknown to the realm of the known. This is one reason William Blake--brilliant poet though he was--was hostile to science as he valued the aesthetic power of mystery. Keats even reproached science for explaining the way the beauty and mystery of the rainbow. Here's the full quote on that from his poem Lamia:


> … Do not all charms fly
> At the mere touch of cold philosophy?
> There was an awful rainbow once in heaven:
> We know her woof, her texture; she is given
> In the dull catalogue of common things.
> Philosophy will clip an Angel’s wings,
> Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,
> Empty the haunted air, and gnomed mine –
> Unweave a rainbow, as it erewhile made
> The tender-person’d Lamia melt into a shade.


Now, whether or not one agrees with Blake and Keats (I don't) I think they are expressing pretty common reactions to the elimination of mystery by science and "philosophy." Remove the mystery for some, you remove awe and terror. 

One consistent way the arts provoke profundity (and awe) is through mystery, through the intuitive suggestion of meanings and emotions one is--to use your phrase--on the cusp of but can't immediately grasp. A film like 2001: A Space Odyssey works, in large part, because the audience is meant to have no f'ing idea what's happening to Dave as he passes through the Stargate and goes on his LSD-like psychedelic trip through the cosmos. Evangelion similarly ends in an apocalypse so rich in symbolism it's impossible decode (even intuitively; much less intellectually) on a first, or likely even second, third, or fifth, viewing. 

Further, because art is capable of attaching our emotions to characters and events sympathetically I could even argue it's better at provoking this feeling of profundity, at least as it's felt on a gut level. While art may lack science profound intellectual insights into the nature of life and the cosmos, it makes up for that deficiency by replacing it with a sympathetic, emotional, aesthetic, etc. resonance that science doesn't even attempt. The contemplation of galaxy-swallowing black holes and supernovas is a fascinating thing to ponder; but pondering it, or reading scientific theories/models of how they function, is a far cry away from feeling we are one with Dave being thrust through an interdimensional Stargate; or as Shinji being ritualistically sacrificed to initiate a global genocide and return to an unconscious Edenic state of oneness with the primal mother; or even as Tristan being faced with the desolation after the revelation of awakened love and desire, and Isolde's subsequent uniting of love and death accompanied by music that slowly approaches the desired resolution that it's withheld for hours, thrusting that same sense of unnerving desire onto the audience. 

These are pathways to "profundity" in the arts I don't really see in science. A scientist's (or science lover's) feeling of profundity when contemplating of the cosmos is more something that comes from their own personality. Some people innately possess that; others do not. I don't think the work of science achieves it, I think it's simply the result of people who already felt it. Meanwhile, and by contrast, art can get almost everyone there, even the most insensitive of humans. My parents (artistic neophytes both) have works in which they've had this same feeling. I dare say most humans have.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

fbjim said:


> I don't think it's useless at all to ignore writings on works we don't like or understand, and I think many works with depth will leave listeners pondering it and wondering if they should listen to it again and again - I think, though, that if one feels compelled to seek out understanding of works they may not immediately like on a "surface" level, it means that the work _did_ speak to them on some level enough to draw them back in, even if it's just a feeling of beguilement, or confusion. The stuff we truly have no affinity for, either repels us, or we just classify as "boring".


Very true as well. I've often said in art I'll usually take interesting "failures" over boring "successes" any day, and a lot of my favorite art were acquired tastes that I did not acquire after my first several attempts at it.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

EdwardBast said:


> Metaphorical exemplification is a standard term in musical aesthetics used in preference to expression because it forestalls the potential implication that an emotion is being attributed to the composer. So instead of saying "this melody expresses sadness," which invites the question "Whose sadness?," one might say that through various features (slow descending line, frequent sigh motives, dark voicings, whatever) the melody metaphorically exemplifies sadness — a more neutral statement with less historical baggage. Virtually all abstract musical content attains meaning by virtue of elaborate systems of metaphor.
> 
> Coherent meaning well-formed in a way sufficiently sustained as to give a unified impression.


While I do not disagree with your first paragraph's description, I would not agree that coherency is a necessary component for profundity. This is something a lot of Modernists realized: much of human experience is chaotic, disorganized, the very antithesis of coherency, and that one could not capture that experience with art that was (at least not too) cleanly coherent. So the Modernist authors invented/experimented with stream of consciousness, poets invented/experimented with montage, polyphonic voices, and other techniques that undermined coherency. Now, the Modernists still often sought to find unifying elements, whether it was religion or tradition, but typically they failed (as Pound said of his Cantos: "I can't make it cohere"). But even before then a proto-Modernist like Whitman had said: "Do I contradict myself? / Very well then I contradict myself. / (I am large, I contain multitudes.)"

The postmodernists, meanwhile, did not seek any coherency but have been, by-and-large, content to treat all artistic history as a playground of toys to be played with to their fancy's content. I think part of that is the result of them growing up in later societies that were already a melting pot of cultures, people, and the arts in which they experienced so much variety without the prejudices and classism of judging some as being "higher" or "lower."


----------



## 59540

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Very true as well. I've often said in art I'll usually take interesting "failures" over boring "successes" any day, and a lot of my favorite art were acquired tastes that I did not acquire after my first several attempts at it.


That's an interesting thought. How do you think it came about that you acquired that taste? I had a similar experience when it comes to the work of the so-called Second Viennese School.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

dissident said:


> That's an interesting thought. How do you think it came about that you acquired that taste? I had a similar experience when it comes to the work of the so-called Second Viennese School.


My theory is that involves our natural negative reaction to much of what is new, different, foreign, etc. (basically xenophobia) The new/different/foreign is liable to provoke feelings of anxiety due to our not understanding it intuitively or intellectually, and that often triggers feelings of disgust, anger, hostility, etc.; but it can also triggers feelings of a fascination with/interest in the unknown. So some people, despite the negativity of their initial reaction, will "stick with it" to try to understand it either intuitively or intellectually. Eventually this new/foreign/different thing becomes familiar, doesn't provoke the same initial negative feelings, and one is free to enjoy it for what it is without the barrier of those initial emotional reactions. My first encounter with this phenomenon was with the vocal style of "death growls" in various extreme metal genres. I love them now, but it took a while!

A great metaphor for this process is the opening Dawn of Man segment in 2001: A Space Odyssey where the hominids first encounter the monolith. Many react in fearful, hostile anger; but one of them tentatively approaches it and reaches out to touch it. In the book it explicitly states this encounter transformed the hominid that touched it so that they could understand how to use tools; but in the film it's more implicit, as the hominid that touches it later approaches the bone of a dead animal, we see a flash-cut of the monolith, and they figure out how to use the bone as a weapon to defend themselves against predators and to hunt prey. The idea being that the encounter with the unknown can transform us mentally and spiritually; something that's currently being confirmed by research into psychedelic drugs that have a remarkably direct way of triggering such perspective/life-altering experiences.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Eva Yojimbo: *"These are pathways to "profundity" in the arts I don't really see in science. A scientist's (or science lover's) feeling of profundity when contemplating of the cosmos is more something that comes from their own personality. Some people innately possess that; others do not. I don't think the work of science achieves it, I think it's simply the result of people who already felt it. Meanwhile, and by contrast, art can get almost everyone there, even the most insensitive of humans. My parents (artistic neophytes both) have works in which they've had this same feeling. I dare say most humans have."


The writings and other testimony of many scientists is replete with references to their sense of awe and profound appreciation of the extra human world and its phenomena. The writings of Richard Dawkins show this, as do those of other scientists struggling to explain that they (too) can and do experience the profound. Most of these scientists are avowed Freethinkers, to use a fine old 19th century term. One difference between art and science lovers is that most scientists are conversant enough with the major theories of their own and other fields to share, when asked, very similar views of the direct, specific causes of that awe.

In the arts, the objects of those feelings are, by contrast, all over the map, with some experiencing awe and sensing profundity in places and things where others see nothing of the sort; hence the much more highly variable, individualistic responses. We have talked of clusters--I submit that the cluster of scientists sharing an near-equal sense of awe and profundity is far larger (as a percentage) and more unified than the numerous clusters of art lovers who pursue very different subjects upon which to focus their enthusiasm. A lover of the works of Jackson Pollack will likely not be taken with those of Giorgione or Pierre Cot, whereas a scientist who is a physicist will strongly appreciate the workings of evolution or the movement of huge crustal plates. I think this says something about the relative "strengths" and seriousness of the profundity experienced by the two groups.



SaveShare
Reply Quo


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> ..A great metaphor for this process is the opening Dawn of Man segment in 2001: A Space Odyssey where the hominids first encounter the monolith. Many react in fearful, hostile anger; but one of them tentatively approaches it and reaches out to touch it. In the book it explicitly states this encounter transformed the hominid that touched it so that they could understand how to use tools; but in the film it's more implicit, as the hominid that touches it later approaches the bone of a dead animal, we see a flash-cut of the monolith, and they figure out how to use the bone as a weapon to defend themselves against predators and to hunt prey..


We interrupt this program for an important news flash: The ex-husband of a good friend of my wife was the actor who played that ape/hominid. He was carefully picked for the part and was listed fairly high up in the movie credits. He was also a close friend of John Lennon and Yoko Ono. Now back to your regular programming.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> A lover of the works of Jackson Pollack will likely not be taken with those of Giorgione...


Do you have any data to back that up, or is it just something you pulled out of your backside? I love both Webern and Mozart, as a counterexample. Someone who is interested in the visual arts is likely to appreciate both artists as lying along roughly the same continuum. As for the rest, Eva Yojimbo would know more about it, but it sounds to me like rehashed Spinoza.


----------



## Enthusiast

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't think I would agree with that at all. Why is what people--whether an individual or group of individuals--find "very moving" a "vacuous and useless notion?" If I am aware that others find a work of art profoundly moving, I am more likely to want to experience that art to see if it moves me. If it does, great! I will join the chorus of those moved. If it doesn't, then, depending on my level of interest, I may seek to understand what aspects others are moved by and, at the very least, be more empathetic with them, even if I am not sympathetic with their feelings.


That's it for me. It is a term that we use to communicate what we feel about something (a piece of music in this case) and to be understood. We don't want to get this use of language all tangled up in the never ending subjective vs objective debate.


----------



## fbjim

"Profound" has no _specific_, universally understood definition when talking about abstract music, but as long that it's a term that we English-speaking listeners of music like to bring out a lot, I think it's worth looking at what we mean by it, and what in music prompts this specific reaction from us. 

I'll confess that there's a handful of critical/music review cliches that I'd like to see eliminated, but this isn't really one of them.


----------



## flylooper_2885

The whole issue is really just another manifestation of modern day, inflationary language. No matter what, it is the artist and the observer who rates the profundity of a particualr work, it seems to me. "Genius," "Great," "The greatestm"etc have all lost their meaning for most people. The words are overused to the point of them being meaningless. To some, Bob Dylan is profound. To others, the Mozart Requiem is profund. To others they've never heard either. On purpos! 

Music is the most ephemeral of arts. And probably the most deeply personal on both sides of the equation. 

And yes, I'm a noobie here. Some nice discussions going on.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> A lover of the works of Jackson Pollack will likely not be taken with those of Giorgione or Pierre Cot, whereas a scientist who is a physicist will strongly appreciate the workings of evolution or the movement of huge crustal plates. I think this says something about the relative "strengths" and seriousness of the profundity experienced by the two groups.


It says nothing of the sort. Your entire attempt to place art and science in competition with each other for "profundity" - a word that doesn't even mean exactly the same thing in the the two cases - is pure sophistry. I also find it odd that someone who absolutely denies the possibility that works of art can be meaningfully ("objectively") rated is so eager to rate one area of essential human endeavor as more "strong," "serious" and "profound" than another.

There's nothing wrong with having biases - inevitably we all do - but this looks like a case of someone trying to endow his subjective preferences with objective reality.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said: _"A lover of the works of Jackson Pollack will likely not be taken with those of Giorgione or Pierre Cot_ ..."



dissident said:


> Do you have any data to back that up, or is it just something you pulled out of your backside? *I love both Webern and Mozart, as a counterexample. Someone who is interested in the visual arts is likely to appreciate both artists as lying along roughly the same continuum. *As for the rest, Eva Yojimbo would know more about it, but it sounds to me like rehashed Spinoza.


Just so. Personal tastes and preferences are not the same as appreciation, but the expansion of our appreciation - our grasp of aesthetic concepts and principles - tends to broaden our tastes. SM himself reports quite a wide taste in music, which makes his statement above the more surprising.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> There's nothing wrong with having biases - inevitably we all do - but this looks like a case of someone trying to endow his subjective preferences with objective reality.


again,


hammeredklavier said:


> How exactly? For example, are these people, mikeh375, tdc, Kreisler jr, doing exactly what you describe, with Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Bach?
> 
> mikeh375: "I too think Mozart is overrated. Imv, he is too easy to listen to with 21stC hindsight and I feel that music these days has more traits worth exploring than immediacy of appeal. Don't shout at me though, I mean, I am an owner of the complete Phillips Edition. It's just that he is relegated these days to background whilst playing Scrabble in my household....uh oh.....sorry Mozart fans.
> OK maybe that's too harsh when I think of his perfection and some of his glorious work, so I'll rescind a little.... "
> 
> tdc: "I respect Haydn for his innovations and musical influence, but I would not rank him as a top ten composer, the only reason I rate him at all, is because of his inventiveness with form and because many others whose opinions I respect, do. I don't listen to his music, because I find it dull and with respect to dissonance, impotent. He uses dissonance, but not effectively in my view. It is like food without spice. His music strikes me as the kind of thing a man would write who has never himself experienced anything in life one could call 'deep' or 'profound'. It seems he resorts to humor, because there is nothing else of substance he has to say."
> 
> tdc: "Beethoven's sense of vertical harmony leaves me underwhelmed, so his longer musical paragraphs, although groundbreaking in form, don't help in redeeming his music for me. They actually make it worse.
> For me it is like listening to someone who is chatty but doesn't have anything that meaningful to say. Or someone that is telling me a boring story, but they try to spice it up by being over dramatic.
> I acknowledge his greatness, virtuosity and genius in form but that is how his music subjectively impacts me."
> 
> Kreisler jr: I grant all kinds of technical contrapuntal wizardry singling Bach out but I don't see how even a rather modest Telemann cantata like "Du aber Daniel gehe hin" or the choruses from the Passion section of Messiah (to stick with the best known, there are plenty of other examples) are not in the same range of expression and gravitas (or Schütz for music 100 years earlier). Of course, unlike inverted triple mirror fugues, "emotional depth" or gravitas are rather vague attributes.


----------



## Bryangth

Strange Magic said:


> Back in 2016, we had a wonderful exchange of views on the nature of profundity in the arts. The whole objectivist/subjectivist thang....


Well, it's more like what Hermann Hesse was hinting at with the "Glass Bead Game*" in his book "Magister Ludi", where people dig deep and wide to both analyze and enjoy an aspect of the arts. Not just to be obscure, but to reach far to find interesting and compelling metaphors, descriptions, etc. I find that my interactions in Facebook with friends has that kind of profundity and wonder. A piece of music, then a line of maths, then a painting or a poem that all key in on the thing being discussed.

The opposite is typical educational material made for the schools. Hopelessly bland, superficial, and, at times, offensively wrong or off the point. This kind of material makes people have 2-dimensional, polar views of things, and generally afraid to go deeper and wider. Of course, that is because of the animosity toward academically or artistically deep/wide appreciation of the arts by some cultures (USA, I am referring to YOU!), where profundity is mocked, reviled and laughed at.

Finally, from my perspective, when it comes to music, lit, poetry, and the rest of the arts, I tend to blow the doors off of many people who have more a superficial handle on things. It does sadden me that the educational system does not prepare people to joyfully handle more complex things better. On the other hand, there are those hair-splitters who take profundity down to an analytical whirlpool of argumentation that take the fun out of these considerations. I am in the middle of all of this, and I fear for my generation and all those afterwards. Is the world turning into a Riddley Walker culture of bashing the earth for cold iron? 
____
* Glass Bead Game


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Glass_Bead_Game#The_game


----------



## John O

Luchesi said:


> I've long had the notion that the greats of the 1700s and 1800s were so different from us today.
> 
> For JsB, what was profound in his view of reality? Probably his religion.
> LvB? Probably his God concept along with his views of humans (politics, morals, human ignorance).
> Schubert, Chopin, Catholicism?
> 
> But they couldn't know how they came to be alive, or their place in this big universe. We know better today (but we're kept humble because we don't have a complete theory of physics or cosmological origins).
> 
> I've never thought much about this wide chasm, because music is such a big subject for me by itself.


I would argue that a work such as Music For Strings, Percussion and Celeste by the atheist Bartok is as profound as the works of Bach or Beethoven. The number of such twentieth century for which I would say this is true is however less than for the period 1710-1826 .


----------



## Luchesi

John O said:


> I would argue that a work such as Music For Strings, Percussion and Celeste by the atheist Bartok is as profound as the works of Bach or Beethoven. The number of such twentieth century for which I would say this is true is however less than for the period 1710-1826 .


Most muscians would agree I think, but it strikes me as unfair, since Bartok had the advanced artistic techniques in his toolbox (form, rhythm, harmony).


----------



## John O

Luchesi said:


> Great compositions of music could be called profound (by me) because humans have used the physics all around them to express themselves, ascent up through their long history.
> 
> The greatest mystery is not
> that we have been flung at random
> among the profusion of the earth
> and the galaxy of the stars,
> 
> but that in this prison,
> we can fashion images of ourselves,
> sufficiently powerful,
> to deny our nothingness!
> 
> Andre Malraux


I can think of plenty of examples of great works of literature written in actual prisons.
Can anyone think of great works of music written in a prison?


----------



## fbjim

John O said:


> I can think of plenty of examples of great works of literature written in actual prisons.
> Can anyone think of greatt works of music written in a prison?


Quatuor pour la fin du temps was composed in a Nazi prison camp.


----------



## John O

Strange Magic said:


> Back in 2016, we had a wonderful exchange of views on the nature of profundity in the arts. The whole objectivist/subjectivist thang was aired as part of the discussion, as was the linked Understanding versus Appreciating a work. These topics have a life of their own, but I enjoyed this thread very much and trust that others might also. Just my opinion. But just try the first page....
> 
> See 4chamberedklavier's post below for link to old thread.


The premise that the greatness of works of Art must either be totally Objective or totally Subjective has always seemed to be one of those flakey philosophical arguments to me.


----------



## John O

fbjim said:


> Quatuor pour la fin du temps was composed in a Nazi prison camp.


Good point. And then there are the works written in Theresienstadt.


----------



## John O

Luchesi said:


> Most muscians would agree I think, but it strikes me as unfair, since Bartok had the advanced artistic techniques in his toolbox (form, rhythm, harmony).


But doesn't the same argument apply to Beethoven : using the artistic techniques of Bach, Haydn and Mozart?
And ditto for Bach using those of Buxtehude etc.


----------



## Luchesi

John O said:


> The premise that the greatness of works of Art must either be totally Objective or totally Subjective has always seemed to be one of those flakey philosophical arguments to me.


When you say *totally* objective, we can't be. But you don't have to be, if you're making a helpful point about a musician's world.


----------



## Luchesi

John O said:


> But doesn't the same argument apply to Beethoven : using the artistic techniques of Bach, Haydn and Mozart?
> And ditto for Bach using those of Buxtehude etc.


Yes, there's a grand sweep of development to appreciate.


----------



## John O

Luchesi said:


> Yes, there's a grand sweep of development to appreciate.


I just don't understand why the Bartok example "strikes you as unfair." How is it different from a work by Beethoven in this respect?


----------



## John O

Luchesi said:


> When you say *totally* objective, we can't be. But you don't have to be, if you're making a helpful point about a musician's world.


My point is it is a false dichotomy between two absurd stances. Total subjectivity means my Cat running up and down the piano is as great as any work of music. Total Objectivity means that the works of Beethoven can be ordered from greatest to least profound/sublime.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> Back in 2016, we had a wonderful exchange of views on the nature of profundity in the arts. The whole objectivist/subjectivist thang was aired as part of the discussion, as was the linked Understanding versus Appreciating a work. These topics have a life of their own, but I enjoyed this thread very much and trust that others might also. Just my opinion. But just try the first page....
> 
> See 4chamberedklavier's post below for link to old thread.


It would be tough to define in a comprehensive way what is meant by "profound" in the case of a work of art. (I would argue it is impossible, but let's pass over that rabbit hole.) However, I would go so far as to suggest that art that successfully conveys profound ideas is far more likely to survive the era, the social and cultural context and the specific factual circumstances in which it was created. The word "classical", especially when applied to art, traditionally referred to the culture of ancient Greece and Rome. It still generally refers to art of an earlier period or era.
If we gauge the profundity of art by looking at the impact or influence it has had over an extended period, well past the era in which it was created, we are using an ex post, empirical approach, famously advocated by David Hume in his 1757 essay, On The Standard Of Taste.
This empirical approach, often called the "subjective" approach here at TC (a rather misleading term, in my very humble opinion), while far from the only possible approach, has considerable advantages. Not surprisingly, in the 260+ years since Hume's essay, empiricism has had a successful run in aesthetic and many other fields.


----------



## fbjim

John O said:


> My point is it is a false dichotomy between two absurd stances. Total subjectivity means my Cat running up and down the piano is as great as any work of music. Total Objectivity means that the works of Beethoven can be ordered from greatest to least profound/sublime.


I'm not sure the "strong" "hyper-subjective stance" is very popular anywhere. The generally expressed subjective stance is more that there must be some sort of basis for comparing a cat on a piano with Beethoven.


----------



## John O

fbjim said:


> I'm not sure the "strong" "hyper-subjective stance" is very popular anywhere. The generally expressed subjective stance is more that there must be some sort of basis for comparing a cat on a piano with Beethoven.


That is good to hear that it is true of this forum.
The main quality of the cat music is it makes you jump because you were not expecting it.(Remember to close the lid)


----------



## Luchesi

John O said:


> I just don't understand why the Bartok example "strikes you as unfair." How is it different from a work by Beethoven in this respect?


This is a favorite topic of mine. Look at the scores to see the fascinating advancements in rhythm and harmony, especially.


----------



## SONNET CLV

*What is "Profundity"?--Revisited!*


A professional fun ditty? Perhaps something from Tin Pan Alley?






Is there greater profundity in music than that? (And played on a genuine record player! Ah ... bliss!)


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> In the arts, the objects of those feelings are, by contrast, all over the map, with some experiencing awe and sensing profundity in places and things where others see nothing of the sort; hence the much more highly variable, individualistic responses.


I don't think it's that variable. It's not a world in which _Rashomon_ and _Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure_ are considered "profound" by equal numbers of people who know both.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> However, I would go so far as to suggest that art that successfully conveys profound ideas is far more likely to survive the era, the social and cultural context and the specific factual circumstances in which it was created. The word "classical", especially when applied to art, traditionally referred to the culture of ancient Greece and Rome.


Does Pachelbel's canon successfully convey profound ideas, justifying its popularity with the public today? Some people could say that (in the ending) it evokes nostalgia for the German Baroque in a level that even Bach or Handel doesn't, for instance. In the end, how much of its popularity is jusitified by its "profoundity" belongs in the realm of subjective opinion.


----------



## Luchesi

I don't think these are all different concepts, but "profound" is used so variously.

He was profound in a manner which surprised me.

The victory had a profound effect on the outcomes.

He had a profound impact on Mozart.

Name some profound thinkers.

There was profound sadness, because of all the lives lost.

In a profound way, our futures will be different now.

It is a profound thought and people say it's an irrefutable one.

Using the Latin makes an common word seem profound.

He was disappointed because in her eyes was profound sadness.

Kids come up with profound questions.


----------



## John O

Luchesi said:


> This is a favorite topic of mine. Look at the scores to see the fascinating advancements in rhythm and harmony, especially.


"look at the scores": scores of which: Beethoven or Bartok?
I own scores of both. Your comment could apply to either imho


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> Do you have any data to back that up, or is it just something you pulled out of your backside? I love both Webern and Mozart, as a counterexample. Someone who is interested in the visual arts is likely to appreciate both artists as lying along roughly the same continuum. As for the rest, Eva Yojimbo would know more about it, but it sounds to me like rehashed Spinoza.


Your counterexample of one! And Pollack, Cot, and Giorgione along a continuum. Let's add Kinkade, and the dogs playing poker. What are you contributing to the discussion?


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> Your counterexample of one! And Pollack, Cot, and Giorgione along a continuum. Let's add Kinkade, and the dogs playing poker. What are you contributing to the discussion?


The question is what are _you_ contributing? You start with these goofy sweeping generalizations set forth with an air of authority and triumph and which by force of inexorable logic end up in stretti of goofiness. A counterexample of one? Hey, everybody that likes both Mozart and Stravinsky, raise your hand! Sure you can add Kincade or whomever you like.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> It says nothing of the sort. Your entire attempt to place art and science in competition with each other for "profundity" - a word that doesn't even mean exactly the same thing in the the two cases - is pure sophistry. I also find it odd that someone who absolutely denies the possibility that works of art can be meaningfully ("objectively") rated is so eager to rate one area of essential human endeavor as more "strong," "serious" and "profound" than another.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with having biases - inevitably we all do - but this looks like a case of someone trying to endow his subjective preferences with objective reality.


But what is being added to the discussion? I suggest you reread my notion that profundity should be limited to the fields, unifying discoveries, and insights of science as being more mind-bending--sublime, if you will (I do)--than the ten thousand voices and choices in the arts. I could post it yet again. But I won't.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> I would go so far as to suggest that art that successfully conveys profound ideas is far more likely to survive the era, the social and cultural context and the specific factual circumstances in which it was created. [...]


Just what we would expect.

[...]



> This empirical approach, often called the "subjective" approach here at TC (a rather misleading term, in my very humble opinion), while far from the only possible approach, has considerable advantages. [...]


I agree that the term "subjective" is misleading, tending at least to obscure, and possibly to dismiss, important realities. (I tried like hell to avoid it in previous discussions of aesthetics, but it kept on being thrust at me). As you say, the continued pleasure and esteem inspired by certain artists and works of art is an "objective" guage of something, and in some cases of something important. The constant dichotomization of the terms "subjective" and "objective" seems to allow for contentment with the idea that music which, in your words, "survives the era, the social and cultural context and the specific factual circumstances in which it was created," does so not because it has intrinsic superiority - or in this case greater profundity - but because the greater number of people just "subjectively" prefer it (a redundancy, of course) to the stuff that doesn't survive. The huge grunting gorilla in the room is the simple question of why they do. Why on earth don't people have busts of Pixis and Dittersdorf - respectable composers both - on their pianos? It's hard to fathom why the numbers (the "poll" numbers) should be more interesting than the reasons for them, but for those attached to such non-explanations of reality as "there's no accounting for taste" (or "chacun a son gout" or "de gustibus non disputandum est"), the reasons why humans prefer some things to others seem not to be sympathetic ground.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> The question is what are _you_ contributing? You start with these goofy sweeping generalizations set forth with an air of authority and triumph and which by force of inexorable logic end up in stretti of goofiness. A counterexample of one? Hey, everybody that likes both Mozart and Stravinsky, raise your hand! Sure you can add Kincade or whomever you like.


I urge interested posters to offer something original and germane.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> But what is being added to the discussion? I suggest you reread my *notion* that profundity should be limited to the fields, unifying discoveries, and insights of science as being more mind-bending--sublime, if you will (I do)--than the ten thousand voices and choices in the arts. I could post it yet again. But I won't.


I remember your post well and don't need to review it. "Notion" is the right word for your attempt to privilege a single definition of profundity and to reject common and equally legitimate uses of the word. In fact, I suggest taking one of your "polls" to see how many people acquainted with both quantum mechanics and the music of Bach would say that the terms "profound" and "sublime" should be attached only to the former.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> I urge interested posters to offer something original and germane.


Original? You mean like maybe the 20th incarnation of objective/subjective?


----------



## 59540

Woodduck said:


> ... or in this case greater profundity - but because the greater number of people just "subjectively" prefer it (a redundancy, of course) to the stuff that doesn't survive.


And how many times now have we seen that thoroughly brilliant and original argument?


----------



## fbjim

If we want to say that the music which "survives the years" does so because of profundity, I think it _is_ necessary to define what profundity means. 

The problem with sort of reverse-defining "Profundity" as a quality of music which survives the years is that it doesn't really map to what a listener says when they say they find a performance "Profound". I can only speak for myself but when I say I find a piece, passage, lyric, or anything "profound", I certainly don't mean to say anything about whether or not it has an impact on the development of art, or anything along those lines- it's usually a personal response.


----------



## Strange Magic

John O said:


> The premise that the greatness of works of Art must either be totally Objective or totally Subjective has always seemed to be one of those flakey philosophical arguments to me.


I would like your thoughts on the dichotomy. Unless all, all (with the exception of those with brain disease) agree on a satisfactory and uniform description of the criteria of greatness, the concept of greatness in the arts will remain entirely subjective. That is my position in nutshell.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> I would like your thoughts on the dichotomy. Unless all, all (with the exception of those with brain disease) agree on a satisfactory and uniform description of the criteria of greatness, the concept of greatness in the arts will remain entirely subjective. That is my position in nutshell.


Ok...well then...so what?


----------



## Strange Magic

John O said:


> My point is it is a false dichotomy between two absurd stances. Total subjectivity means my Cat running up and down the piano is as great as any work of music. Total Objectivity means that the works of Beethoven can be ordered from greatest to least profound/sublime.


If it is your opinion that the aleatoric cat's "music" is great to you, then it is a valid and authentic view, for which I grant you ful autonomy. And you will grant me mine.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> If we want to say that the music which "survives the years" does so because of profundity, I think it _is_ necessary to define what profundity means.
> 
> The problem with sort of reverse-defining "Profundity" as a quality of music which survives the years is that it doesn't really map to what a listener says when they say they find a performance "Profound". I can only speak for myself but when I say I find a piece, passage, lyric, or anything "profound", I certainly don't mean to say anything about whether or not it has an impact on the development of art, or anything along those lines- it's usually a personal response.


But then you multiply your personal response by millions of other personal responses that are along the same lines. You find it profound and millions of others did too. There might be something about it then that a lot of people find to be profound. Seems pretty sensible.


----------



## fbjim

Strange Magic said:


> If it is your opinion that the aleatoric cat's "music" is great to you, then it is a valid and authentic view, for which I grant you ful autonomy. And you will grant me mine.


This has been discussed at length and I seriously doubt the views of people on the subject are actually _that_ far apart.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> Ok...well then...so what?


Try to offer something to the discussion. It can be done.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> Try to offer something to the discussion. It can be done.


No, that's your cue, doctor.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> But then you multiply your personal response by millions of other personal responses that are along the same lines. You find it profound and millions of others did too. There might be something about it then that a lot of people find to be profound. Seems pretty sensible.


the problem here is that this doesn't actually get us any closer to any understanding of what "profundity" in music is, at least in an aesthetic sense. It's sort of just turning it into a semantic null, or at least a synonym for "popular among classical music listeners".


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> But then you multiply your personal response by millions of other personal responses that are along the same lines. You find it profound and millions of others did too. There might be something about it then that a lot of people find to be profound. Seems pretty sensible.


A robust endorsement of polling.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> A robust endorsement of polling.


I couldn't care less what you want to call it. Something is the subject of the poll though.


Strange Magic said:


> If it is your opinion that the aleatoric cat's "music" is great to you, then it is a valid and authentic view, for which I grant you ful autonomy. And you will grant me mine.


How...original.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> No, that's your cue, doctor.


Thank you for following others' contributions so carefully.


----------



## fbjim

The reasoning of -
1) There is a quality in music called "Profundity"
2) We can define "Profundity" as "Music which is likely to survive the eras and remain popular over a period of time"
3) Therefore, music which is popular is high in the quality "Profundity"


I'm not sure if this is particularly useful, nor does it seem to relate to how any given listener is expressing when they call music "profound", nor does it give us any interesting insight into much of anything. In a way, it's kind of dodging the question.

You can substitute "profundity" with any aesthetic quality, or "greatness", or what have you, and this is why there is the protest that all this amounts to is a polling question.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> the problem here is that this doesn't actually get us any closer to any understanding of what "profundity" in music is, at least in an aesthetic sense. It's sort of just turning it into a semantic null, or at least a synonym for "popular among classical music listeners".


Probably not, but then I'm not really interested in finding a scientific definition for every facet of existence.
"Oh so you're a subjectivist then!"
"Again, so what?"


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> Probably not, but then I'm not really interested in finding a scientific definition for every facet of existence.


Attempting to reduce "profundity" in music to a popularity-based polling question actually is an example of trying to reduce an aesthetic evaluation to quantifiable, measurable metrics. 

I don't think there's any kind of scientific term either, which is why I don't think that's a good idea, except in the sense that we might aesthetically compare music that people frequently describe as "profound".


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> "Again, so what?"


It depends on what you're hoping to get out of any given discussion.

I find the terms people use to describe music interesting precisely because they're often nebulous, ambiguous and can't be reduced to very simple, specific qualities. I like discussing those things.


----------



## Strange Magic

For purposes of discussion I will grant to the arts _in theory_ a claim to use the adjective "profound" in some instances. Yet my point remains that the sciences offer the more sweeping, broad, and uniform notion of the sublime, the profound, than do the arts. I love Bach, etc. but one cannot equate Bach with Galileo, Darwin, Hutton, Hubble, Einstein, or even the poet Lucretius writing _de rerum natura. _Two different scopes entirely--one turns the world upside down in wonder and awe, the other reaches and resonates with a far more limited group. How profound is Bach compared to Mozart, Beethoven, Bartok? The dreaded and reviled poll of scientists will far more likely agree on the profundity of the discoveries that the aforementioned scientists--and many others--made and the awe and wonder of the extra-human world they inspire.


----------



## Luchesi

John O said:


> Scores of which: Beethoven or Bartok?
> I own scores of both. Your comment could apply to either imho


Oh sorry. Compare a mature score from each composer. See what they came up with. The notes are all we have now.


----------



## Strange Magic

fbjim said:


> Attempting to reduce "profundity" in music to a popularity-based polling question actually is an example of trying to reduce an aesthetic evaluation to quantifiable, measurable metrics.
> 
> I don't think there's any kind of scientific term either, which is why I don't think that's a good idea, except in the sense that we might aesthetically compare music that people frequently describe as "profound".


If you consider something as profound, then for you it is. My position deals here with a larger audience discussing What Is Profundity--What Is Profound.


----------



## hammeredklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> Anyone can honestly think that, for instance; "Of course Mozart is _damn good_; it's just that all (the advantage) he has over his contemporaries is _creaminess, _which is _good_ for all of us for sure", —having both an objective sense of seeing things ("Mozart is _good"), _and a subjective opinion ("it's all _creaminess"_) at the same time.


Things can be and have qualities to be popular, but whether or not they're popular because they're superficially appealing, sentimental, or over the top, or have attractive concepts (eg. "avantgardists of their time", "tortured artists", "musical philosophers", "masters of universal laws of complexity/simplicity") etc, still depends on how each one of us perceives them.


----------



## EdwardBast

Eva Yojimbo said:


> While I do not disagree with your first paragraph's description,* I would not agree that coherency is a necessary component for profundity*. This is something a lot of Modernists realized: much of human experience is chaotic, disorganized, the very antithesis of coherency, and that one could not capture that experience with art that was (at least not too) cleanly coherent. So the Modernist authors invented/experimented with stream of consciousness, poets invented/experimented with montage, polyphonic voices, and other techniques that undermined coherency. Now, the Modernists still often sought to find unifying elements, whether it was religion or tradition, but typically they failed (as Pound said of his Cantos: "I can't make it cohere"). But even before then a proto-Modernist like Whitman had said: "Do I contradict myself? / Very well then I contradict myself. / (I am large, I contain multitudes.)"
> 
> The postmodernists, meanwhile, did not seek any coherency but have been, by-and-large, content to treat all artistic history as a playground of toys to be played with to their fancy's content. I think part of that is the result of them growing up in later societies that were already a melting pot of cultures, people, and the arts in which they experienced so much variety without the prejudices and classism of judging some as being "higher" or "lower."


I hope not. I made a claim only about music composed under Romantic expressive aesthetics — 19thc and some 20thc music. The systems of metaphor I was addressing are largely irrelevant to a lot of modern music. Profundity in music of other eras is SEP (someone else's problem).


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> Attempting to reduce "profundity" in music to a popularity-based polling question actually is an example of trying to reduce an aesthetic evaluation to quantifiable, measurable metrics.


Well, I for one am certainly not proposing the use of polls in this regard. Though, if one polled a cross-section of well-educated adults and found that many of them have at least heard of the music of Bach, the plays of Shakespeare and the paintings of Rembrandt, to me that is significant, regardless of whether they liked any of it, as all of that art is centuries old, yet it lingers in our collective memories.


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> Attempting to reduce "profundity" in music to a popularity-based polling question actually is an example of trying to reduce an aesthetic evaluation to quantifiable, measurable metrics.


What can you do if you outright deny that anything called "profundity" can even be applicable to art, and if quantifiable metrics is your only criterion for aesthetic knowledge or truth? Popularity polls is all you're left with. Is the art of Vermeer a visionary celebration of the perceiving eye and mind, standing head and shoulders above the genre scenes of his contemporaries, and setting a standard for technical brilliance that has left other painters baffled and reverent for centuries? Hey, I have an idea. Let's take a poll.


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> I made a claim only about music composed under Romantic expressive aesthetics — 19thc and some 20thc music.


So how can it be applied to Bruckner's music to prove or disprove its profundity?


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> What can you do if you outright deny that anything called "profundity" can even be applicable to art, and if quantifiable metrics is your only criterion for aesthetic knowledge or truth? Popularity polls is all you're left with. Is the art of Vermeer a visionary celebration of the perceiving eye and mind, standing head and shoulders above the genre scenes of his contemporaries, and setting a standard for technical brilliance that has left other painters baffled and reverent for centuries? Hey, I have an idea. Let's take a poll.


I celebrate your personal love for and respect for the art of Vermeer. I love it also. But even if everybody else loathed his art or were indifferent to it, I would still love it. I have no need of belonging within the cluster of those who admire Vermeer as a validation of my admiration.


----------



## Barbebleu

Strange Magic said:


> Your counterexample of one! And Pollack, Cot, and Giorgione along a continuum. Let's add Kinkade, and the dogs playing poker. What are you contributing to the discussion?


Jackson Pollock please, not Pollack. 
yours sincerely,
a concerned pedant.


----------



## 59540

Woodduck said:


> What can you do if you outright deny that anything called "profundity" can even be applicable to art, and if quantifiable metrics is your only criterion for aesthetic knowledge or truth? Popularity polls is all you're left with. Is the art of Vermeer a visionary celebration of the perceiving eye and mind, standing head and shoulders above the genre scenes of his contemporaries, and setting a standard for technical brilliance that has left other painters baffled and reverent for centuries? Hey, I have an idea. Let's take a poll.


And then if the poll results aren't to your liking, then Vermeer is only popular because he's well-known and wins in polls and because, well, we know what art historians say and we're just brainwashed.

What these threads make me wonder is: what's the goal here, or the "endgame"? Is it to help us poor benighted Bach-Mozart-Beethoven fans finally realize that our "idols" are really no better than _Christmas with the Chipmunks_? No matter how many debates or brilliant explications of subjective-objective-intersubjective we have, most people who are aware of both will still consider Bach's B Minor Mass more "artistic", more "monumental" and more "profound" than von Suppé's _Leichte Kavallerie_. But if a von Suppé fan thinks otherwise, more power to you.

"The most subtle question: whether a chimaera bombinating in the void can consume secondary
intentions..."


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> Well, I for one am certainly not proposing the use of polls in this regard. Though, if one polled a cross-section of well-educated adults and found that many of them have at least heard of the music of Bach, the plays of Shakespeare and the paintings of Rembrandt, to me that is significant, regardless of whether they liked any of it, as all of that art is centuries old, yet it lingers in our collective memories.


With your idea of collective memories, I submit that you are in poll country, willing or not. Do more people love Bach than love Elvis? I don't know but I am sure we could find out, given enough time and money.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> I celebrate your personal love for and respect for the art of Vermeer. I love it also. But even if everybody else loathed his art or were indifferent to it, I would still love it. I have no need of belonging within the cluster of those who admire Vermeer as a validation of my admiration.


I am completely in accord with this. I'll wager most people are. Appreciating artistic greatness and profundity has never depended on belonging to a cluster. Rather, it's a primary - in many cases, I think, _the_ primary - explanation for the existence and size of the cluster.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> With your idea of collective memories, I submit that you are in poll country, willing or not. Do more people love Bach than love Elvis? I don't know but I am sure we could find out, given enough time and money.


What.
Does.
It.
Matter?

By the way, right now I'd give Bach the edge. That is, "love" vs "heard of".


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> With your idea of collective memories, I submit that you are in poll country, willing or not. *Do more people love Bach than love Elvis? I don't know but I am sure we could find out, given enough time and money.*


Is that a meaningful or useful question? What would such a poll tell us? What knowledge would we be seeking? Would we poll everyone? Of every culture, age and station in life? I sense a gorilla, an elephant, and lots of other creatures in the room...


----------



## 59540

Woodduck said:


> Is that a meaningful or useful question? What would such a poll tell us? What knowledge would we be seeking? Would we poll everyone? Of every culture, age and station in life? I sense a gorilla, an elephant, and lots of other creatures in the room...


It's very meaningful and useful for someone who's been rapped on the knuckles and looked down upon for their "unacceptable" tastes.


----------



## wormcycle

Strange Magic said:


> So I repeat my thesis that profundity/sublimity in the Burkean sense is not really present in the arts to anywhere the degree that it is in science. The "Theories" of Relativity, the Expanding Universe, Plate Tectonics, Evolution, so many more, are what inspire, for me anyway, the most accurate and intense feelings of profundity


I understand that using quotes in "Theories" is supposed to mean that those are not theories but ....what exactly? Most philosophers of science like Kuhn or Popper, and very significant scientists, like Heisenberg and Hawkins, expressed the opinion that we do not exactly have the knowledge of the universe, we simply create the best mathematical models that help us navigate whatever is out there. From this point of view science is the most useful or arts. 

What we, human beings, consider profound is this way or another a creation of human brain and spirit. From this point of view, I mean my point of view, Beethoven opus 131 is as profound as general theory of relativity. They belong to two different spheres of human interaction with the universe. Considering the mathematical complexity of Bach counterpoint no one can say what he could accomplish if he had an opportunity to apply the power of his brain to combinatorial mathematics.


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> What can you do if you outright deny that anything called "profundity" can even be applicable to art, and if quantifiable metrics is your only criterion for aesthetic knowledge or truth? Popularity polls is all you're left with. Is the art of Vermeer a visionary celebration of the perceiving eye and mind, standing head and shoulders above the genre scenes of his contemporaries, and setting a standard for technical brilliance that has left other painters baffled and reverent for centuries? Hey, I have an idea. Let's take a poll.


Quantifiable metrics certainly are not my only criterion for aesthetic truth! I wouldn't even say they are a criterion for aesthetic truth for me at all! There are certainly reasons I have for looking for objective, historical truth when it comes to music, or artistic history - for instance, seeing which artists were influenced by others, but aesthetic truth is not one of them.


----------



## Luchesi

dissident said:


> What.
> Does.
> It.
> Matter?
> 
> By the way, right now I'd give Bach the edge. That is, "love" vs "heard of".


Yes, for a few years young people immediately thought of Elvis Costello (married to Diana Krall). 'Funny that. It surprised me.

Bach - Jonathan Livingston Seagull

“Your conscience is the measure of the honesty of your selfishness.
Listen to it carefully.” 
Richard Bach, Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> I am completely in accord with this. I'll wager most people are. Appreciating artistic greatness and profundity has never depended on belonging to a cluster. Rather, it's a primary - in many cases, I think, _the_ primary - explanation for the existence and size of the cluster.


The title of this thread is asking _what_ profundity is. I don't think defining it as "the quality that makes works resonate with a great number of classical listeners" is a very interesting answer, because you could say that about "beauty", "transcendental sorrow", "brilliance", etc, etc. This is an aesthetic question, not a question about why works are popular, I think.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> Quantifiable metrics certainly are not my only criterion for aesthetic truth! I wouldn't even say they are a criterion for aesthetic truth for me at all! There are certainly reasons I have for looking for objective, historical truth when it comes to music, or artistic history - for instance, seeing which artists were influenced by others, but aesthetic truth is not one of them.


Which is probably why these threads go nowhere fast. _Son of Science Meets Son of Aesthetikon_ leaving Tokyo untouched.


fbjim said:


> ...This is an aesthetic question, not a question about why works are popular, I think.


Are you sure there's a difference?


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> Are you sure there's a difference?


When we talk about art in aesthetic terms, I certainly believe most of us don't start with talking about whether it's popular or not!

To some extent I guess the question is if words like "Profound", "Brilliant", "Insightful", "Sorrowful", pick whatever response word you want are basically semantic nulls and all they mean is "I liked it". Which might be true but I don't really think that's an interesting way to discuss art!


----------



## 59540

Woodduck said:


> I am completely in accord with this. I'll wager most people are. Appreciating artistic greatness and profundity has never depended on belonging to a cluster. *Rather, it's a primary - in many cases, I think, the primary - explanation for the existence and size of the cluster.*


Exactly. That part has not yet been addressed. Why the cluster to begin with? And boy, is it hard to resist a cluster_____ joke about now.


----------



## fbjim

I think we are attempting to answer entirely different questions.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> When we talk about art in aesthetic terms, I certainly believe most of us don't start with talking about whether it's popular or not!
> ...


How much of the "popularity" is due to the aesthetic appeal?


----------



## hammeredklavier

wormcycle said:


> Are you sure there's a difference?


Of course there is a difference. Why is Pachelbel's canon more popular than a lot of Bach, even after all the "propaganda".


hammeredklavier said:


> We don't know objectively how much of that has been solidified through (intentional or unintentional) "propaganda" in our culture. It's up to each of us to decide subjectively. — I'm not saying Bach, Mozart, Beethoven don't deserve their fame today, but
> If we were educated from youth that a fair amount of things Bach did was the work of a typical "church kapellmeister" (I'm not saying it is), and chorales by composers far lesser-known today than Bach were used in teaching instead of Bach's, in all harmonization sessions, over a long period of time, how would it have affected the "consensus" in these matters?
> What if we were taught to think like Kreisler jr about Bach, "the usual methods of Bach were things he resorted to to hide his (alleged) 'weakness' in dramatic music (compared to his contemporaries)"?


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> How much of the "popularity" is due to the aesthetic appeal?


Who cares?

We pick words for reasons. When someone calls a work of music "profound", they may mean a different thing than if one calls it "spiritual", "mystical", "beautiful", etc _even if all these words amount to positive aesthetic responses_. I'm more interested in seeing if there are certain stylistic elements, methods of composition, or just personal emotional response that make a lot of us English-speakers pick the word "profound" over the other words.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Strange Magic said:


> The writings and other testimony of many scientists is replete with references to their sense of awe and profound appreciation of the extra human world and its phenomena. The writings of Richard Dawkins show this, as do those of other scientists struggling to explain that they (too) can and do experience the profound. Most of these scientists are avowed Freethinkers, to use a fine old 19th century term. One difference between art and science lovers is that most scientists are conversant enough with the major theories of their own and other fields to share, when asked, very similar views of the direct, specific causes of that awe.
> 
> In the arts, the objects of those feelings are, by contrast, all over the map, with some experiencing awe and sensing profundity in places and things where others see nothing of the sort; hence the much more highly variable, individualistic responses. We have talked of clusters--I submit that the cluster of scientists sharing an near-equal sense of awe and profundity is far larger (as a percentage) and more unified than the numerous clusters of art lovers who pursue very different subjects upon which to focus their enthusiasm. A lover of the works of Jackson Pollack will likely not be taken with those of Giorgione or Pierre Cot, whereas a scientist who is a physicist will strongly appreciate the workings of evolution or the movement of huge crustal plates. I think this says something about the relative "strengths" and seriousness of the profundity experienced by the two groups.


We are in agreement with your first paragraph, but my original point that most scientists likely went into their professions because they shared this similar sense of awe in regards to nature and the universe. I'd wager that most people who went into the arts have shared a similar sense of awe with works in their artistic field of choice. Perhaps there are some authors who never read a book that blew their mind, just as perhaps there are some scientists that went into astrophysics without ever feeling a sense of awe with the universe; but it shouldn't be surprising that many (even most) of the people that go into these types of professions do so because of their predisposition towards experiencing awe and profundity in them. 

We also don't disagree over the greater variability of feelings in the arts, but, to me, this is a feature rather than a bug. In science, reality is only one way, in contrast to the human imagination which can imagine reality being a near infinite number of ways. The process by which we find out which one way reality is among all those imaginative possibilities is what the scientific method is designed to do, and the results can be profound in its way. In contrast, art is not about picking out the one way reality is among all the ways we can imagine it to be; art is more about speaking to our experiences of reality, including our imaginations, in all its wondrous variability. Given that, it's not surprising that, just as human subjectivities are immensely variable, the art that speaks to those subjectivities and which those subjectivities find profound are also much more variable.


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> The title of this thread is asking _what_ profundity is. *I don't think defining it as "the quality that makes works resonate with a great number of classical listeners" is a very interesting answer*,


Has anyone defined it that way?



> because you could say that about "beauty", "transcendental sorrow", "brilliance", etc, etc.


Certainly, many qualities determine the popularity of music. Profundity - the power to represent and evoke more consequential and permanent, and not always easily accessible, aspects of human life and being - may not be quickest route to popularity (which is why we have the realm of artistic ephemera known as "popular music"), but it's at least worth a mention that works that speak to more aspects of human experience are apt to prove more _enduringly_ popular (and that emphatically includes the best popular music of every era).


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> Who cares?
> ...


The ones who think it's about "polling" _should_ care. You have to take polling questions into consideration.


----------



## Woodduck

dissident said:


> And boy, is it hard to resist a cluster_____ joke about now.


But for the moderators...


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> Of course there is a difference. Why is Pachelbel's canon more popular than a lot of Bach, even with all the "propaganda".


I don't know, you could make the case that the Air from the third Bach orchestral suite is even more popular. And you think Bach's "popularity" is due to "propaganda"? Do people like the aforementioned Air because they've been forced into it?


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> The ones who think it's about "polling" _should_ care. You have to take polling questions into consideration.


I don't think music is _about_ polling. I think "polling" (which doesn't just include popularity, but things like historical repute, historical influence etc) amounts to the _objective_ criteria we have on the qualities of music, but I also think this data has very little to do with the act of us _listening and responding_ to music. 

The objective evidence I have that Montgomery Clift was a great actor is the reputation of his peers. The reason I revere Montgomery Clift is _Red River_.


----------



## 59540

Woodduck said:


> But for the moderators...


I've had enough experience with that already, thankyouverymuch.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> I don't think music is _about_ polling. I think "polling" (which doesn't just include popularity, but things like historical repute, historical influence etc) amounts to the _objective_ criteria we have on the qualities of music, but I also think this data has very little to do with the act of us _listening and responding_ to music.
> 
> The objective evidence I have that Montgomery Clift was a great actor is the reputation of his peers. The reason I revere Montgomery Clift is _Red River_.


No no no, _A Place in the Sun_ or _From Here to Eternity. _


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> Has anyone defined it that way?


Not directly, but it almost doesn't matter. I'm less interested in what "profundity" means for the enduring universality of music, and more interested in why we're sometimes compelled to use that word in the first place, versus any other word that defines a positive aesthetic response we have to music.

As I said I think people are attempting to simultaneously answer entirely different questions at this point which is causing obvious problems.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Of course there is a difference. Why is Pachelbel's canon more popular than a lot of Bach, even after all the "propaganda".


Simple. Because it's based on a sure-fire structural idea and a sure-fire harmonic progression, and because someone decided that everyone on earth needed to hear it every time they turned on the radio. I don't think most of the people who've enjoyed it are aware of the "propaganda" you're talking about, but the popularization of pieces of music nowadays is just a variant of the standard propaganda technique of telling people that something is great - or true - until they're brainwashed into believing it.

You do know about "apples and oranges," don't you...?


----------



## Woodduck

dissident said:


> I've had enough experience with that already, thankyouverymuch.


Any experience is more than enough. It's why I try so hard to be nice, painful though the effort can be.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> The constant dichotomization of the terms "subjective" and "objective" seems to allow for contentment with the idea that music which, in your words, "survives the era, the social and cultural context and the specific factual circumstances in which it was created," does so not because it has intrinsic superiority - or in this case greater profundity - but because the greater number of people just "subjectively" prefer it (a redundancy, of course) to the stuff that doesn't survive. The huge grunting gorilla in the room is the simple question of why they do.


I've wrote about this numerous times, but the crux of it is that we're ultimately asking why human subjectivities end up in a certain state (such as thinking a given work of art is great/profound) after interacting with a certain work of art, and why do so many end up in that state over long periods of time, while they DON'T end up in that state with most other works of art. This is a question worth asking but one that, IMO, can't be answered until we have a complete understanding of both the objective works of art and the human subjectivities experiencing it, and we only ever have a partial understanding of both. 

To me, part of the objectivist/subjectivist division is really just about whether we should put more focus on the object part of our queries (the art) or on the subject part of our queries (human psychology). The major "fault" I see with, let's call them the anti-subjectivists, is that they ONLY want to focus on the object and think everything can be explained if only we perfectly understood the art/objects; but this clearly isn't so. If the subjectivists push back against this it's only by saying "hey, human subjectivities matter just as much in terms of understanding our reactions to art." I don't think most subjectivists object to the study of the objective aspects of art (I certainly don't, having spent most of my life doing just that), we just think that the myopic focus on the art-object is only ever going to get us part of the way there. 

If I may use an analogy, it's a bit like us wanting to understand pain by only studying the bullet that caused the pain. Well, yes, the bullet caused us to feel pain, but it wouldn't have done that without all of the nervous circuitry in our bodies and the brain/mind that reports those signals as the experience of pain. It's the same way with profundity and greatness in art. Yes, the work of art/bullet causes us to feel something because of the way our subjectivities are wired; but we can't understand that feeling by just looking at the art/bullet, we also have to understand all the internal/subjective circuitry that is necessary for us to have that feeling of greatness/profundity in reaction to the objects. Unlike with pain, the subjective components that lead us to thinking a work of art is great/profound are MUCH more variable. Not infinitely variable, which is why most don't end up in a state thinking the "cat on the piano" hypothetical is profound, but hugely variable nonetheless; and any genuine, earnest endeavor to understanding all of this would mean also understanding the art and subjectivities that react with positivity and even feelings of profundity towards art we very much do not like ourselves.


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> I'm less interested in what "profundity" means for the enduring universality of music, and more interested in why we're sometimes compelled to use that word in the first place, versus any other word that defines a positive aesthetic response we have to music.


So am I. But I don't expect many here to put in the work of rooting out the factors that make people describe art in particular ways. I know I don't always have the energy - or the knowledge or insight - to do it. But then I'm old and weary, and I always hope for some younger blood with good ideas and clear heads (is that a mixed metaphor? Oh well...).



> As I said I think people are attempting to simultaneously answer entirely different questions at this point which is causing obvious problems.


It always happens with issues of aesthetics. No help for it.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Is that a meaningful or useful question? What would such a poll tell us? What knowledge would we be seeking? Would we poll everyone? Of every culture, age and station in life? I sense a gorilla, an elephant, and lots of other creatures in the room...


Exactly! We are as one in celebrating the validity of every person's tastes and opinions in the arts--clusters be damned


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I've wrote about this numerous times, but the crux of it is that we're ultimately asking why human subjectivities end up in a certain state (such as thinking a given work of art is great/profound) after interacting with a certain work of art, and why do so many end up in that state over long periods of time, while they DON'T end up in that state with most other works of art. This is a question worth asking but one that, IMO, *can't be answered until we have a complete understanding* of both the objective works of art and the human subjectivities experiencing it, and we only ever have a partial understanding of both.


If a question admits of no answer, then it's hardly worth asking. I think there ARE answers, and that more answers are possible. The demand for complete knowledge of what makes art variable in its power and scope, and the retreat into a sort of egalitarian subjectivism, is just an evasion of everything interesting about art and the experience of it. I'm not accusing _you_ of that, but...



> To me, part of the objectivist/subjectivist division is really just about *whether we should put more focus on the object part of our queries (the art) or on the subject part of our queries (human psychology).*


Doesn't that depend on what we're trying to ascertain? Do we most care about why opera is fascinating or why cousin Howie doesn't like it? If we want to understand why millions of otherwise sane people will camp out overnight on the sidewalk in winter to get tickets to see Callas as Tosca, do we gain most from examining opera or from polling people who might prefer to go out drinking at Murphy's pub?



> The major "fault" I see with, let's call them the anti-subjectivists, is that they ONLY want to focus on the object and think everything can be explained if only we perfectly understood the art/objects; but this clearly isn't so. If the subjectivists push back against this it's only by saying "hey, human subjectivities matter just as much in terms of understanding our reactions to art." I don't think most subjectivists object to the study of the objective aspects of art (I certainly don't, having spent most of my life doing just that), we just think that the myopic focus on the art-object is only ever going to get us part of the way there.


I wonder where you've seen a "myopic focus on the art object" and a refusal to acknowledge the individuality of people's responses to art? What I've seen is an extreme "subjectivist" view which explicitly reduces artistic value to popularity ("polls"), while a few other people try to put in a good word for the genius of composers and the excellence of their achievements and get swatted down again and again by repetitions of analogies to ice cream and the sacred and sovereign right to eat the flavor of one's choice.


----------



## EdwardBast

hammeredklavier said:


> So how can it be applied to Bruckner's music to prove or disprove its profundity?


Profundity or shallowness is, IMO, not something that can be proved or disproved. It can be argued for or against more or less convincingly and in a more or less informed way, but it's a subjective judgment. I have no interest in whether or not Bruckner's music is profound because, as you are aware, I don't think he was a good composer by any standard I care about. Were it profound I would still think it botched, so why bother.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Exactly! We are as one in celebrating the validity of every person's tastes and opinions in the arts--clusters be damned


Every person's tastes, sure. Every person's opinions? Heh heh...


----------



## Strange Magic

wormcycle said:


> I understand that using quotes in "Theories" is supposed to mean that those are not theories but ....what exactly? Most philosophers of science like Kuhn or Popper, and very significant scientists, like Heisenberg and Hawkins, expressed the opinion that we do not exactly have the knowledge of the universe, we simply create the best mathematical models that help us navigate whatever is out there. From this point of view science is the most useful or arts.
> 
> What we, human beings, consider profound is this way or another a creation of human brain and spirit. From this point of view, I mean my point of view, Beethoven opus 131 is as profound as general theory of relativity. They belong to two different spheres of human interaction with the universe. Considering the mathematical complexity of Bach counterpoint no one can say what he could accomplish if he had an opportunity to apply the power of his brain to combinatorial mathematics.


If you are thinking of the fact (and the beauty) that science never offers a 100% description of nature,then we are in full agreement. Yet virtually all scientists will assert that most of the well-established "theories" of science--evolution via natural selection, plate tectonics, relativity, the expanding universe,etc.--are far more seriously and uniformly accepted as being asymptotically very close to reality. Opinions in the arts, by contrast, are highly variable, essentially unique in their totality from individual to individual.

Beethoven's op.131 is profound to any individual who thinks so. This is a different level or grade of profundity than that of the adherence by scientists to the essential correctness of the major theories now invoked as explanations of phenomena.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> Exactly! We are as one in celebrating the validity of every person's tastes and opinions in the arts--clusters be damned


Well those "clusters" are clustered tastes and opinions which should be celebrated as well. The clusters are people. So celebrate one individual taste, but two or three or a million having essentially similar reactions is a dehumanized "cluster".


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> I don't think music is _about_ polling. I think "polling" (which doesn't just include popularity, but things like historical repute, historical influence etc) amounts to the _objective_ criteria we have on the qualities of music, but I also think this data has very little to do with the act of us _listening and responding_ to music.
> ...


I don't know how you can say that when the poll is telling you how people are listening to and responding to music. Not measure by measure and note for note, but certainly in an aggregate sense when it comes to individual works or composers or entire bodies of work.


----------



## Woodduck

dissident said:


> Well those "clusters" are clustered tastes and opinions which should be celebrated as well. The clusters are people. So celebrate one individual taste, but two or three or a million having essentially similar reactions is a dehumanized "cluster".


I'm much more impressed by those dehumanized clusters than by Uncle Larry's or Aunt Jane's celebrations of their musical individuality. I mean, their Steve Lawrence and Eydie Gorme records were just fine for what they were (and I don't recall anyone suggesting they were profound), but when Aunt Jane asked me with complete sincerity how I could stand listening to _Tristan und Isolde_ I just didn't know where to begin. She was probably only in her thirties at the time, and if I hadn't been just an awkward teenager I might have known how to open a door to a new world of sound and meaning beyond anything she'd ever imagined. She might even, eventually, have transcended her "individuality" and found her way into one of those dreaded clusters.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> you could make the case that the Air from the third Bach orchestral suite is even more popular.











Pachelbel - Canon In D Major. Best version. (uploaded on Jan 26, 2008) 
*74,073,931 views* youtube.com/watch?v=NlprozGcs80 
Canon in D (Pachelbel's Canon) - Cello & Piano [BEST WEDDING VERSION] (uploaded on Jun 18, 2019)
*58,403,735 views* youtube.com/watch?v=Ptk_1Dc2iPY
Trans-Siberian Orchestra - Christmas Canon (Official Music Video) [HD] (uploaded on Oct 26, 2009)
*39,869,806 views* youtube.com/watch?v=4cP26ndrmtg
Pachelbel - Canon in D (Best Piano Version) (uploaded on Jun 4, 2011)
*38,556,817 views* youtube.com/watch?v=rNsgHMklBW0
pachelbel's Canon in D--Soothing music(the best version) (uploaded on Jul 3, 2007)
*33,533,820 views* youtube.com/watch?v=hOA-2hl1Vbc
Canon In D | Pachelbel's Canon | 1 Hour Version (uploaded on Apr 26, 2013)
*25,641,997 views* youtube.com/watch?v=qVn2YGvIv0w
and there are more...
(+there are also rock versions like "Canon Rock - Jerry C cover by Laura Lace", which has over 100 million views)

Air - Johann Sebastian Bach (uploaded on Jan 25, 2010)
*74,878,302 views* youtube.com/watch?v=rrVDATvUitA
バッハ「G線上のアリア」　Bach "Air on G String"
*23,939,523 views* youtube.com/watch?v=thQWqRDZj7E
David Garrett - AIR (Johann Sebastian Bach). (uploaded on Oct 14, 2011)
*12,066,292 views* youtube.com/watch?v=x1ByRGNIpFA
Bach, Air ("on the G string", string orchestra) (uploaded on Feb 26, 2009)
*10,505,531 views* youtube.com/watch?v=E2j-frfK-yg
(only 4 videos with 10mil+ views and that's it.)


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> If a question admits of no answer, then it's hardly worth asking. I think there ARE answers, and that more answers are possible. The demand for complete knowledge of what makes art variable in its power and scope, and the retreat into a sort of egalitarian subjectivism, is just an evasion of everything interesting about art and the experience of it. I'm not accusing _you_ of that, but...


I also agree there are answers, but without full understanding it's a bit like the proverbial blind men feeling around an elephant. We may can illuminate certain aspects of that interaction, but it's also very easy to build shaky theoretical edifices on such ignorance and partial understanding. Science has an antidote for this; aesthetics, not so much. 



Woodduck said:


> Doesn't that depend on what we're trying to ascertain? Do we most care about why opera is fascinating or why cousin Howie doesn't like it? If we want to understand why millions of otherwise sane people will camp out overnight on the sidewalk in winter to get tickets to see Callas as Tosca, do we gain most from examining opera or from polling people who might prefer to go out drinking at Murphy's pub?


I think it's both. Let's consider the two groups you've selected in this hypothetical: the millions of people who will camp overnight to see Callas in Tosca, and the (probably more) millions of people who'd prefer to go out drinking at Murphy's pub. There is certainly a difference in the subjectivities of these two groups that makes one drawn to seeing opera, and the other drawn to drinking in a pub (and probably being indifferent to, if not hostile towards, opera). Certainly there is something in Callas (and in Tosca) that provokes those subjectivities that love opera to want to see her/it, just as there is something in Callas (and in Tosca) that provokes those subjectivities that don't love opera to not care. All of these components matter in the final result. We can do this both for individuals (cousin Howie) and for groups that share similarities and dissimilarities with Howie's subjectivity. 



Woodduck said:


> I wonder where you've seen a "myopic focus on the art object" and a refusal to acknowledge the individuality of people's responses to art? What I've seen is an extreme "subjectivist" view which explicitly reduces artistic value to popularity ("polls"), while a few other people try to put in a good word for the genius of composers and the excellence of their achievements and get swatted down again and again by repetitions of analogies to ice cream and the sacred and sovereign right to eat the flavor of one's choice.


Any time there are intimations, if not outright claims, of objective greatness I see that myopic focus rearing its head. I think the "reduction of artistic value to popularity (polls)" is, at least from an objective perspective, basically what's being described, though: lots of people valuing certain art/artists highly is, fundamentally, a poll. This doesn't deny that there are features in the art, the object, that provoke that love; but there's objective features in ice cream (to use that analogy) that provoke some people's love for it too. Why do people like ice cream (and prefer certain flavors) is really the same kind of question whose answers involve understanding both the objective features of the ice cream and the variable subjectivities that respond to it the same way art does. 

I have no problem praising the genius of composers and excellence of their achievements as long as we're on the same page with exactly what we mean by those accolades; I'm not sure we all always are.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> I'm much more impressed by those dehumanized clusters than by Uncle Larry's or Aunt Jane's celebrations of their musical individuality.


I dare say that Uncle Larry and Aunt Jane have tastes shared with large clusters themselves. Very few people like music that almost nobody else likes. In terms of clusters, popular music has a far bigger cluster of likers than classical music does.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Now let's look at the Art of the Fugue; why is it not as popular as Pachelbel's canon? Because people have failed to grasp the complexity of the Bach? Or because the Pachelbel has inherent qualities to move more people than the Bach? Or — because the Bach is simply "academicism/pedanticism" passed as profundity? (I'm not saying it is. I'm just posing a question.)


hammeredklavier said:


> it depends on your subjective opinion what groups you include in within your subjective definition of "unwashed masses". For example, it's up to you how you view people (including "casual listeners" that vastly outnumber us) who only listen to Mozart and believe everything said by the so-called "experts" word for word (eg. "only Mozart wrote dissonant harmony like the K.465 quartet in his time")


----------



## 59540

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I dare say that Uncle Larry and Aunt Jane have tastes shared with large clusters themselves. Very few people like music that almost nobody else likes. In terms of clusters, popular music has a far bigger cluster of likers than classical music does.


Which means nothing in itself. It isn't the number of pop fans vs classical fans, but the reasons for such clusters in the first place.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> Pachelbel - Canon In D Major. Best version. (uploaded on Jan 26, 2008)
> *74,073,931 views* youtube.com/watch?v=NlprozGcs80
> Canon in D (Pachelbel's Canon) - Cello & Piano [BEST WEDDING VERSION] (uploaded on Jun 18, 2019)
> *58,403,735 views* youtube.com/watch?v=Ptk_1Dc2iPY
> Trans-Siberian Orchestra - Christmas Canon (Official Music Video) [HD] (uploaded on Oct 26, 2009)
> *39,869,806 views* youtube.com/watch?v=4cP26ndrmtg
> Pachelbel - Canon in D (Best Piano Version) (uploaded on Jun 4, 2011)
> *38,556,817 views* youtube.com/watch?v=rNsgHMklBW0
> pachelbel's Canon in D--Soothing music(the best version) (uploaded on Jul 3, 2007)
> *33,533,820 views* youtube.com/watch?v=hOA-2hl1Vbc
> Canon In D | Pachelbel's Canon | 1 Hour Version (uploaded on Apr 26, 2013)
> *25,641,997 views* youtube.com/watch?v=qVn2YGvIv0w
> and there are more...
> (+there are also rock versions like "Canon Rock - Jerry C cover by Laura Lace" that has over 100 million views)
> 
> Air - Johann Sebastian Bach (uploaded on Jan 25, 2010)
> *74,878,302 views* youtube.com/watch?v=rrVDATvUitA
> バッハ「G線上のアリア」　Bach "Air on G String"
> *23,939,523 views* youtube.com/watch?v=thQWqRDZj7E
> David Garrett - AIR (Johann Sebastian Bach). (uploaded on Oct 14, 2011)
> *12,066,292 views* youtube.com/watch?v=x1ByRGNIpFA
> Bach, Air ("on the G string", string orchestra) (uploaded on Feb 26, 2009)
> *10,505,531 views* youtube.com/watch?v=E2j-frfK-yg
> (only 4 videos with 10mil+ views and that's it.)


Quite a few views for the Bach though, hammered. Are they due to propaganda? Now do views for the Goldberg Variations and the cello suites.


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> *Profundity or shallowness is, IMO, not something that can be proved or disproved.* It can be argued for or against more or less convincingly and in a more or less informed way, but *it's a subjective judgment*.


Very well said. Very true.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> Why isn't the Art of the Fugue popular as Pachelbel's canon?


Good question, if Bach has been the beneficiary of such propaganda.

One reason though is obvious: it's not as catchy and readily digested. That's one reason why "Hey Jude" leaves Pachelbel in the dust. And also all the pro-Beatle propaganda.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

dissident said:


> Which means nothing in itself. It isn't the number of pop fans vs classical fans, but the reasons for such clusters in the first place.


Sure, but the reasons are going to be what I stated above about how the different objective qualities of the music interact with those different subjectivities. Pop fans have different subjectivities that prefer different objective aspects of music than classical fans, and apparently their subjectivities are much more common than those that prefer classical.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> I don't think most of the people who've enjoyed it are aware of the "propaganda" you're talking about, but the popularization of pieces of music nowadays is just a variant of the standard propaganda technique of telling people that something is great - or true - until they're brainwashed into believing it.


For example;


dissident said:


> *Well a lot of it predates Amadeus, and in fact you could say Amadeus was a symptom of it.* Also Beethoven's biography had been embroidered with plenty of half-truths and apocrypha as well. The thing is "the tragic" has hung over Mozart since his early death, and so (for example) everything in a minor key is of course full of foreboding and desolation...like the 40th symphony.


"One of the many unfortunate legacies of nineteenth-century biographical writing is the excessive focus on the Wunderkind Mozart and the Incomparable Genius Mozart." an-interview-with-david-wyn-jones/


----------



## 59540

Eva Yojimbo said:


> ...and apparently their subjectivities are much more common than those that prefer classical.


Common as dirt. (Just kidding, just kidding.)


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> For example;
> 
> _"One of the many unfortunate legacies of nineteenth-century biographical writing is the excessive focus on the Wunderkind Mozart and the Incomparable Genius Mozart._" an-interview-with-david-wyn-jones/


Well that's Mozart. You were talking about Bach propaganda. Tell me hammeredklavier: why was Bach propagandized and not Pachelbel, Zelenka, Handel or Telemann? Did the Powers That Be like Bach's wig more than Telemann's? Why exactly do you think that arbitrary decision was made?


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> You were talking about Bach propaganda.


Go through this: critique-musicale.com/bachen.htm
"It appears that many recent Music History books, and even dictionaries, generally respecting the objectivity of scientific books introduce as Pavlovian reflex about Bach judgments of value. The terms _sublime_, _genial_, _wonderful,_ _marvellous_ are used even though they are generally not used for Vivaldi and most other composers."


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

dissident said:


> Common as dirt. (Just kidding, just kidding.)


No need to kid, as I simply think there's metaphoric value in dirt stretching back to the religions/mythologies that depicted humanity as being created from dirt. There's also the phrase "salt of the Earth," which implies a similar thing. I don't think it's a bad thing to maintain touch with those grounded, earthy, natural roots. Going back to that great Jung quote about man being a civilized animal and too much civilization making for a sick animal.



dissident said:


> Tell me hammeredklavier: why was Bach propagandized and not Pachelbel, Zelenka, Handel or Telemann? Did the Powers That Be like Bach's wig more than Telemann's? Why exactly do you think that arbitrary decision was made?


You didn't ask me, but my own thought is that Bach appealed to the subjectivities that prefer the most theoretical, left-brained aspects of music, and because most of these people tend to be in positions of authority (theorists, teachers, etc.), that's where it started. I hesitate to call this propaganda; I think it's just the natural result of certain music appealing to certain people in positions of authority whose tastes are often accepted by some (many) as being authoritative. I personally think Handel could've (even should've) been the beneficiary of a similar thing; Mozart and Beethoven certainly recognized his genius and didn't think it second rate compared to Bach, and I consistently find more of value in Handel than in Bach myself.

There is a subject worth discussing here about what affect this "greatness by way of authoritative proclamation" has on the perception of art, both with individuals and in society/culture at large. There are many different types of interactions possible: some people may not have a natural affinity for, say, Bach Vs Handel, and will thus simply accept the authoritative opinions that Bach is better. Plenty more may have a natural affinity for Handel, but will downplay that in deference to the authoritative opinions they have respect for. Certainly plenty more may also simply have a natural affinity for Bach and agree with the authoritative opinions naturally.

This complex interaction between individual subjectivities and the opinions of the majority or those in authority is something that happens in many walks of life, and it's more nuanced than what I'd call propaganda or brainwashing; but it's also more nuanced than simply proposing that the things being declared are innately right/better by some set of objective facts. It can be a combination of both in different degrees depending on the individuals.

One thing is for sure and that's such authoritative opinions make it much more likely for people to be, at the very least, exposed to such artists/composers, and that entails its own set of facts, such as the idea that perhaps the reason most now don't prefer hypothetical-forgotten-composer-X compared to hypothetical-famous-composer-Y is due in some part to how many people have heard Y compared to X. We take for granted just how much art has been cultivated for our consumption by those in the past. This maybe one reason most prefer art that's contemporary to their own time.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> Any experience is more than enough. It's why I try so hard to be nice, *painful* though the effort can be.


It also pains me we disagree on topics like this. But I always do care about how you feel, and respect your views. Btw, I've always liked how you're passionate, insightful, inspiring in various topics (for instance, whenever you talk of your lifelong passion for an artist). It's just that there are some things we discuss that constantly disturb me and make me question; "Are we indulging in idolatry (with certain artists), rather than healthy admiration (for them)?" Please try to understand.


----------



## 59540

Eva Yojimbo said:


> You didn't ask me, but my own thought is that Bach appealed to the subjectivities that prefer the most theoretical, left-brained aspects of music, and because most of these people tend to be in positions of authority (theorists, teachers, etc.), that's where it started.


I think that's a huge stretch. I didn't know much theory when I first heard Bach and I hadn't come in contact with any of the "institutionalized Bachian analysis" academic stuff. Secondly, I'm sure that hammeredklavier can demonstrate from references galore that Zelenka, Handel and Telemann are no less analytical, theoretical and left-brained than Bach. Michael Haydn maybe, as well. And I don't know what exactly is meant by "where it started". Did theorists, teachers and other authority figures first advance the music of Bach or was it musicians?


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> Go through this: critique-musicale.com/bachen.htm
> "It appears that many recent Music History books, and even dictionaries, generally respecting the objectivity of scientific books introduce as Pavlovian reflex about Bach judgments of value. The terms _sublime_, _genial_, _wonderful,_ _marvellous_ are used even though they are generally not used for Vivaldi and most other composers."


I had never seen any of those dictionaries and music history books, and probably still haven't. Were those judgements of value sincere, or were they just put-on to advance the music of Bach? And if so, why Bach and not Vivaldi or Handel or Telemann?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

dissident said:


> I think that's a huge stretch. I didn't know much theory when I first heard Bach and I hadn't come in contact with any of the "institutionalized Bachian analysis" academic stuff. Secondly, I'm sure that hammeredklavier can demonstrate from references galore that Zelenka, Handel and Telemann are no less analytical, theoretical and left-brained than Bach. Michael Haydn maybe, as well. And I don't know what exactly is meant by "where it started". Did theorists, teachers and other authority figures first advance the music of Bach or was it musicians?


I don't want to suggest that's the only way it's happened: it's certainly possible to love Bach without all of the theoretical baggage (for lack of a better word), and were it not I'd hazard Bach would have a reputation similar to that of James Joyce: much admired by professors/academics, little loved by audiences. 

Perhaps hammeredklavier can demonstrate what you claim; perhaps not. 

As for "where it started," I'm particularly talking about the view of Bach being quote-end-quote "the greatest," which is often accompanied by the reasons of his harmonic complexity and other theoretical concerns. Certainly musicians can be part of that chorus themselves and many have been; that's not surprising given that musicians often learn from the authorities that teach Bach (and others).


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I also agree there are answers, but *without full understanding it's a bit like the proverbial blind men feeling around an elephant.* We may can illuminate certain aspects of that interaction, but it's also very easy to build shaky theoretical edifices on such ignorance and partial understanding. Science has an antidote for this; aesthetics, not so much.


Much here is a matter of degree, but as far as that goes, I'm not going for the blind men and elephant analogy. As a lifelong practitioner of several arts, I find that description of my (and others') aesthetic understanding quite insulting. Nothing personal, I'm sure...



> I think it's both. Let's consider the two groups you've selected in this hypothetical: the millions of people who will camp overnight to see Callas in Tosca, and the (probably more) millions of people who'd prefer to go out drinking at Murphy's pub. There is certainly a difference in the subjectivities of these two groups that makes one drawn to seeing opera, and the other drawn to drinking in a pub (and probably being indifferent to, if not hostile towards, opera). Certainly there is something in Callas (and in Tosca) that provokes those subjectivities that love opera to want to see her/it, just as there is something in Callas (and in Tosca) that provokes those subjectivities that don't love opera to not care. All of these components matter in the final result. We can do this both for individuals (cousin Howie) and for groups that share similarities and dissimilarities with Howie's subjectivity.


Well, yeah, everyone's "subjectivity" matters, whatever it consists of. But I knew a guy, not into opera at all, who I had watch the phenomenal film of Callas and Gobbi in act two of Tosca. He knew he was seeing something remarkable. I also had my sister - a woman with acting experience and a classical music lover who dislikes Callas's voice - watch it, and she said "I can see what the fuss is all about."

Maybe I'd be impressed by Murphy's pub and its patrons were someone to introduce me, but let's try to keep a little perspective on the potentials of human subjectivity., and the potential of art to captivate and transform it.



> Any time there are intimations, if not outright claims, of objective greatness I see that myopic focus rearing its head.


What you see, at least in the case of some of us, is the simple understanding that talk of the irreducible subjectivity of artistic judgments simply leads nowhere. At least an attempt to talk about the art object is a discussion of art. I'm with those who find talk about art based on a subjective/objective dichotomization not merely pointless but contrary to my own experience of art as both creator and perceiver. But I won't try to go into that again, since it will regiuster with only a few here and will bring down more aridly abstract philosophizing on my aching head.



> I think the "reduction of artistic value to popularity (polls)" is, at least from an objective perspective, basically what's being described, though: lots of people valuing certain art/artists highly is, fundamentally, a poll. This doesn't deny that there are features in the art, the object, that provoke that love; but there's objective features in ice cream (to use that analogy) that provoke some people's love for it too. Why do people like ice cream (and prefer certain flavors) is really the same kind of question whose answers involve understanding both the objective features of the ice cream and the variable subjectivities that respond to it the same way art does.


The gods deliver us from ice cream, objective flavors and all. It's only "the same kind of question" to those interested in that kind of question.



> have no problem praising the genius of composers and excellence of their achievements as long as we're on the same page with exactly what we mean by those accolades; I'm not sure we all always are.


Probably not always. It's good to be different people. It's also good to agree that Mozart and Wagner were F-ing geniuses.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I dare say that Uncle Larry and Aunt Jane have tastes shared with large clusters themselves. Very few people like music that almost nobody else likes. *In terms of clusters, popular music has a far bigger cluster of likers than classical music does.*


Is that fact impressive to you? I consider it somewhat interesting and worth an explanation - not so hard to come up with, eh? - before moving on. We might ask who, under 90 years of age, is listening to Steve and Eydie now, and why.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Now let's look at the Art of the Fugue; why is it not as popular as Pachelbel's canon? Because people have failed to grasp the complexity of the Bach? Or because the Pachelbel has inherent qualities to move more people than the Bach? Or — because the Bach is simply "academicism/pedanticism" passed as profundity? (I'm not saying it is. I'm just posing a question.)


Great things are sometimes difficult things. People listen to music mainly for pleasure, and some music involves mental work. _Art of Fugue_ is a special sort of thing, whether or not we think it's "profound." I'm not so attached to words that I need to characterize it that way, or any way in particular. I merely find no mystery in the fact that it isn't a huge hit among the hoi polloi. Heck, I rarely listen to it myself.

God, is this obsession with popularity tedious.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> One reason though is obvious: it's not as catchy and readily digested.


Whatabout this-


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> For example;
> 
> *"One of the many unfortunate legacies of nineteenth-century biographical writing is the excessive focus on the Wunderkind Mozart and the Incomparable Genius Mozart."* an-interview-with-david-wyn-jones/


It appears that Chopin, Brahms, Wagner, Tchaikovsky and many others, people who seemed to agree on little else, agreed with the estimates of Mozart which were to become that "unfortunate legacy." 

Just sayin' ...


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> It also pains me we disagree on topics like this. But I always do care about how you feel, and respect your views. Btw, I've always liked how you're passionate, insightful, inspiring in various topics (for instance, whenever you talk of your lifelong passion for an artist). It's just that there are some things we discuss that constantly disturb me and make me question;* "Are we indulging in idolatry (with certain artists), rather than healthy admiration (for them)?"* Please try to understand.


Idolatry is as far from my nature as it could be. Perhaps others engage in it. I don't bother myself about that, and neither should you. Music is too essential to human life to be long captured by idolatry. Rock stars are idolized - until the people who remember them die off. Nobody remembers Bach, but he still makes musicians catch their breath.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> Well those "clusters" are clustered tastes and opinions which should be celebrated as well. The clusters are people. So celebrate one individual taste, but two or three or a million having essentially similar reactions is a dehumanized "cluster".


We will then question every individual separately and publish a record of everyone's particular candidates for profundity. No clusters. Who will begin? This may mire us in the quagmire of the subjective, and we wouldn't want that, surely. But all are given their moment of Warholian fame: a chance to tell their story


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> It's also good to agree that Mozart and Wagner were F-ing geniuses.


Sure, but even if you _honestly_ think


hammeredklavier said:


> Woodduck: "I only listen to Mozart when I'm in the mood for _Mozartkugeln_, but the _Mozartkugeln_ can be too _sickeningly sugary sweet_ sometimes."
> Me: "Brutal."


I'll _always_ understand.




Woodduck said:


> It appears that Chopin, Brahms, Wagner, Tchaikovsky and many others, people who seemed to agree on little else, agreed with the estimates of Mozart which were to become that "unfortunate legacy."


We don't know _everything_. _Neither did_ those guys. Depending on what we discover, anything can happen. We _could_ even come to the conclusions; _"It seems the things we've admired about Mozart weren't really that special after all." "At least Haydn didn't write fluff like Cosi fan tutte, I'll root for him instead."_

Some of those guys were either way too focused on Mozart or knew little else other than Mozart (when it comes to the late 18th century), it's questionable if they always made the_ right judgments_ on his music (in terms of certain specific elements). They could have been "unfortunate legacy" that has done disservice to one (or possibly more) of his contemporaries (It's what David Wyn Jones is saying with that sentence in that article).

Chopin at the end of his life told Delacroix how Mozart was singular in working with harmony and counterpoint. Brahms at the end of his life wrote to Heuberger about Mozart's "innovation" with use of dissonance. Wagner, according to Cosima, said that Mozart was a great Chromatiker.
I think there's a reason why Schubert (who admired Haydn since his days as a chorister in Vienna), Bruckner (who knew Haydn's liturgical music at Sankt Florian, along with Aumann's), and Weber (who studied with Haydn whenever he and his family returned to Salzburg) did not make comments like those.




Not the best examples, but you get the point-
the harmonic "profundity" of the slow movement (starting at 3:25)-


----------



## Strange Magic

It seems good here to again quote J. Robert Oppenheimer, an aesthete if ever there was one. He wrote his younger brother Frank that the way to determine what was Great Art was to see what was liked by the Best People. In other words, Follow the Leader.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> We don't know _everything_. _Neither did_ those guys. Depending on what we discover, anything can happen. We _could_ even come to the conclusions; _"It seems the things we've admired about Mozart weren't really that special after all." "At least Haydn didn't write fluff like Cosi fan tutte, I'll root for him instead."_
> 
> Some of those guys were either way too focused on Mozart or knew little else other than Mozart (when it comes to the late 18th century), it's questionable if they always made the_ right judgments_ on his music (in terms of certain specific elements). They could have been "unfortunate legacy" that has done disservice to one (or more) of his contemporaries (It's what David Wyn Jones is saying with that sentence in that article).
> 
> Chopin at the end of his life told Delacroix how Mozart was singular in working with harmony and counterpoint. Brahms at the end of his life wrote to Heuberger about Mozart's "innovation" with use of dissonance. Wagner, according to Cosima, said that Mozart was a great Chromatiker.
> I think there's a reason why Schubert (who admired Haydn since his days as a chorister in Vienna), Bruckner (who knew Haydn's liturgical music at Sankt Florian, along with Aumann's), and Weber (who studied with Haydn whenever he and his family returned to Salzburg) did not make comments like those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the best examples, but you get the point -
> the harmonic "profundity" of the slow movement @3:25


I simply don't see the point of this. What is it evidence of? That nobody knows everything, that intelligent people can say unperceptive things, that judgments are imperfect and subject to alteration over time, that less celebrated composers also wrote superb music, that some good stuff by Ignaz Ditterwitter von Lippenschmacher is unfairly neglected for various reasons - what does it prove? That Mozart's reputation is an international conspiracy by a cabal of elitists who aim to establish a new world order in which every restaurant must serve Mozartkugeln as a main course?

All these "AHA!" revelations of life's imperfections are just embarrassingly naive. History's verdict is what it is. We're free to disagree with it or ignore it, but pretending to refute it with anecdotes is foolery.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> History's verdict is what it is.


What is it exactly though? Let's face the _inconvenient truth_; in the end, it's _all about popularity_. Again, a certain member in the past made a good point by posting the following in another thread (something for us to think about):

"All of the factors contributing to greatness are interrelated and dependent on each other. For example, one factor mentioned above is the tradition of received wisdom: belief in A's greatness has been passed down from generation to generation, reinforced by music textbooks and concert performances and internet forums, while belief in B's greatness has not. Another factor mentioned above is the test of time: A seems greater than B because the former's music has survived till today while the latter's has not. But these two factors are mutually reinforcing: if music textbooks have chapters on A but not B, then of course the former is going to have a leg up on the latter when it comes to the test of time. Conversely, if A's music is still performed today while B's is not, then of course music textbooks are going to have chapters on the former but not the latter. Likewise, another factor that has been mentioned is influence: A has demonstrably had a lasting influence on later composers, even today, while B has not. This is also inherently connected to the above factors: since A appears in textbooks and is more widely performed than B, then of course he is going to have a greater influence on later composers than B will.

In other words, the concept of greatness is a complex and circular system. By this point in time it's also a self-sustaining one, precisely because of the circularity. After all, this system is basically what we call a canon, and it is the very purpose of a canon to be self-perpetuating. As I wrote about in another thread some years ago, it is difficult to imagine any canonical composer being removed from the cycle and losing their canonical status, and it's difficult to imagine any non-canonical composer being inserted into the cycle and acquiring canonical status. I don't think the canon was always closed, and I don't want to think it is now, but if I'm being honest with myself then I have to think realistically that it is."


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> What is it exactly though? Let's face the _inconvenient truth_; in the end, it's _all about popularity_. Again, a certain member in the past made a good point by posting the following in another thread (something for us to think about):
> 
> "All of the factors contributing to greatness are interrelated and dependent on each other. For example, one factor mentioned above is the tradition of received wisdom: belief in A's greatness has been passed down from generation to generation, reinforced by music textbooks and concert performances and internet forums, while belief in B's greatness has not. Another factor mentioned above is the test of time: A seems greater than B because the former's music has survived till today while the latter's has not. But these two factors are mutually reinforcing: if music textbooks have chapters on A but not B, then of course the former is going to have a leg up on the latter when it comes to the test of time. Conversely, if A's music is still performed today while B's is not, then of course music textbooks are going to have chapters on the former but not the latter. Likewise, another factor that has been mentioned is influence: A has demonstrably had a lasting influence on later composers, even today, while B has not. This is also inherently connected to the above factors: since A appears in textbooks and is more widely performed than B, then of course he is going to have a greater influence on later composers than B will.
> 
> In other words, the concept of greatness is a complex and circular system. By this point in time it's also a self-sustaining one, precisely because of the circularity. After all, this system is basically what we call a canon, and it is the very purpose of a canon to be self-perpetuating. As I wrote about in another thread some years ago, it is difficult to imagine any canonical composer being removed from the cycle and losing their canonical status, and it's difficult to imagine any non-canonical composer being inserted into the cycle and acquiring canonical status. I don't think the canon was always closed, and I don't want to think it is now, but if I'm being honest with myself then I have to think realistically that it is."


Perhaps we could go back and correct the canon, with our modern knowledge and our modern resources.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> What is it exactly though? Let's face the _inconvenient truth_; in the end, it's _all about popularity_. Again, a certain member in the past made a good point by posting the following in another thread (something for us to think about):
> 
> "All of the factors contributing to greatness are interrelated and dependent on each other. For example, one factor mentioned above is the tradition of received wisdom: belief in A's greatness has been passed down from generation to generation, reinforced by music textbooks and concert performances and internet forums, while belief in B's greatness has not. Another factor mentioned above is the test of time: A seems greater than B because the former's music has survived till today while the latter's has not. But these two factors are mutually reinforcing: if music textbooks have chapters on A but not B, then of course the former is going to have a leg up on the latter when it comes to the test of time. Conversely, if A's music is still performed today while B's is not, then of course music textbooks are going to have chapters on the former but not the latter. Likewise, another factor that has been mentioned is influence: A has demonstrably had a lasting influence on later composers, even today, while B has not. This is also inherently connected to the above factors: since A appears in textbooks and is more widely performed than B, then of course he is going to have a greater influence on later composers than B will.
> 
> In other words, the concept of greatness is a complex and circular system. By this point in time it's also a self-sustaining one, precisely because of the circularity. After all, this system is basically what we call a canon, and it is the very purpose of a canon to be self-perpetuating. As I wrote about in another thread some years ago, it is difficult to imagine any canonical composer being removed from the cycle and losing their canonical status, and it's difficult to imagine any non-canonical composer being inserted into the cycle and acquiring canonical status. I don't think the canon was always closed, and I don't want to think it is now, but if I'm being honest with myself then I have to think realistically that it is."


The only thing that's "all about popularity" is popularity. There are various reasons why one thing is more popular than another, but your attempt to prove that it has nothing to do with inherent quality proves no such thing.

You begin with conclusions and look for quotes that you think demonstrate them. Yet some quotes attempt to show that greatness can't be real because estimates of composers and works change over time, while others (as here) attempt to show that greatness can't be real by arguing that the canon won't allow for change. Which is it?

The "canon" is not closed, and it - whatever it's thought to consist of - hasn't prevented an incredible amount of non-canonical music from circulating via recordings. Meanwhile, many works have entered or left the standard repertoires of orchestras and opera companies. This is to be expected as audiences become accustomed to new sounds or hear old works in fresh perspective, while other works that spoke to their own time come to feel like period pieces. Mahler is now central, and Meyerbeer puts in only the occasional appearance. Both developments are warranted: we've come to understand how much Mahler had to say about us, generation after generation, and how little Meyerbeer did.

So your research, while interesting at times, is far from dispositive in the present discussion. My ears and brain tell me that _Don Giovanni_ is far superior to Haydn's _Man in the Moon, _and that the former will be a repertory staple approximately forever while the latter will remain a pleasant curiosity worth an occasional mounting (but definitely worth recording, as are many works unlikely to make it in the concert hall or opera house). I don't need to dig up quotes or consult polls to tell the difference between such works. But if I did, I'd likely find that posterity agreed with me. That has a tendency to happen to any number of perceptive listeners, and it's a tendency your quotes conveniently fail to address.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

I do not find any music profound... simply because I don't know what it means.


----------



## Forster

Whether one uses the term 'profound' with regard to music...or art....or any other sphere of life...might depend on the way you quantify or evaluate the business of existence.

If we're all just waiting for Godot, then discovering a small pebble in your shoe is as 'profound' as the birth of your first child, or listening to a Wagnerian opera, or the discovery of penicillin. People are welcome to read 'profundity' into music and then, if they will, explain what they mean by it, but it's not a term I personally choose to use.

I may have said something like this before, but this is a thread full of repetitions, so I feel quite at liberty...


----------



## Strange Magic

4chamberedklavier said:


> I do not find any music profound... simply because I don't know what it means.


I think it would be fruitful to turn to the old thread on musical profundity and look again at the ways of identifying and of evaluating such profundity--Posts #26 through #34 will do nicely. Here, for example, is my speculation--old post #28-- that musical profundity might be identified and defined by our body's/nervous system's reaction to certain elements in our experiencing of particular moments in the unfolding of a musical work. I offer it as food for thought.

"Crudblud offers a definition of musical profundity that says it is a listening experience that appears to bypass the brain and is instead directly felt by the body. If by this formulation, Crudblud refers to gooseflesh, chills and thrills, "skin orgasms" and the like, there is a growing body of research and literature on this subject, wherein the interaction between the stimuli, the brain, and the limbic system is being shown to be key. I have discussed a little of this previously, positing the importance of "cusp" musical experiences in inducing these reactions; also trance experiences may be involved, and what one could call cumulative experiences. An example of a cusp would be the sudden organ blast that heralds the final passages of the Saint-Saens 3rd Symphony, or the growing rush that begins the finale of Sibelius' _Pohjola's Daughter_; I also spoke of the cusp in _The Waiting_ by Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. For trance we look again to the ostinato effects of Sibelius: 2nd Symphony, final movement, or maybe Rachmaninoff _Isle of the Dead_; also the Isley Brothers' _That Lady_, long version. For cumulative, the Hallelujah Chorus, or _Bolero_, though Bolero combines both trance and cumulative effects.

But surely Crudblud is saying there must be more to musical profundity than thrills and chills, which can be found in the most unusual places in all of music, and so there is more to it, but it again is inseparably tied, in my view, to the subjective experience of music. So, if musical profundity is to be spoken of, it should be remembered that it is merely convention, like our conversations about greatness, reflecting only our own individual experiences of music. In this sense, Woodduck's and Crudblud's analyses are but different facets of the same argument, with neither getting us much closer to a compelling definition of musical profundity."


SaveShare


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> My ears and brain tell me that _Don Giovanni_ is far superior to Haydn's _Man in the Moon, _and that the former will be a repertory staple approximately forever while the latter will remain a pleasant curiosity worth an occasional mounting (but definitely worth recording, as are many works unlikely to make it in the concert hall or opera house).


I see what you're saying, but if I think like that, I still end up arriving at disturbing conclusions (what seem to me like "an elephant in the room", based on what I've observed). Any late 18th century composer/work can be thought to be objectively better/equal/worse than another, for instance? On what grounds do we think Mozart is _guaranteed_ to win that contest in all aspects objectively? And by what criteria are we judging? The composers' sense in harmony and sophistication of counterpoint?
For example - Haydn, a composer even lesser-known than Boccherini not many people care about, wrote
Christus factus est, MH38 (1761) OLAK5uy_nMi5KOC_1JKTnHcO9E88D4UBlaVtEweq8&index=13
as his (roughly) "38th" work,
Missa sanctae Crucis MH56 (1762) Nbr83TnFL-g&list=PLBSULQah5VycDjSqGgwApQL4iyR8aaQR3
as his (roughly) "56th" work,
symphony No.4 in B flat MH62 (1763), (which would later have an influence on Mozart's 25th in terms of the mood changes and structure of the slow movement) watch?v=w-t1JKs_L3U&t=10m53s
as his (roughly) "62nd" work,
the quintet from the singspiel 'Die Hochzeit auf der Alm' MH107 (1768) youtube.com/watch?v=M2SHuHCivRI
as his (roughly) "107th" work,
and so on..

You see what I'm saying?
People talk about how Mozart never wrote any "bad work". But (as far as harmony and counterpoint are concerned) this Haydn guy seems to have gone even farther by never writing any "bad or immature work". Here's a guy who seems to have had a grip on counterpoint from his earliest opuses (in the 1760s), and consistently kept or went above that level of "quality" in some 800 works that followed (up until 1805), many of which have not been recorded yet.
By comparison, it could be thought that Mozart really had only about 15 years of "mature period". Some day, when all of Haydn's works are recorded, it could may be shown that Mozart cannot beat Haydn in terms of average level of quality of works, a legitimate criterion of "artistic achievement".
What are the "Mozart equivalents" of the arias of the serenata, Endimione MH186 (1776) -maybe the arias of Litaniae K.243 or Il re Pastore K.208?
Which one is more "profound", if we're trying to judge things fairly?


----------



## Sid James

A lot of the qualities we associate with profundity in music come out of the 19th century, e.g.:

seriousness, depth often with a philosophical or religious basis
thematic unity, every note related to the other
overwhelming scale, sprawling length of a piece

There's also a lot to be said for qualities not usually associated with profundity in music, like clarity, simplicity and transparency of texture.

There's danger in creating a dichotomy between one being the authentic and cohesive expression of a composer's vision and the other showing the composer to be applying technique like a mimic, without sincerity or passion.

In any case, profundity might be little more than a byproduct of the music. Inspiration coming from deep inner voices come out in various ways - profound, sublime, pretentious, banal and so on. No matter whether the composer aims at profundity or not, there's not much to separate their works in terms of quality. While having modest aims can still bring out the best from a composer, aiming high can waste energy and produce music which is written under pressure to create something profound (composers usually did this when composing something big, like an opera, whether or not it was their area of strength).


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> With your idea of collective memories, I submit that you are in poll country, willing or not. Do more people love Bach than love Elvis? I don't know but I am sure we could find out, given enough time and money.


A poll is where a representative cross section of a population is selected and asked a series of predetermined questions or subjected to predetermined tests. It is a valid statistical technique for many purposes when done correctly. The tricky aspect to using polls to determine what music is most culturally significant or profound is that mere popularity, or size and enthusiasm of audience, doesn't do it. One indirect sign of cultural significance, pointed out by Hume, is when an artist is remembered and recognized decades or centuries after their own lifetime. (I've picked 75 years, or the approximate length of an average human life, as a measure.) But cultural influence can be quite subtle, and not easily revealed by polls. One's tastes can be profoundly influenced by art of previous eras without even realizing it.


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> A poll is where a representative cross section of a population is selected and asked a series of predetermined questions or subjected to predetermined tests. It is a valid statistical technique for many purposes when done correctly. The tricky aspect to using polls to determine what music is most culturally significant or profound is that mere popularity, or size and enthusiasm of audience, doesn't do it. One indirect sign of cultural significance, pointed out by Hume, is when an artist is remembered and recognized decades or centuries after their own lifetime. (I've picked 75 years, or the approximate length of an average human life, as a measure.) But cultural influence can be quite subtle, and not easily revealed by polls. One's tastes can be profoundly influenced by art of previous eras without even realizing it.


I suspect SM is using the term more simply: a count of people with, metaphorically speaking, raised hands.


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> I suspect SM is using the term more simply: a count of people with, metaphorically speaking, raised hands.


Which establishes very little in this context, as I've said.


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> If a question admits of no answer, then it's hardly worth asking. I think there ARE answers, and that more answers are possible. The demand for complete knowledge of what makes art variable in its power and scope, and the retreat into a sort of egalitarian subjectivism, is just an evasion of everything interesting about art and the experience of it. I'm not accusing _you_ of that, but...


What's funny is that I kind of see this going on in the other direction! I've said it before but the frustrating thing about "polling" (once again - not just popularity, but the general historical and contemporary reputation of composers and works) is that it bypasses the phenomenon of aesthetic reaction itself, and prefers to measure the effects that reaction has. This makes a lot of sense, as if you can't directly measure something, you can sometimes measure the effect it has on its surroundings - but this is an indirect measurement that - at least to my mind - doesn't explain aesthetic pleasure so much as measure the impact it has. 

Popularity, historical repute, contemporary reactions, current-day reactions, etc - all those are effects. The source of pleasure in music, though (at least, my pleasure) is the cause. And that's much harder to pin down - the creation of such strong reactions from abstract form is such a mystery that - to me - it's no surprise that many ascribed mystical and religious powers to music.


----------



## fbjim

fluteman said:


> A poll is where a representative cross section of a population is selected and asked a series of predetermined questions or subjected to predetermined tests. It is a valid statistical technique for many purposes when done correctly. The tricky aspect to using polls to determine what music is most culturally significant or profound is that mere popularity, or size and enthusiasm of audience, doesn't do it. One indirect sign of cultural significance, pointed out by Hume, is when an artist is remembered and recognized decades or centuries after their own lifetime. (I've picked 75 years, or the approximate length of an average human life, as a measure.) But cultural influence can be quite subtle, and not easily revealed by polls. One's tastes can be profoundly influenced by art of previous eras without even realizing it.


I've sort of seen "polling" as a general shorthand for not just popularity, but measurable, or - at least semi-measurable - effects such as historical reputation, reputation among scholars, difference between contemporary and current reputation ("staying power"), and literal popularity polls.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> I see what you're saying, but if I think like that, I still end up arriving at disturbing conclusions (what seem to me like "an elephant in the room", based on what I've observed). Any late 18th century composer/work can be thought to be objectively better/equal/worse than another, for instance? On what grounds do we think Mozart is _guaranteed_ to win that contest in all aspects objectively? And by what criteria are we judging? ...


If you demonstrate absolutely 100% that every single bit of it is strictly subjective, that's where "so what?" comes in. It's not going to change my opinion of Michael Haydn or Bach or Mozart. It would just be descriptive of a reality that's already there. That's why the whole "debate" goes nowhere.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> A poll is where a representative cross section of a population is selected and asked a series of predetermined questions or subjected to predetermined tests. It is a valid statistical technique for many purposes when done correctly. The tricky aspect to using polls to determine what music is most culturally significant or profound is that mere popularity, or size and enthusiasm of audience, doesn't do it. One indirect sign of cultural significance, pointed out by Hume, is when an artist is remembered and recognized decades or centuries after their own lifetime. (I've picked 75 years, or the approximate length of an average human life, as a measure.) But cultural influence can be quite subtle, and not easily revealed by polls. One's tastes can be profoundly influenced by art of previous eras without even realizing it.


I think we would agree that who are polled is the most important parameter in judging the results of the poll. Oppenheimer's advice to his brother was essentially to poll the "Best People". Who are the best people to poll on any given topic in the arts? And if their assessment differs markedly from one's own does one throw away one's own brain and substitute the group brain? I think most art lovers (secretly) would balk at the idea.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *fluteman: * "One indirect sign of cultural significance, pointed out by Hume, is when an artist is remembered and recognized decades or centuries after their own lifetime. (I've picked 75 years, or the approximate length of an average human life, as a measure.) But cultural influence can be quite subtle, and not easily revealed by polls. One's tastes can be profoundly influenced by art of previous eras without even realizing it".


I completely agree. This is another example of the subjectivity that polling reveals. Only the art that has survived by virtue of either popularity (polling) or by escaping never being discovered (Lucretius' poetry would be an example) is left to influence the minds of later generations. If the treasures of Tutankhamen's tomb and ancient Egyptian art were still sealed in the chamber or otherwise destroyed, the influence upon subsequent art would be probably non-existent.


----------



## Strange Magic

fbjim said:


> What's funny is that I kind of see this going on in the other direction! I've said it before but the frustrating thing about "polling" (once again - not just popularity, but the general historical and contemporary reputation of composers and works) is that it bypasses the phenomenon of aesthetic reaction itself, and prefers to measure the effects that reaction has. This makes a lot of sense, as if you can't directly measure something, you can sometimes measure the effect it has on its surroundings - but this is an indirect measurement that - at least to my mind - doesn't explain aesthetic pleasure so much as measure the impact it has.
> 
> Popularity, historical repute, contemporary reactions, current-day reactions, etc - all those are effects. The source of pleasure in music, though (at least, my pleasure) is the cause. And that's much harder to pin down - the creation of such strong reactions from abstract form is such a mystery that - to me - it's no surprise that many ascribed mystical and religious powers to music.


One path forward, though an extremely difficult one, is through research into neurology, physiology, brain chemistry in response to certain musical stimuli.


----------



## fbjim

Strange Magic said:


> One path forward, though an extremely difficult one, is through research into neurology, physiology, brain chemistry in response to certain musical stimuli.


It's a path forward but not one I have too much personal interest in. Not to be all mystical, but the "magic" of abstract music provoking strong reactions, while a source of fascination, isn't quite something I care about "explaining" so much as experiencing.


----------



## Strange Magic

fbjim said:


> It's a path forward but not one I have too much personal interest in. Not to be all mystical, but the "magic" of abstract music provoking strong reactions, while a source of fascination, isn't quite something I care about "explaining" so much as experiencing.


I agree. But whether we are interested or not, research goes forward on the physiology/neurochemistry of our reactions to music. Just as there is research on the chemistry of love. One step forward has been the identification of limerence as a well-defined psychosexual/emotional state that shares characteristics with what is generally spoken of as love and may be a precursor to love, or may wither and die. Dorothy Tennov's masterful book_ Love and Limerence _is the seminal work in this area and points the way toward understanding the physiology of attraction. Wikipedia has an excellent article on limerence. There are many examples in literature of limerence--one I particularly recall is in _Anna Karenina _when Anna "falls in love" with Vronsky. Those who have experienced limerence themselves will know just what it is about. It is very powerful.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> We will then question every individual separately and publish a record of everyone's particular candidates for profundity. No clusters. Who will begin? This may mire us in the quagmire of the subjective, and we wouldn't want that, surely. But all are given their moment of Warholian fame: a chance to tell their story


The results would probably still be pretty much the same. So then again, so what? A cluster is merely a bunch of individual stories that are similar. The question to be answered -- and which you studiously avoid -- is, why is there this or that "cluster" to begin with? And then we're back to the "they like X because X is liked by a lot of people" circularity. It doesn't address _why_ X is popular in the first place. We'll then get unprovable answers like "well Bernhard Schrankenkopf said in a diary entry in 1848 that Mozart was the acme of musical genius and so that's part of the reason you think that way about Mozart today."


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> The results would probably still be pretty much the same. So then again, so what? A cluster is merely a bunch of individual stories that are similar. The question to be answered -- and which you studiously avoid -- is, why is there this or that "cluster" to begin with? And then we're back to the "they like X because X is liked by a lot of people" circularity. It doesn't address _why_ X is popular in the first place. We'll then get unprovable answers like "well Bernhard Schrankenkopf said in a diary entry in 1848 that Mozart was the acme of musical genius and so that's part of the reason you think that way about Mozart today."


To repeat: neurology/psychology/brain chemistry will provide the general details. Personal history will likely remain the final variable to be teased out. Likely not to happen. Everyone will continue to be unique.


----------



## julide

A profound work for me is something like schuberts string quintet where i don't necessarily enjoy myself listening to it yet i come back to it because theres truth and psychological insight in it


----------



## hammeredklavier

julide said:


> schuberts string quintet
> theres truth and psychological insight in it


Adolf Eichmann: "Does it tear your heart out?"


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> Much here is a matter of degree, but as far as that goes, I'm not going for the blind men and elephant analogy. As a lifelong practitioner of several arts, I find that description of my (and others') aesthetic understanding quite insulting. Nothing personal, I'm sure...


As a lifelong practitioner (and studier: I'm that kook who reads textbooks for fun) I find that description of my (and others') aesthetic understanding dead on. It's a bit like science in that regard. Sure, we can admire just how much we've come to know in contrast to our hominid origins, going from learning how to use tools and build fires to traveling to the moon and discovering all the weird movements of subatomic particles... but at the same time if you can look at the remaining mysteries of life and the universe and not be humbled by them then something is very wrong. I'm reminded of the great Isaac Newton quote: "I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."



Woodduck said:


> Well, yeah, everyone's "subjectivity" matters, whatever it consists of. But I knew a guy, not into opera at all, who I had watch the phenomenal film of Callas and Gobbi in act two of Tosca. He knew he was seeing something remarkable. I also had my sister - a woman with acting experience and a classical music lover who dislikes Callas's voice - watch it, and she said "I can see what the fuss is all about."
> 
> Maybe I'd be impressed by Murphy's pub and its patrons were someone to introduce me, but let's try to keep a little perspective on the potentials of human subjectivity., and the potential of art to captivate and transform it.


And I know a guy, not into opera at all, but who's a rather sensitive aesthete with a taste for great films and literature, whom I introduced to Tristan und Isolde and he couldn't even finish it... though I did have some luck with having him watch a filmed version of Bartok's Bluebeard's Castle. I'm sure we all have anecdotes like this, and I dare say mine is more common than yours: most people don't like opera and don't have the experience with opera to pick out the "great voices" or "great operas" from the offal and also-rans. I guarantee that if you played a clip of Callas and an ordinary soprano most people couldn't tell the difference. The only way to make these subjectivities see the "greatness" in Callas or any great opera is simply make them empathetic to what WE see in these things; but this is the same kind of empathy (even sympathy) I'm saying we should be doing for ALL subjectivities, including the folks at Murphy's pub.



Woodduck said:


> What you see, at least in the case of some of us, is the simple understanding that talk of the irreducible subjectivity of artistic judgments simply leads nowhere.


This gets into arguments of pragmatism. To me, I'm always interested in truth whether it's pragmatic or not. To me, I think the understanding of the objective/subjective distinction doesn't just pertain to truth, but in many life situations is quite useful. Is it useful to anyone's artistic work? Probably not, no more than understanding physics is useful to a baseball player when he's up to bat. My issue is that some are trying build objectively true theories out of what are subjective feelings that don't have any truth value. That has more damaging consequences in, say, religion and politics compared to aesthetics, of course.



Woodduck said:


> Is that fact impressive to you? I consider it somewhat interesting and worth an explanation - not so hard to come up with, eh? - before moving on. We might ask who, under 90 years of age, is listening to Steve and Eydie now, and why.


I don't see why it would/should be any less impressive than the reputation of Bach among the subjectivities of classical music lovers, players, conductors, theorists, etc. Other than the fact that my own subjectivity is probably closer to, and thus more naturally sympathetic with, the Bach lovers, other than this biased sympathetic preference there is no objective reason why mass tastes are any less impressive. There's even reasons, I think, why it should be more impressive. As the great Billy Wilder said: "An audience is never wrong. An individual member of it may be an imbecile, but a thousand imbeciles together in the dark - that is critical genius."

The fact that much popular art is forgotten doesn't mean much; most unpopular art is forgotten too, as has most classical music been forgotten. Very little art from any genre or style remains over long periods of time, and I'm also not convinced that this "lasting" is any definitive sign of greatness. What it is is a sign of art that, if we're being generous and non-cynical (the way hammeredklavier is with his brainwashing and circularity of popularity theories), we can say such art managed to tap into the fundamental aspects of human experience and psychology and managed to render them powerfully within a medium... that's all well-and-good, but nobody is a "universal human;" we are particular humans from particular times and places within particular cultures with particular styles, tastes, etc. The fact that people like to see the flesh-and-blood aspects of their particular experience rendered in art is not an aesthetic crime. The fact that this rendering of particularities means it's likely that art will fade with the fashions doesn't mean it was any less excellent at capturing these particularities of time, place, and experiences. Yes, art can be both particular and universal, but that's rarer still.[/QUOTE]


----------



## wormcycle

Strange Magic said:


> One path forward, though an extremely difficult one, is through research into neurology, physiology, brain chemistry in response to certain musical stimuli.


And then we just define a specific neurological and chemical response of the body as the reaction to "certain musical stimuli" that we would call...profound?. It looks like more we worship science the less we understand.


----------



## Strange Magic

wormcycle said:


> And then we just define a specific neurological and chemical response of the body as the reaction to "certain musical stimuli" that we would call...profound?. It looks like more we worship science the less we understand.


Maybe you worship science. I don't. I merely regard it as the least fallible way of looking at reality and coming the closest to understanding it. Hard to get my mind around science making us understand less. Do people worship art?

You might be interested in an essay by the late philosopher Ernest Nagel titled _Naturalism Reconsidered. _He gave it as a presidential address before the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association in 1954. His specialty was in the scientific method as a path toward understanding the world and he authored several books on the subject. The essay is short but well worth the examination.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> As a lifelong practitioner (and studier: I'm that kook who reads textbooks for fun) I find that description of my (and others') aesthetic understanding dead on.


Well, that's rather pretentious. An analogy is only an analogy. It isn't supposed to be "dead on," it's merely supposed to offer a useful parallel. Analogies are nearly all bad if taken too far or too literally. In this case, a bunch of blind people feeling an elephant's body parts and thinking they're actually snakes and whatever doesn't sound to me like a good analogy for our understanding of how art works. Maybe you feel that that describes _your_ understanding.



> It's a bit like science in that regard. Sure, we can admire just how much we've come to know in contrast to our hominid origins, going from learning how to use tools and build fires to traveling to the moon and discovering all the weird movements of subatomic particles... but at the same time if you can look at the remaining mysteries of life and the universe and not be humbled by them then something is very wrong.


Similarly, I doubt you can really comment on anyone else's level of humility, if that's what you're doing (but maybe you're not doing that?).



> And I know a guy, not into opera at all, but who's a rather sensitive aesthete with a taste for great films and literature, whom I introduced to Tristan und Isolde and he couldn't even finish it... though I did have some luck with having him watch a filmed version of Bartok's Bluebeard's Castle. I'm sure we all have anecdotes like this, and I dare say mine is more common than yours: most people don't like opera and don't have the experience with opera to pick out the "great voices" or "great operas" from the offal and also-rans. I guarantee that if you played a clip of Callas and an ordinary soprano most people couldn't tell the difference. The only way to make these subjectivities see the "greatness" in Callas or any great opera is simply make them empathetic to what WE see in these things; but this is the same kind of empathy (even sympathy) I'm saying we should be doing for ALL subjectivities, including the folks at Murphy's pub.


I continue to be surprised that you radical subjectivists find such significance in the fact that not every great work of art is enjoyed by every "sensitive aesthete." Do you really think that individuality of taste implies anything about the existence of more universal aesthetic values? Or do you imagine that the power of the individual psyche to affect people's reactions to art needs to be demonstrated? Has anyone denied that?

The ability of one person ignorant of classical music and opera, and of another person hostile to Callas's voice, to be powerfully affected by her film of _Tosca, _impressed me, but it didn't surprise me. It says much about the capacity of the art, of Puccini's and/or Callas's, to cut through enormous differences in the people who receive it. By contrast, your "sensitive aesthete's" inability to get through _Tristan und Isolde _on first exposure doesn't impress me at all. I knew a guy who couldn't get past the first fifteen minutes of _Tristan_; he said it was so intense he had to take the record off. This guy was a psychiatrist and a lover of Mahler! I just laughed and told him to try again when his psyche felt stronger. Nobody should underestimate the power of listeners' experience and temperament to affect their reception of art, and I certainly don't. But to take that as casting doubt on obvious artistic greatness is a foolish non sequitur.



> My issue is that some are trying build objectively true theories out of what are *subjective feelings that don't have any truth value*. That has more damaging consequences in, say, religion and politics compared to aesthetics, of course.


Your (and others') comparison of aesthetics and religion is epistemically myopic, has very limited validity, and is insulting to artists and those who appreciate what artists do. An artist's knowledge that in the progress of his work he's making it better is as unprovable, by the quantifiable metrics of science, as the theologian's belief in the Holy Trinity, but it is not at all the same sort of belief. It is _actual first hand knowledge of a tangible reality, _not some "revelation" of a fanciful alternate or parallel "reality" which someone says he ought to believe. It has _truth value,_ but evidently not of a sort you can comprehend or accept.



> I don't see why [the reputation of popular performers like Steve Lawrence and Eydie Gorme] would/should be any less impressive than the reputation of Bach among the subjectivities of classical music lovers, players, conductors, theorists, etc.


I do. For one thing, those who can comprehend Bach can very likely also comprehend Steve and Eydie, even if they don't care so much for the genre. The opposite is much less likely to be true.



> Other than the fact that my own subjectivity is probably closer to, and thus more naturally sympathetic with, the Bach lovers, other than this biased sympathetic preference *there is no objective reason why mass tastes are any less impressive. There's even reasons, I think, why it should be more impressive.* As the great Billy Wilder said: "An audience is never wrong. An individual member of it may be an imbecile, but a thousand imbeciles together in the dark - that is critical genius."


And those reasons are...?


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

I would guess that what the masses prefer is considered less impressive because of the idea that a work must sacrifice complexity & variety for the sake of appealing to the lowest common denominator. For people who value complexity & variety above all else, I don't think it's unfair for them to consider that what the masses prefer, _in general (especially in our current environment where everything is commercialized), _will not meet their standards. That's not to say that everything that appeals to the masses is (according to their standards) low quality. Only that there is a tendency for it to be so.

There is truth in the idea that the audience is never wrong, but it can be hard to disentangle the part of the audience appreciation that comes from a work meeting commonly-held aesthetic standards (i.e. appreciating the truly impressive works), from the part of audience appreciation that is a result of people taking advantage of trends in the name of profit. You could say this involves cases where the audience doesn't know what it's missing out on because it's not profitable to produce certain kinds of music that they would potentially enjoy more than what they are currently listening to.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> Adolf Eichmann: "Does it tear your heart out?"


1. Is that historically accurate? 2. Are you in the Eichmann camp?


----------



## hammeredklavier

4chamberedklavier said:


> I would guess that what the masses prefer is considered less impressive because of the idea that a work must sacrifice complexity & variety for the sake of appealing to the lowest common denominator.


How can you explain the "phenomenon" of Pachelbel's canon and the Art of the Fugue, which I talked about earlier.



4chamberedklavier said:


> For people who value complexity & variety above all else, I don't think it's unfair for them to consider that what the masses prefer, _in general (especially in our current environment where everything is commercialized), _will not meet their standards. That's not to say that everything that appeals to the masses is (according to their standards) low quality. Only that there is a tendency for it to be so.


Or maybe we are "nerdy little circles" having fetish for music hundreds of years old, and they're the normal ones. You say "to prefer", but how much a "life & death" situation it is varies depending on the context and who says it. If a person outside of our nerdy circles says; _"Even if music never existed, it wouldn't bother me much, I don't think it's really that essential for human life. On the fundamental level, it's really just a form of entertainment glorified as art. I'm not bothered by pop music I hear in public places." _(See Fbjim's comment in another thread: "When I listen to Brahms 4 because I love Brahms 4, and want to enjoy listening to Brahms 4: is that an act of entertainment, or an act of logic?") Does it have less significant meaning than the things we say in our nerdy circles?



Woodduck said:


> Music is too essential to human life to be long captured by idolatry.


Why must anyone be into some kind of music? Music isn't essential to human life. How much important it is varies depending on the individual. Some don't really care for any music in their lives.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> How can you explain the "phenomenon" of Pachelbel's canon and the Art of the Fugue, which I talked about earlier.


I don't know, but it blows away your "it's all about popularity" thesis. I love the Art of Fugue. But you'll tell me it's essentially because it's "popular". But then you'll denigrate it as bring less popular than Pachelbel's Canon. You're all over the lot.


----------



## EdwardBast

Strange Magic said:


> Maybe you worship science. I don't. I merely regard it as the least fallible way of looking at reality and coming the closest to understanding it. Hard to get my mind around science making us understand less.


Entertaining the idea that scientific inquiry is a promising way to approach profundity in music reduces the chances of understanding profundity in music.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> How can you explain the "phenomenon" of Pachelbel's canon and the Art of the Fugue, which I talked about earlier.





hammeredklavier said:


> Now let's look at the Art of the Fugue; why is it not as popular as Pachelbel's canon? Because people have failed to grasp the complexity of the Bach? Or because the Pachelbel has inherent qualities to move more people than the Bach? Or — because the Bach is simply "academicism/pedanticism" passed as profundity? (I'm not saying it is. I'm just posing a question.)


When something ends up more popular than another, it's often just an accident of history. Had conditions been even slightly different, then who knows, the Art of the Fugue might have ended up more popular. Since the AotF is less popular, does that mean that there is something inherent in somber music (which is plenty in the AotF) that does not move people does not move people as much as the peaceful music of Pachelbel's canon? It could be, but I think it's an unlikely explanation since so much "sad" music is popular.

Really, it can be all of those reasons you mentioned, all contributing to different extents. Though it's hard to make a general statement out of this since Pachelbel being more popular than the Art of the Fugue is just one example, and figuring out why it's so still won't explain why another work is more popular than others.



hammeredklavier said:


> Or maybe we are "nerdy little circles" having fetish for music hundreds of years old, and they're the normal ones. You say "to prefer", but how much a "life & death" situation it is varies depending on the context and who says it. If a person outside of our nerdy circles says; _"Even if music never existed, it wouldn't bother me much, I don't think it's really that essential for human life. On the fundamental level, it's really just a form of entertainment glorified as art. I'm not bothered by pop music I hear in public places." _(See Fbjim's comment in another thread: "When I listen to Brahms 4 because I love Brahms 4, and want to enjoy listening to Brahms 4: is that an act of entertainment, or an act of logic?") Does it have less significant meaning than the things we say in our nerdy circles?


I'm having difficulty locating the thread & comment that you were referring to, so sorry if there's something I'm missing.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Classical music is a niche interest, yes. People differ in preferences, and some don't care about music. Also true. You're asking how much we should weigh the opinions of people who aren't interested in classical music, right? It depends on the claim being made. Much of the discussions here are about about objective & subjective greatness in music, and how it is linked to mass appeal. So if the masses hold different aesthetic standards from those in the classical community, then how relevant are their tastes when it comes to assessing how great a work can be? Like with almost everything... it depends. & I think it goes back to what I mentioned in my earlier post. How do you distinguish the part of the audience appreciation that results from fulfilling aesthetic standards that are held by both the masses and people in the classical community, from the part of audience appreciation that is a result people falling for trends, & not seeking out music that they could potentially enjoy more?


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> How can you explain the "phenomenon" of Pachelbel's canon and the Art of the Fugue, which I talked about earlier.


Is this really incomprehensible to you? I can't believe anyone finds it hard to understand.



> Why must anyone be into some kind of music? Music isn't essential to human life. How much important it is varies depending on the individual. Some don't really care for any music in their lives.


Oh, come now. Obviously the human organism can survive without music. It can survive, in some manner, without everything but air, food, water. and some sort of shelter in bad weather. Is that your standard for what constitutes a human life? When I say that music is "essential" to human life, I'm using "essential" in the sense of "essentially human," not "biologically necessary." You might even say I was merely doing what you subjectivists and guardians of scientistic epistemologies love talking about: taking a poll. Are there cultures without music? I haven't heard of any. Most humans, in my experience, love music of some kind, and in most cultures I know of it has a prominent place and a variety of functions. We seem to be built to make and enjoy music.

Besides, what I actually said was "music is too essential to human life to be long captured by idolatry." I said "too essential," not "absolutely essential." How many things can you misread all at once in your single-minded pursuit of whatever agenda you're into?


----------



## Luchesi

We first hear fascinating tonalities in nursery songs and so it comes from very far back in our past. Children will sing a song over and over, because it becomes simple for them (accomplishment and reinforcing) and it’s something older kids and parents can do? IDK. Many folks I know never get past those sweet resolutions, because to them that's what the enjoyment is all about.
And these are fascinating people to me, very intelligent and well educated. My friend who was an engineer/physicist for Lockheed (back then) told me over and over that he was tone deaf and in church he couldn't tell one hymn from another, except for the words. I've always been struck by his account of that because he was so forthright and convinced. How would it be (to live like that)?

One of his extreme assertions;
Without music, life would be a mistake... I would only believe in a God who knew how to dance.
Friedrich Nietzsche


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> Are there cultures without music? I haven't heard of any. Most humans, in my experience, love music of some kind, and in most cultures I know of it has a prominent place and a variety of functions. We seem to be built to make and enjoy music.


The same can be said about sports, for instance. How are we any different from the otakus who say "How would life have been without Neon Genesis Evangelion". Just like them, we're closed in our own nerdy little circles, unable to understand why the rest of the world doesn't care for the Art of the Fugue.


----------



## fluteman

Eva Yojimbo said:


> As a lifelong practitioner (and studier: I'm that kook who reads textbooks for fun) I find that description of my (and others') aesthetic understanding dead on. It's a bit like science in that regard. Sure, we can admire just how much we've come to know in contrast to our hominid origins, going from learning how to use tools and build fires to traveling to the moon and discovering all the weird movements of subatomic particles... but at the same time if you can look at the remaining mysteries of life and the universe and not be humbled by them then something is very wrong. I'm reminded of the great Isaac Newton quote: "I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."
> 
> And I know a guy, not into opera at all, but who's a rather sensitive aesthete with a taste for great films and literature, whom I introduced to Tristan und Isolde and he couldn't even finish it... though I did have some luck with having him watch a filmed version of Bartok's Bluebeard's Castle. I'm sure we all have anecdotes like this, and I dare say mine is more common than yours: most people don't like opera and don't have the experience with opera to pick out the "great voices" or "great operas" from the offal and also-rans. I guarantee that if you played a clip of Callas and an ordinary soprano most people couldn't tell the difference. The only way to make these subjectivities see the "greatness" in Callas or any great opera is simply make them empathetic to what WE see in these things; but this is the same kind of empathy (even sympathy) I'm saying we should be doing for ALL subjectivities, including the folks at Murphy's pub.
> 
> This gets into arguments of pragmatism. To me, I'm always interested in truth whether it's pragmatic or not. To me, I think the understanding of the objective/subjective distinction doesn't just pertain to truth, but in many life situations is quite useful. Is it useful to anyone's artistic work? Probably not, no more than understanding physics is useful to a baseball player when he's up to bat. My issue is that some are trying build objectively true theories out of what are subjective feelings that don't have any truth value. That has more damaging consequences in, say, religion and politics compared to aesthetics, of course.
> 
> I don't see why it would/should be any less impressive than the reputation of Bach among the subjectivities of classical music lovers, players, conductors, theorists, etc. Other than the fact that my own subjectivity is probably closer to, and thus more naturally sympathetic with, the Bach lovers, other than this biased sympathetic preference there is no objective reason why mass tastes are any less impressive. There's even reasons, I think, why it should be more impressive. As the great Billy Wilder said: "An audience is never wrong. An individual member of it may be an imbecile, but a thousand imbeciles together in the dark - that is critical genius."
> 
> The fact that much popular art is forgotten doesn't mean much; most unpopular art is forgotten too, as has most classical music been forgotten. Very little art from any genre or style remains over long periods of time, and I'm also not convinced that this "lasting" is any definitive sign of greatness. What it is is a sign of art that, if we're being generous and non-cynical (the way hammeredklavier is with his brainwashing and circularity of popularity theories), we can say such art managed to tap into the fundamental aspects of human experience and psychology and managed to render them powerfully within a medium... that's all well-and-good, but nobody is a "universal human;" we are particular humans from particular times and places within particular cultures with particular styles, tastes, etc. The fact that people like to see the flesh-and-blood aspects of their particular experience rendered in art is not an aesthetic crime. The fact that this rendering of particularities means it's likely that art will fade with the fashions doesn't mean it was any less excellent at capturing these particularities of time, place, and experiences. Yes, art can be both particular and universal, but that's rarer still.


[/QUOTE]
All of that is very well said, especially the quote by the great Billy Wilder about imbeciles in the dark. But especially noteworthy in the context of certain ongoing marathon debates here at TC is your final paragraph about the distinction between popular and classical art, which you describe very well. Like you, I'm always careful to point out my great respect for a great deal of popular art, which as you say is often the product of great talent and skill and truly deserves to be called "excellent". But classical art aims to deal in truths and psychological insights that are more universal, and if successful and not sealed in a tomb like King Tut's treasures, remains relevant and compelling well beyond its own time, place and social and cultural context. That is the sense in which classical art is more "profound" than popular art.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> The same can be said about sports, for instance. How are we any different from the otakus who say "How would life have been without Neon Genesis Evangelion". Just like them, we're closed in our own nerdy little circles, unable to understand why the rest of the world doesn't care for the Art of the Fugue.


Speak for your own closed, nerdy little circles, bub.

I have no difficulty understanding why the _Kunst der Fuge_ was never on Billboard's list. I seem to recall suggesting some reasons, several posts back. Guess you didn't care for them. My advice: stop struggling with it.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> The same can be said about sports, for instance. How are we any different from the otakus who say "How would life have been without Neon Genesis Evangelion". Just like them, we're closed in our own nerdy little circles, unable to understand why the rest of the world doesn't care for the Art of the Fugue.


Wait a second. The fans of one of the least popular genres on earth are following it because it's popular? Is that right?

I understand pretty well why the rest of the world doesn't care for Art of Fugue. And: _I don't care_. I wish such music had a wider listenership for the sake of the listeners, but if I were the only one on the planet listening to that music, it wouldn't bother me a bit.


----------



## Strange Magic

EdwardBast said:


> Entertaining the idea that scientific inquiry is a promising way to approach profundity in music reduces the chances of understanding profundity in music.


Pure unvarnished assertion. How about sex (not an invitation)?


----------



## Strange Magic

> *fluteman: * "But classical art aims to deal in truths and psychological insights that are more universal, and if successful and not sealed in a tomb like King Tut's treasures, remains relevant and compelling well beyond its own time, place and social and cultural context. That is the sense in which classical art is more "profound" than popular art."


Are we sure that classical art aims to deal in truths and psychological insights that are more universal? I'm not sure that is always the case or even most of the case. I also can think of many popular songs that deal explicitly in issues that classical music only rarely touches if at all. They don't last as long as some classical music (of which Sturgeon tells us accurately 90% of which is crap) due to the fact that another song comes along to displace it, 

What is more profound that the realization that humankind is driving the world's wildlife into extinction through environmental vandalism? Listen to Ian & Sylvia's _Antelope. _Listen to PJ Harvey's album _Let England Shake. _There are innumerable songs about good love, bad love, and everything in between, with the music well tuned to the lyrics. Even songs about life and death (of all things)! The Blues. _Cante flamenco. _Some of these genres appeal to large masses of people. 

The longevity of CM is largely the staying power of its audience, attuned as they are to hearing the favored old familiar melodies over and over. That and the intellectual/social panache of being counted among the Best and Brightest People. That includes me, though I certainly also love the music--among many musics--very much. I await somebody telling me that I cannot possibly love CM as much as they do or as it is correct to do so.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> The longevity of CM is largely the staying power of its audience, attuned as they are to hearing the favored old familiar melodies over and over. That and the intellectual/social panache of being counted among the Best and Brightest People.


Pure unvarnished assertion. How do you know what anyone's motivations are for listening to classical music? You can only speak for yourself without projecting what may be your motives onto someone else. And PJ Harvey is still "a thing"?


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

Just as an aside, it's funny how classical can be considered as something that could either increase or decrease social status. Listening to classical could make you look sophisticated, _or... _it could make you look like a snob who's just _too good_ for whatever the "unwashed masses" listen to.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> That and the intellectual/social panache of being counted among the Best and Brightest People.


Quick, name me ten of those classical-loving 'Best and Brightest People" among whom I aspire to be numbered.

And pop's advantage is that it offers more sex and woke politics? Where is the pop _Winterreise_ or Marriage of Figaro? I'm as much a pop fan as anyone else, but come on.


----------



## 59540

4chamberedklavier said:


> Just as an aside, it's funny how classical can be considered as something that could either increase or decrease social status. Listening to classical could make you look sophisticated, _or... _it could make you look like a snob who's just _too good_ for whatever the "unwashed masses" listen to.


Actually if you want to increase your social status you'd be writing paeans to hip hop.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

dissident said:


> Actually if you want to increase your social status you'd be writing paeans to hip hop.


Hip hop does appear to be the most popular genre nowadays, but that makes classical more attractive to hipsters.


----------



## 59540

4chamberedklavier said:


> Hip hop does appear to be the most popular genre nowadays, but that makes classical more attractive to hipsters.


Yeah actually on second thought jazz might be more popular among Best and Brightest chin-strokers.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> Quick, name me ten of those classical-loving 'Best and Brightest People" among whom I aspire to be numbered.
> 
> And pop's advantage is that it offers more sex and woke politics? Where is the pop _Winterreise_ or Marriage of Figaro? I'm as much a pop fan as anyone else, but come on.


Actually (and you will find this hard to accept) my post was not all about you. But the pattern of your responses remains unchanged--a tribute to your perseverance. Why not develop your complaints about my posts into an actual essay or thesis carefully unrolling your position. I've missed it so far.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> Actually (and you will find this hard to accept) my post was not all about you. But the pattern of your responses remains unchanged--a tribute to your perseverance. Why not develop your complaints about my posts into an actual essay or thesis carefully unrolling your position. I've missed it so far.


It didn't have to be all about me. And the reply wasn't all about you, either. See?

Maybe I'm not pretentious enough to think that I have a thesis to offer.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> It didn't have to be all about me. And the reply wasn't all about you, either. See?


Was that your thesis? Seriously, why not sit down and compose a reasoned position statement outlining and summarizing your views on art? I would be interested. Your gift so far is to lob squibs from the sidelines, but that must eventually grow stale.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> Was that your thesis? Seriously, why not sit down and compose a reasoned position statement outlining and summarizing your views on art? I would be interested. Your gift so far is to lob squibs from the sidelines, but that must eventually grow stale.


Yes, squibs, challenging statements that I think are open to challenge. Your sweeping generalization (as usual) wasn't about me but it didn't exclude me either. Meanwhile I did ask some questions above that you ignore. Name ten of these Best and Brightest classical lovers that I fancy myself being among.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> Yes, squibs, challenging statements you make. Your sweeping generalization (as usual) wasn't about me but it didn't exclude me either. You pontificate and I'll keep providing the squibs. Meanwhile I did ask some questions above that you ignore. Name ten of these Best and Brightest classical lovers that I fancy myself being among. For someone who's always going on about and demanding scientific precision, you sure do generalize a lot.


I understand. I am to name 10 best and brightest classical lovers that *you* fancy yourself being among. Now how would I know that? You would know far more about that. It really, really isn't all about you. It is clear that the idea of a defining thesis is foreign to you. Continue to lob those squibs instead!


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> *Are we sure that classical art aims to deal in truths and psychological insights that are more universal?* I'm not sure that is always the case or even most of the case.


Of course it doesn't, depending on what you mean by "aim." A great deal of what art represents and signifies isn't a result of conscious "aim." The more abstract arts such as music may not aim at anything but delightful and satisfying form, but that is far from from a meaningless objective. The perception and love of form is fundamental to our very natures as conscious beings, and so the play of form, both as the abstract expression of mental activity and as the representation of human gesture, utterance, and the trajectories of emotion, is a primary focus in the music we call "classical." Popular music tends to go no further into the exploration of form than it needs to in order to get its explicit message across.



> I also can think of many popular songs that deal *explicitly* in issues that classical music only rarely touches if at all. They don't last as long as some classical music (of which Sturgeon tells us accurately 90% of which is crap) due to the fact that another song comes along to displace it,


Popular art is almost always explicitly _about_ something, namely the concerns, events, fashions and sensibilities of its time. That's one reason why it tends to be - though it needn't be - more time-bound, more ephemeral. Classical music often ensures its longevity partly by not being explicitly "about" anything, though it may definitely be about something not, or only roughly, describable.



> What is more profound that the realization that humankind is driving the world's wildlife into extinction through environmental vandalism? Listen to Ian & Sylvia's _Antelope. _Listen to PJ Harvey's album _Let England Shake. _There are innumerable songs about good love, bad love, and everything in between, with the music well tuned to the lyrics. Even songs about life and death (of all things)! The Blues. _Cante flamenco. _


Again, explicit "aboutness" does nothing in the long run to ensure music's attractiveness beyond its time and place. It may have the opposite effect by limiting the precious flow of ideas from the artist's subconscious and so narrowing the "aim" of the work and its possible meaning for listeners, present and future.



> *The longevity of CM is largely the staying power of its audience,* attuned as they are to hearing the favored old familiar melodies over and over. That *and the intellectual/social panache of being counted among the Best and Brightest People. * That includes me, though I certainly also love the music--among many musics--very much. I await somebody telling me that I cannot possibly love CM as much as they do or as it is correct to do so.


What a load of #@$%&*$#.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> I understand. I am to name 10 best and brightest classical lovers that *you* fancy yourself being among. Now how would I know that? ...


Pick any of the well-known Best and Brightest classical fans. Surely you can think of some...

Oh, wait a second. Maybe what you're saying is that if I listen to Bach, then that makes me feel that I'm one of the Best and Brightest. But to be honest something like the B Minor Mass or the Art of Fugue just shows me how stupid I am, if anything. Trying to _play_ Bach or Beethoven and do justice to the music, even more so.


----------



## 59540

Woodduck said:


> What a load of #@$%&*$#.


Now now Woodduck. We mustn't talk about precise scientific observation in those terms.


Strange Magic said:


> ... It is clear that the idea of a defining thesis is foreign to you. Continue to lob those squibs instead!


You seem to be having some problems too on that front. No, I'm not into making word salads.


----------



## Woodduck

dissident said:


> Now now Woodduck. We mustn't talk about precise scientific observation in those terms.


Well, I suspect Newton said something similar - posthumously of course - when someone discovered that his laws of motion didn't always work.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Woodduck: "*What a load of #@$%&*$#."


Taking lessons from dissident?

I take most of your post to be additional support for and a welcome further clarification of mine.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Well, I suspect Newton said something similar - posthumously of course - when someone discovered that his laws of motion didn't always work.


Strange bedfellows: the essayist and the squibmeister.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> Strange bedfellows: the essayist and the squibmeister.


The funny thing being that you are apparently unaware of being such a "squibmeister" yourself. Let's be honest, these threads are just high-falutin' trolling.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Taking lessons from dissident?


I don't need lessons in #@$%&*$# - spotting.



> I take most of your post to be additional support for and a welcome further clarification of mine.


What part of your post have I supported and clarified?


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> The funny thing being that are apparently unaware of being such a "squibmeister" yourself. Let's be honest, these threads are just high-falutin' trolling.


I am quite conscious of being, if need be, a squibmeister nonpariel. But If you are willing to stop, so will I.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Strange bedfellows: the essayist and the squibmeister.


Complementary colors. Deep purple and bright yellow.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> What part of your post have I supported and clarified?


Your paragraphs one. two, and three support my general thesis. Recall that my post was a response to fluteman.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Complementary colors. Deep purple and bright yellow.


Join the tentative agreement to cease squib-lobbing.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Join the tentative agreement to cease squib-lobbing.


I'm not aware of lobbing squibs. Even you have called me the essayist. I aspire to versatility.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> Well, that's rather pretentious. An analogy is only an analogy. It isn't supposed to be "dead on," it's merely supposed to offer a useful parallel. Analogies are nearly all bad if taken too far or too literally. In this case, a bunch of blind people feeling an elephant's body parts and thinking they're actually snakes and whatever doesn't sound to me like a good analogy for our understanding of how art works. Maybe you feel that that describes _your_ understanding.


It's far more pretentious to think you understand more than you do than in thinking you understand less than you do, and if anything I'm arguing from the latter perspective. The reason I think that is because I know of zero aesthetic theories (and I've read plenty) that can (or could've) predicted every work that has been considered either a commercial or critical success, including those that are considered masterpieces. The success (if not the truth) of theories are in their predictive power, and aesthetic theories don't demonstrate this. The closest we actually have are the successful endeavors Hollywood film producers and record labels put their money towards, because they are essentially betting on the success of their theories that a certain script or artist will be successful; and even they aren't always right. 



Woodduck said:


> I continue to be surprised that you radical subjectivists find such significance in the fact that not every great work of art is enjoyed by every "sensitive aesthete." Do you really think that individuality of taste implies anything about the existence of more universal aesthetic values? Or do you imagine that the power of the individual psyche to affect people's reactions to art needs to be demonstrated? Has anyone denied that?


The problem is that I don't see how the notion of "universal values" as it pertains to the objective greatness in art squares with these facts of the individuality of taste. All you seem to be talking about is some art that appeals strongly to certain subjectivities over long stretches of time, with a particular focus on subjectivities that are close to your own. Of course if your "sample size" is that of you and people with similar tastes to you (and this includes all classical music lovers) then of course it's easy to get relatively stable consensuses of the music that most appeals to that group (though even within that group there are individual differences, of course); it's much more difficult to do this when you step outside that circle of subjectivities to consider the billions of different subjectivities out there, as suddenly your "universal aesthetic values" seem much more limited in their profundity potential(tm) to the people who share your subjective tastes. 



Woodduck said:


> An artist's knowledge that in the progress of his work he's making it better is as unprovable, by the quantifiable metrics of science, as the theologian's belief in the Holy Trinity, but it is not at all the same sort of belief. It is _actual first hand knowledge of a tangible reality, _not some "revelation" of a fanciful alternate or parallel "reality" which someone says he ought to believe.


You do realize that most religious people claim to have "actual first hand knowledge of a tangible reality," yes? That's precisely what revelation is... or at least what religious believers claim it to be. I dare say Paul's experience on the Road to Damascus was as powerful a "first hand knowledge" (or, again, what he would've accepted as such) as anything you can describe with an artist's knowledge/experience of their own work. I do believe if I was struck blind for days and heard a booming voice questioning why I was persecuting them I would probably consider that a "first hand knowledge" myself if I didn't have the skeptical predisposition towards questioning the truthfulness/reality of my own experiences (which, thankfully, I do). 



Woodduck said:


> I do. For one thing, those who can comprehend Bach can very likely also comprehend Steve and Eydie, even if they don't care so much for the genre. The opposite is much less likely to be true.


I'm not convinced that understanding is a necessary component for either appreciation, much less for enjoyment, or any other positive feelings (from the most superficial to the most 'profound') with art; and, to return to my opening, I'm not convinced most people understand as much about art as they think, and that goes for Steve and Eydie and Bach. 



Woodduck said:


> And those reasons are...?


If you really want to know what appeals to the universal human condition then it makes sense to look at art that appeals to the most humans in all their socio-cultural and individualistic variety. Popular art does just that. Classical music appeals to a tiny minority of the population; it has throughout most of its history where it was usually the entertainment for economic elites (aristocrats, churches; and, at the very least, the bourgeoisie) who had the resources to preserve its music and keep it alive, and it's still much the same in being supported by wealthy individuals, organizations, and educational institutions. As hammeredklavier said, we are just another nerdy circle with niche tastes like lovers of anime (who have their own works that are considered "profound;" I've mentioned one of them in this thread). The most universal art should be the art that's most liked universally, hence why I find popular tastes just as impressive.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

EdwardBast said:


> Entertaining the idea that scientific inquiry is a promising way to approach profundity in music reduces the chances of understanding profundity in music.


I would like to see some evidence for this claim.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I would like to see some evidence for this claim.


Or at least a blind listening test.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

fluteman said:


> All of that is very well said, especially the quote by the great Billy Wilder about imbeciles in the dark. But especially noteworthy in the context of certain ongoing marathon debates here at TC is your final paragraph about the distinction between popular and classical art, which you describe very well. Like you, I'm always careful to point out my great respect for a great deal of popular art, which as you say is often the product of great talent and skill and truly deserves to be called "excellent". *But classical art aims to deal in truths and psychological insights that are more universal, and if successful and not sealed in a tomb like King Tut's treasures, remains relevant and compelling well beyond its own time, place and social and cultural context. * That is the sense in which classical art is more "profound" than popular art.


I think this is a too simplistic view. First, I don't think all classical art aims to deal in universal truths or psychological insights; just as many are interested in rendering the tastes and fashions and trends of their own particular time. It's why so much classical music featured forms of popular dances in their day because, just as today, there is a whole group of subjectivities who only care for music insofar as they can dance to it (Ezra Pound once quipped that; "poetry withers the further it gets from music; music withers the further it gets from dance." I don't necessarily agree, but it's a good articulation of a certain perspective).

Second, I don't think all popular art avoids universal truths and psychological insights. Of all 20th century music artists I can't think of any in the classical tradition that cared more about such things than, say, Bob Dylan, who was a massively popular artists. And I even think such things can be found in relatively slight popular art.

Finally, I'm not certain universal truths and psychological insights are a necessary component for great or lasting art. Much music, especially, is by its very nature abstract, and the fact that we're able to metaphorically link music to aspects of our human experience doesn't mean that music contains truths and insights; it's more a testament of our very human ability to take anything and find a way to make it relevant to us and our experiences. Perhaps certain music is more malleable for doing this, but it's still a very, innately subjective thing.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

4chamberedklavier said:


> I would guess that what the masses prefer is considered less impressive because of the idea that a work must sacrifice complexity & variety for the sake of appealing to the lowest common denominator. For people who value complexity & variety above all else, I don't think it's unfair for them to consider that what the masses prefer, _in general (especially in our current environment where everything is commercialized), _will not meet their standards. That's not to say that everything that appeals to the masses is (according to their standards) low quality. Only that there is a tendency for it to be so.
> 
> There is truth in the idea that the audience is never wrong, but it can be hard to disentangle the part of the audience appreciation that comes from a work meeting commonly-held aesthetic standards (i.e. appreciating the truly impressive works), from the part of audience appreciation that is a result of people taking advantage of trends in the name of profit. You could say this involves cases where the audience doesn't know what it's missing out on because it's not profitable to produce certain kinds of music that they would potentially enjoy more than what they are currently listening to.


There's a lot of variety in popular music, at least variety on certain levels, certainly in terms of productions, genres, and styles. There's as much (if not more) ostensible differences between Adele and Kanye West as there is between the classical music of any given period. 

I might grant complexity, but even that comes with caveats, the first being that complexity can be applied to any element of music, and while much classical music may be more complex on more levels than most popular music, this isn't universally the case. To take some examples, most popular music features far more complexity in the production than does classical music, to the point that production has become a significant artistic force in popular music, with some songs featuring hundreds of different tracks layered together to produce the sound you hear. Further, there are some popular genres that feature greater complexity on more traditional music levels, like rhythm, than most classical music displays. Listen to the polymetric music of Meshuggah and tell me that isn't more rhythmically complex than most classical music prior to Stravinsky. 

Finally, even ignoring all of that, I don't think complexity for the sake of complexity is much of a value in music. If that were so then we'd all be listening to Ferneyhough and not Schubert. Complexity is only valuable insofar as it produces music that people actually like, and I find just as much value in simplicity done well as complexity done well. I might have a slight aesthetic preference for complexity, but that preference is by no means universal, even among classical fans. 

Still, I fundamentally agree with your point about not caring about what the masses prefer, but to me that's just another way of saying "I have a subjectivity that prefers these qualities in music; the masses tend to have subjectivities that prefer these other qualities in music; because their subjective preferences are different than mine, I should ignore them." That's an absolutely fair perspective, but my issue is that's not what many people think they're doing. 

As for the audience missing out, there's some truth to that as well, though I think less so now in the age of the internet and an abundance of free music where people are spoiled for choices of what to hear. So many of the biggest pop artists now started out as grassroots, viral internet sensations like Bieber and Billie Eilish. Like their music or not, it's very much the case that people--not labels or record executives--went out, found their music, shared their music, and liked their music until they became as popular as they were.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It's far more pretentious to think you understand more than you do than in thinking you understand less than you do, and if anything I'm arguing from the latter perspective. The reason I think that is because I know of zero aesthetic theories (and I've read plenty) that can (or could've) predicted every work that has been considered either a commercial or critical success, including those that are considered masterpieces. The success (if not the truth) of theories are in their predictive power, and aesthetic theories don't demonstrate this. The closest we actually have are the successful endeavors Hollywood film producers and record labels put their money towards, because they are essentially betting on the success of their theories that a certain script or artist will be successful; and even they aren't always right.


Theories... predictions... Back to science, are we? Back to the impossibility of knowing anything without a unit of measurement? Live in that cosmos if you wish. I live elsewhere.



> The problem is that I don't see how the notion of "universal values" as it pertains to the objective greatness in art squares with these facts of the individuality of taste.


In plain language, you believe that if art were actually good rather than merely liked, everyone should like it equally well.

I think that's nonsense, and obvious nonsense at that.



> All you seem to be talking about is some art that appeals strongly to certain subjectivities over long stretches of time, with a particular focus on subjectivities that are close to your own. Of course if your "sample size" is that of you and people with similar tastes to you (and this includes all classical music lovers) then of course it's easy to get relatively stable consensuses of the music that most appeals to that group (though even within that group there are individual differences, of course); it's much more difficult to do this when you step outside that circle of subjectivities to consider the billions of different subjectivities out there, as suddenly your "universal aesthetic values" seem much more limited in their profundity potential(tm) to the people who share your subjective tastes.


Do you really think that that's "all" I'm talking about? And now back to polls and sample sizes for those who can't imagine that the triumph of Wagner's monster epics and the disappearance of Meyerbeer's coloratura-and-light shows has anything to do with the _profundity_ of either.



> You do realize that most religious people claim to have "actual first hand knowledge of a tangible reality," yes? That's precisely what revelation is... or at least what religious believers claim it to be. I dare say Paul's experience on the Road to Damascus was as powerful a "first hand knowledge" (or, again, what he would've accepted as such) as anything you can describe with an artist's knowledge/experience of their own work. I do believe if I was struck blind for days and heard a booming voice questioning why I was persecuting them I would probably consider that a "first hand knowledge" myself if I didn't have the skeptical predisposition towards questioning the truthfulness/reality of my own experiences (which, thankfully, I do).


I don't care what most religious people claim. Their experience of angels and devils has nothing to do with an artist's experience of his work processes and results, and your evident need to equate them is a flaw in your view of reality. But it's a relief to hear that you question the truthfulness of your experiences. I've always done that too, with every choice of brushstroke, note, or word.



> I'm not convinced that understanding is a necessary component for either appreciation, much less for enjoyment, or any other positive feelings (from the most superficial to the most 'profound') with art; and, to return to my opening, I'm not convinced most people understand as much about art as they think, and that goes for Steve and Eydie and Bach.


I'm not sure what you mean by "understanding."



> If you really want to know what appeals to the universal human condition then it makes sense to look at art that appeals to the most humans in all their socio-cultural and individualistic variety. Popular art does just that. Classical music appeals to a tiny minority of the population.


Romance novels appeal to more people than _Moby Dick_ and _Crime and Punishment_. Do they tell us more about the "human condition" ? What is the _human_ condition, anyway? Whose condition are we talking about? Yours? Mine? Donald Trump's?



> The most universal art should be the art that's most liked universally, hence why I find popular tastes just as impressive.


Ah. So the "human condition" means whatever takes us along the path of least resistance for the least common denominator.

Glad we cleared that up.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> I seem to recall suggesting some reasons, several posts back. Guess you didn't care for them. My advice: stop struggling with it.


I do care for your views, and I respect them, Friend Woodduck. I'm serious. I'll go through them again, in case I missed anything.



Woodduck said:


> Popular art is almost always explicitly _about_ something, namely the concerns, events, fashions and sensibilities of its time. That's one reason why it tends to be - though it needn't be - more time-bound, more ephemeral.


“Listen to the pieces, usually also in minor, where you can hear a contained smoldering prefiguring the romantic era”. Those excerpts do indeed exist, but they actually are the most convincing passages of the fact that the emperor has no clothes, as Mozart always follows them with silly kid-stuff. It is like topping off a fresh-herb flavored veal scallopine with Ready Whip." -Arnold Rosner (sequenza21.com/rosner.html)


Woodduck said:


> ^^^ The baroquey stuff in K608 is great, but then you have that "Little Maria Therese Breaking her Fast with Mozartkugeln" at about 3 minutes in, which lacks only a glass harmonica to make my teeth ache. It's as if Mozart felt he had to reassure his audience that he would not lose them in a Gothic labyrinth in which their enlightened sensibilities would be darkened for all eternity. The poor things.


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> Popular art is almost always explicitly _about_ something, namely the concerns, events, fashions and sensibilities of its time. That's one reason why it tends to be - though it needn't be - more time-bound, more ephemeral. Classical music often ensures its longevity partly by not being explicitly "about" anything, though it may definitely be about something not, or only roughly, describable.
> 
> Again, explicit "aboutness" does nothing in the long run to ensure music's attractiveness beyond its time and place. It may have the opposite effect by limiting the precious flow of ideas from the artist's subconscious and so narrowing the "aim" of the work and its possible meaning for listeners, present and future.


I don't know if this is true. When we speak of "timelessness" in art, we aren't usually talking about art in abstract forms - it's more art that speaks to listeners (readers, viewers, etc) in ways that transcend its subject matter and strike us as universally understood themes. In other words, "timeless" art will transcend its subject matter whether or not it has a subject matter at all. 


This is besides the fact that our oldest surviving music that might be considered classical, or at least classical-adjacent is nearly all liturgical music which has limited "universality" by definition - in fact that was frequently music made _very specifically_ for a single time and single place.


----------



## Sid James

julide said:


> A profound work for me is something like schuberts string quintet where i don't necessarily enjoy myself listening to it yet i come back to it because theres truth and psychological insight in it


Regarding this and the subsequent discussion, I think that what we're dealing with here is catharsis, which is basically the orgasm induced by profundity. Tilting the piece towards bringing about catharsis is a calculated strategy by the composer, the piece is designed and structured to lead us there. The path of this emotional trajectory can come out of many things. It can be connected with the portrayal of nature, the supernatural, extreme psychological states, the subconscious and so on.

Of course, when we experience catharsis as listeners, our own baggage is a huge part of the relationship between us and the music. When we are receptive to art, we're in a different state then when we are in everyday life - work, family, social responsibilities leave little room for outlet of emotion. So, when listening to something like Schubert's string quintet, we can be in a space where we are free to react emotionally to the music. So music, or art in general, can serve an important role in terms of encouraging connection with emotions which usually lie dormant.

I think a related concept to profundity is the sublime. I see it as more slow burn profundity, the aim being more to envelop the listener or maybe overwhelm him in small increments rather than the journey to climax which is catharsis.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Sid James: "*Regarding this and the subsequent discussion, I think that what we're dealing with here is catharsis, which is basically the orgasm induced by profundity. Tilting the piece towards bringing about catharsis is a calculated strategy by the composer, the piece is designed and structured to lead us there. The path of this emotional trajectory can come out of many things. It can be connected with the portrayal of nature, the supernatural, extreme psychological states, the subconscious and so on."


This I find more or less in agreement with my posts #22 and #185. The only difference and it's only a minor one is your use of the word catharsis. I follow Burke's analysis that the experience of the sublime rests upon terror, including the terror of death, but I would amend Burke's remark to call it the terror of change--sometime abrupt change (the cusp experience) or of the drowning of the personality (trance effect) or a combination of the two, resulting in the (momentary) loss of one's sense of selfhood, the terror of the "death of the self".. This is another way of teasing out from a somewhat other direction the psychological factors at work when we experience the feeling of the sublime in music


----------



## hammeredklavier

So the ever-popular Mozart isn't about anything, unlike all the mediocre stuff that fell into obscurity such as
"Achtet nicht die Kritiker, denn sie sind nur Skeptiker. Wahrheit und Natur allein kann die beste Kritik sein. Wo die Natur und Vernunft sich vermählen, kann auch die Wahrheit dem Dichter nicht fehlen, der ungezwungen natürlicher spricht. Don’t pay attention to the critics, for they’re nothing but skeptics. Truth and Nature alone offer the best criticism. Where Nature and Reason marry, truth cannot be lacking in the poet who speaks more freely and naturally."


----------



## Woodduck

Woodduck wrote:

_'Popular art is almost always explicitly about something, namely the concerns, events, fashions and sensibilities of its time. That's one reason why it tends to be - though it needn't be - more time-bound, more ephemeral. Classical music often ensures its longevity partly by not being explicitly "about" anything, though it may definitely be about something not, or only roughly, describable.

'Again, explicit "aboutness" does nothing in the long run to ensure music's attractiveness beyond its time and place. It may have the opposite effect by limiting the precious flow of ideas from the artist's subconscious and so narrowing the "aim" of the work and its possible meaning for listeners, present and future.' _



fbjim said:


> I don't know if this is true. When we speak of "timelessness" in art, we aren't usually talking about art in abstract forms - it's more art that speaks to listeners (readers, viewers, etc) in ways that transcend its subject matter and strike us as universally understood themes. In other words, "timeless" art will transcend its subject matter whether or not it has a subject matter at all.


What part of what I said are you disagreeing with? Since I'm not sure of that, I'll just offer the following thoughts.

Music is predominantly an abstract art. It doesn't depict objects in the world, but abstracts formal qualities from human experience, including physical, emotional and intellectual experience. The concepts of "isomorphism" and "cross-domain mapping" are directly on point. How do you think music manages to transcend the particulars of its present and local situation to speak to a broad range of individual sensibilities across time and space? I think it does so, in large part, by structuring sounds in such a way as to set up sympathetic reactions in the nervous system through the isomorphic relationships between aesthetic form and the forms of human physical, emotional and mental processes. The other arts do the same thing through their respective sensory-perceptual modes, even when they have explicit subject matter such as music lacks, but music seems to me the purest illustration of the power of form to convey and evoke meaningful experience. Thus I disagree completely with your statement that "we aren't usually talking about art in abstract forms." Abstract form, whether or not it's allied with or serves concrete subject matter, is art's, and especially music's, very heart.



> This is besides the fact that our oldest surviving music that might be considered classical, or at least classical-adjacent is nearly all liturgical music which has limited "universality" by definition - in fact that was frequently music made _very specifically_ for a single time and single place.


I don't see how it matters what social function music is made for. It may or may not possess qualities that recommend it to people outside that context. I do, though, think that the limitations imposed externally on "functional" music can constrain and distort the creative process.


----------



## Strange Magic

Referring back to my proposal in post #22 to link the concepts of the sublime with that of the profound, I here will somewhat de-link them, this time focusing on the differences between the two. It seems to me that the sense of the sublime can come in various gradations of intensity and of the presence or absence of a focus--a specific tangible or nameable focus--some object or specific concept--upon which to fix its attention. In the case of music other than clearly programmatic music, there is no nexus to which the feeling of the sublime is linked. This is similar then to introvertive mysticism where the self is submerged into The One (if that can be said to be the focus). In contrast to this is the much rarer extrovertive mysticism wherein the ultimate reality is sought outside oneself, in the greater and non-human universe beyond. The American poet Robinson Jeffers is an prime exemplar at times, but not always, of extrovertive mysticism. Here is where the artistic sublime most closely attains the stature of the profound.

I submit again that the concept of the profound requires a focus--tangible or otherwise closely definable--and that only science can offer profundity. I submit that sublimity does not require such a tangible or closely definable focus, there can be gradations of the sublime in the arts, even approaching profundity. If one considers the Hubble telescope's photograph _Pillars of Creation _to be art, it then comes very close to being profound. If one considers that same photo as a direct picture of astronomical reality, it then becomes entirely profound. If music like program music has a focus, a story or depiction, it is not profound. If music does not have such a focus, it is also not profound. It may be sublime, and when it is, it can induce ecstasy. That's not too shabby!


----------



## Forster

Strange Magic said:


> Referring back to my proposal in post #22 to link the concepts of the sublime with that of the profound, I here will somewhat de-link them, this time focusing on the differences between the two. It seems to me that the sense of the sublime can come in various gradations of intensity and of the presence or absence of a focus--a specific tangible or nameable focus--some object or specific concept--upon which to fix its attention. In the case of music other than clearly programmatic music, there is no nexus to which the feeling of the sublime is linked. This is similar then to introvertive mysticism where the self is submerged into The One (if that can be said to be the focus). In contrast to this is the much rarer extrovertive mysticism wherein the ultimate reality is sought outside oneself, in the greater and non-human universe beyond. The American poet Robinson Jeffers is an prime exemplar at times, but not always, of extrovertive mysticism. Here is where the artistic sublime most closely attains the stature of the profound.
> 
> I submit again that the concept of the profound requires a focus--tangible or otherwise closely definable--and that only science can offer profundity. I submit that sublimity does not require such a tangible or closely definable focus, there can be gradations of the sublime in the arts, even approaching profundity. If one considers the Hubble telescope's photograph _Pillars of Creation _to be art, it then comes very close to being profound. If one considers that same photo as a direct picture of astronomical reality, it then becomes entirely profound. If music like program music has a focus, a story or depiction, it is not profound. If music does not have such a focus, it is also not profound. It may be sublime, and when it is, it can induce ecstasy. That's not too shabby!


You can give these things grand labels (eg 'introvertive mysticism') or attach tags such as 'profound' and 'sublime' - but to me, these things are all variations on emotional states. Elsewhere, there have been discussions about the right words to use to describe positive responses to music, from 'like' through 'enjoy' to 'appreciate' and 'understand', but none (that I can recall) has quite captured the intensity of emotion on hearing the most moving part of Beethoven or Wagner (or whoever). Woodduck earlier rejected the idea that the profound is simply an intense emotion, but I can't see beyond that being exactly what it is. The same goes for the 'sublime'.

The fact that something can't be easily explained (the exact how and the why, the precise cause and effect of the intensity of response to music) doesn't mean we have to give it up to the sublime, the profound, the transcendent where these terms are used to mean something above and beyond 'emotion'.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> I submit again that the concept of the profound requires a focus--tangible or otherwise closely definable--and that only science can offer profundity.


Understood, though I don't agree with so limiting the term.



> I submit that sublimity does not require such a tangible or closely definable focus, there can be gradations of the sublime in the arts, even approaching profundity.


What does it mean to "approach" profundity?



> If one considers the Hubble telescope's photograph _Pillars of Creation _to be art, it then comes very close to being profound. If one considers that same photo as a direct picture of astronomical reality, it then becomes entirely profound.


I understand your distinction between the profound and the sublime - I agree that they are different - but I'm not comfortable with your illustration. What does it mean to consider a photograph of something "as art"? Does it imply ignoring what it's a picture of? We don't ignore the subject matter of representational paintings, and it makes still less sense to do it with photographs. If I look at the _Pillars of Creation _as a pure play of abstract forms and colors, I see no profound significance in it. If I imagine it as a painting of an astronomical phenomenon, I see a subject that in reality would be quite awe-inducing. That might induce a sense of the sublime, but it wouldn't make the picture profound. If I understand it as an actual photograph of the phenomenon, the knowledge that it isn't a painter's conception would probably be more likely to have me contemplating the cosmos, and might increase my feeling of the sublime. I still wouldn't consider the photograph - which is, after all, just a photograph - profound. Can you explain why you would?


----------



## Woodduck

Forster said:


> You can give these things grand labels (eg 'introvertive mysticism') or attach tags such as 'profound' and 'sublime' - but to me, these things are all variations on emotional states. Elsewhere, there have been discussions about the right words to use to describe positive responses to music, from 'like' through 'enjoy' to 'appreciate' and 'understand', but none (that I can recall) has quite captured the intensity of emotion on hearing the most moving part of Beethoven or Wagner (or whoever). *Woodduck earlier rejected the idea that the profound is simply an intense emotion, but I can't see beyond that being exactly what it is. The same goes for the 'sublime'.*
> 
> The fact that something can't be easily explained (the exact how and the why, the precise cause and effect of the intensity of response to music) doesn't mean we have to give it up to the sublime, the profound, the transcendent where these terms are used to mean something above and beyond 'emotion'.


The term "profound" is often enough used loosely - to designate simply a strong emotional response - that I think we have to allow that as one legitimate definition. Strange Magic wants to go to a different extreme and confine the use of the word to his own field of interest, science. I find both the common looseness and SM's strictness tending to the same sort of dichotomization of reality that plagues the "objective/subjective" issue in talking about art. Emotions are not free of ideational and value content, and neither is art that conveys, evokes or induces emotions in us. When people say that one piece of music is profound and another isn't, they _may_ be saying merely that one piece makes them feel more strongly than the other, but they may also mean (as I would) that one piece presents content more evocative of profound concepts and values, even somewhat apart from how strongly they respond to it emotionally. Most lovers of Beethoven, for example, probably agree that some of his symphonies are more profound in what they evoke, or seem to be about, than others, and most people would probably point to the third, fifth, sixth and ninth as conveying deeper and more complex meaning - greater profundity - than the first, second, fourth, seventh and eighth.

There's nothing strange or unusual in attributing profundity, or depth of meaning, to works of music, which of course convey no explicit concepts. Since human emotions are products of the interaction of mind and body, and express often complex ideas and values, it's fallacious to think that art which can express and evoke emotions is idea- and value-free. If it isn't, and if some of the ideas and values we may take from the experience of art, along with the kinds of emotion those ideas and values evoke, can rightly be called profound, it's proper to call such works profound. Whether we can agree on how well the term fits a given work - and there's a lot of agreement, but it will never be universal - is a different question, one I don't need to address here (though I'm sure someone will want to ).


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> What does it mean to "approach" profundity?


I don't understand that the term "approach profundity" requires further explanation. But let's say that in the spectrum, the gradation of the sublime, profundity is the ultimate endpoint. Beyond this may lie madness.



> *Woodduck: *I understand your distinction between the profound and the sublime - I agree that they are different - but I'm not comfortable with your illustration. What does it mean to consider a photograph of something "as art"? Does it imply ignoring what it's a picture of? We don't ignore the subject matter of representational paintings, and it makes still less sense to do it with photographs. If I look at the _Pillars of Creation _as a pure play of abstract forms and colors, I see no profound significance in it. If I imagine it as a painting of an astronomical phenomenon, I see a subject that in reality would be quite awe-inducing. That might induce a sense of the sublime, but it wouldn't make the picture profound. If I understand it as an actual photograph of the phenomenon, the knowledge that it isn't a painter's conception would probably be more likely to have me contemplating the cosmos, and might increase my feeling of the sublime. I still wouldn't consider the photograph - which is, after all, just a photograph - profound. Can you explain why you would?


No, I don't mean to ignore what the photograph is a picture of, but the work, say, of an Ansel Adams is quite generally regarded as art. I have a wonderful book titled _Geology Illustrated _written by a geologist who is also the pilot of a small airplane and a skilled aerial photographer. Many of the photographs, if framed and hung in a gallery, would be lauded as fine art. Here is a convergence of sublimity and profundity. While the photograph as an object is not profound, the thoughts and feelings that it induces are of the profound, the extra-human profound. In the case of the geologist, he offers photos of deeply eroded anticlines in Wyoming that illustrate to the imagination the vast forces that folded up the anticline and then the eons of time that eroded it down to a skeletal outline of itself. That is profound; something well beyond our quotidian existence. A suggestion of Shelley's _Ozymandias _but on a far more vast scale.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> Most lovers of Beethoven, for example, probably agree that some of his symphonies are more profound in what they evoke, or seem to be about, than others, and most people would probably point to the third, fifth, sixth and ninth as conveying deeper and more complex meaning - greater profundity - than the first, second, fourth, seventh and eighth.


For example, if we all generalize all the stuff of the kind


trazom said:


> Slow tempo, thick texture, and an abundance of diminished 7th.


as more objectively profound than other stuff, it would only show us listeners of CP music are very predictable and formulaic in responding to patterns; like pigeonholing all artistic things strictly as answers "Yes" or "No". If this is the case, I think "profundity" would be a rather empty and clichéd notion. I just think we should be more tolerant to, and encourage having a diversity of opinion. What did Spohr, Verdi, Stravinsky think of Beethoven's 9th (compared to his other symphonies).


Woodduck said:


> If that's all it's going to come down to - and that would be consistent with the view that all artistic judgments are valid only for the individual making them - *then we can all just agree that "profundity" in art is essentially a vacuous and useless notion*, and save ourselves and each other some time we can spend more profitably elsewhere.


----------



## Forster

Woodduck said:


> but they may also mean (as I would) that one piece presents content more evocative of profound concepts and values, even somewhat apart from how strongly they respond to it emotionally. Most lovers of Beethoven, for example, probably agree that some of his symphonies are more profound in what they evoke, or seem to be about, than others, and most people would probably point to the third, fifth, sixth and ninth as conveying deeper and more complex meaning - greater profundity - than the first, second, fourth, seventh and eighth.


I understand both the principle and the example of what you're saying. In the case of the example, I'd refer to my earlier post about what constitutes profound content - its tendency towards the Deep, the Meaningful, often the Tragic as compared with any other content often deemed shallow (and therefore, by definition, not profound). My view is that the 'serious' is not intrinsically of greater value than the 'non-serious'. For me, the 6th is NOT profound (Beethoven walks by a brook, doesn't he? Not an ocean!), but the 7th might be if it weren't so exhausting.

I'm not contesting that others may feel differently, or rejecting the idea many report this kind of thing and call it 'profound'. Nor am I suggesting that just because _I _don't find the 6th 'profound' that this invalidates the idea altogether. I'm doubting that these symphonies (and others) have content that might be usefully described in these terms.



Woodduck said:


> There's nothing strange or unusual in attributing profundity, or depth of meaning, to works of music, which of course convey no explicit concepts. Since human emotions are products of the interaction of mind and body, and express often complex ideas and values, it's fallacious to think that art which can express and evoke emotions is idea- and value-free. If it isn't, and if some of the ideas and values we may take from the experience of art, along with the kinds of emotion those ideas and values evoke, can rightly be called profound, it's proper to call such works profound. Whether we can agree on how well the term fits a given work - and there's a lot of agreement, but it will never be universal - is a different question, one I don't need to address here (though I'm sure someone will want to ).


There's nothing strange or unusual in all kinds of attributions humans make to phenomena which may nevertheless be false or at least, open to the same doubts I'm expressing here. I hesitate to bring up the R word, but it's the most obvious example. I'm not sure what you mean by your second sentence. If you mean that when we feel an emotion, it is usually accompanied by some intellectual activity too - thoughts, ideas - giving rise to or inspired by the emotion the music prompts, well I'd agree, but that doesn't mean that such ideas are explicitly connected to the music except for the individual listener; nor that if the 5th is about 'a struggle between darkness and light', or 'fate knocking' etc that the work _is _profound.

I'm not quite sure I've explained myself properly, but that will have to do for now.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Customers at the Mcdonalds prefer the Big Mac to the other burgers. Customers at the Burger King prefer the Whopper to the other burgers. Of course every franchise has "icons" that they use to represent themselves. That's just how human culture works, for various purposes such as marketing, and there's nothing special about that. Certainly we can comment (to a limited extent) on spiciness or saltiness (in elements such as use of harmony) how they apply to everyone's taste, but whether or not one burger tastes better than another is a vague and subjective notion. Again, we should not resort to _Argumentum ad populum_.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> Is this really incomprehensible to you? I can't believe anyone finds it hard to understand.





Woodduck said:


> Nobody does operatic camp like Strauss. All that voluptuous rolling on the floor, and the crazy poetry everyone talks in... "The moon is like the egg of an amorous dove, your forehead is like the slopes of Ararat, I love the marks of your teeth in my fruit, I want to kiss your whatever." The better it's performed - quite brilliantly here - the more wonderfully kitchy it is. I got quite a few chuckles out of it. Isn't this fundamentally comic?


I like to occasionally read your writings about opera composers and singers, since they give me chuckles; the way you word things seems so clever. Maybe I've read too many of them lately, but when it comes to topics like objective profundity, I can't help but thinking (again, I'm sorry, it's just the impression I get) you're trying to imply things like "The better Strauss is performed, the more wonderfully kitschy it is. I can't believe anyone can't understand the objective fact."


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> I like to occasionally read your writings about opera composers and singers, since they give me chuckles; the way you word things seems so clever. Maybe I've read too many of them lately, but when it comes to topics like objective profundity, I can't help but thinking (again, I'm sorry, it's just the impression I get) you're trying to imply things like "The better Strauss is performed, the more wonderfully kitschy it is. I can't believe anyone can't understand the objective fact."


Honestly, I don't see your point.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> I don't understand that the term "approach profundity" requires further explanation. But let's say that in the spectrum, the gradation of the sublime, profundity is the ultimate endpoint. Beyond this may lie madness.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't mean to ignore what the photograph is a picture of, but the work, say, of an Ansel Adams is quite generally regarded as art. I have a wonderful book titled _Geology Illustrated _written by a geologist who is also the pilot of a small airplane and a skilled aerial photographer. Many of the photographs, if framed and hung in a gallery, would be lauded as fine art. Here is a convergence of sublimity and profundity. While the photograph as an object is not profound, the thoughts and feelings that it induces are of the profound, the extra-human profound. In the case of the geologist, he offers photos of deeply eroded anticlines in Wyoming that illustrate to the imagination the vast forces that folded up the anticline and then the eons of time that eroded it down to a skeletal outline of itself. That is profound; something well beyond our quotidian existence. A suggestion of Shelley's _Ozymandias _but on a far more vast scale.


I can't escape the feeling that too much of this discussion founders on how we define and use words. Geological activity, profound? Extra-human profound? "Profound: something well beyond our quotidian existence"? Are "vast forces" more "profound" than "minute forces" or "subtle forces"? What are the boundaries of our "quotidian existence," and how far beyond them do we have to go to reach the profound? You retract your previous description of a photograph as "profound" and say instead "the thoughts and feelings that it induces are of the profound." What does "OF the profound" mean? Are you saying that the _objects_ of thought and feeling - the geological phenomena themselvers - are profound? How can objects in nature be profound? Do you mean, rather, that certain objects can or should inspire profound thoughts or feelings? That "deeply eroded inclines" are, or should be, objects of this kind? What if they don't inspire such thoughts and feelings? Are they still "profound"? Is anything necessarily, or always, profound? Isn't it rather...um..._subjective? _And if it is, how can you be so insistent on confining profundity to your favorite field of science? 

I'm not quibbling or being fussy. I find your presentation at least ambiguous, and when we're exploring a concept with several possible meanings that creates great difficulties.


----------



## EdwardBast

Strange Magic said:


> Pure unvarnished assertion. How about sex (not an invitation)?


Tease.

The combinations of features and contexts that produce profundity in music arise from emergent properties, that is, properties that can't be reduced to any necessary or consistent sub-structural bases, properties that are always more than the sum of their parts. This irreducibility puts notions like profundity out of the purview of scientific inquiry. The best discussion of this I know is in Chapter 7 ("Aesthetics Supervenience") of Jerrold Levinson's _Music, Art, and Metaphysics_.


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> I can't escape the feeling that too much of this discussion founders on how we define and use words. Geological activity, profound? Extra-human profound? "Profound: something well beyond our quotidian existence"? Are "vast forces" more "profound" than "minute forces" or "subtle forces"? What are the boundaries of our "quotidian existence," and how far beyond them do we have to go to reach the profound? You retract your previous description of a photograph as "profound" and say instead "the thoughts and feelings that it induces are of the profound." What does "OF the profound" mean? Are you saying that the _objects_ of thought and feeling - the geological phenomena themselvers - are profound? How can objects in nature be profound? Do you mean, rather, that certain objects can or should inspire profound thoughts or feelings? That "deeply eroded inclines" are, or should be, objects of this kind? What if they don't inspire such thoughts and feelings? Are they still "profound"? Is anything necessarily, or always, profound? Isn't it rather...um..._subjective? _And if it is, how can you be so insistent on confining profundity to your favorite field of science?
> 
> I'm not quibbling or being fussy. I find your presentation at least ambiguous, and when we're exploring a concept with several possible meanings that creates great difficulties.


For me, the ‘most’ profound realization in science has been how extremely precise the per unit strength of Dark Energy has had to be, to allow our emergence here. There are huge ramifications. But off topic..

Anyway, for me, in music I want to appreciate HOW (specifically) the greats composed works with such effectively evoking notes (harmonies, rhythms, orchestrations etc.), for the prepared listener.

IMHO, any great creation in art should be ‘profound’ for every human, but the road is long and full of pitfalls.

I won’t re-post it here, off topic, but there is a profound consequence (maybe) for humans from the discovery of the protoplanet Theia (maybe) inside our happy little planet. Yes, it's aliens this time. Post #6 in Mantle Plumes in Talk Science.


----------



## wormcycle

hammeredklavier said:


> The same can be said about sports, for instance. How are we any different from the otakus who say "How would life have been without Neon Genesis Evangelion". Just like them, we're closed in our own nerdy little circles, unable to understand why the rest of the world doesn't care for the Art of the Fugue.





hammeredklavier said:


> Go through this: critique-musicale.com/bachen.htm
> "It appears that many recent Music History books, and even dictionaries, generally respecting the objectivity of scientific books introduce as Pavlovian reflex about Bach judgments of value. The terms _sublime_, _genial_, _wonderful,_ _marvellous_ are used even though they are generally not used for Vivaldi and most other composers."


What's your point? That terms like sublime, genial, wonderful should be used universally or not at all? Opinion like in this quote is worth as much as my opinion, or maybe even less


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> I can't escape the feeling that too much of this discussion founders on how we define and use words. Geological activity, profound? Extra-human profound? "Profound: something well beyond our quotidian existence"? Are "vast forces" more "profound" than "minute forces" or "subtle forces"? What are the boundaries of our "quotidian existence," and how far beyond them do we have to go to reach the profound? You retract your previous description of a photograph as "profound" and say instead "the thoughts and feelings that it induces are of the profound." What does "OF the profound" mean? Are you saying that the _objects_ of thought and feeling - the geological phenomena themselvers - are profound? How can objects in nature be profound? Do you mean, rather, that certain objects can or should inspire profound thoughts or feelings? That "deeply eroded inclines" are, or should be, objects of this kind? What if they don't inspire such thoughts and feelings? Are they still "profound"? Is anything necessarily, or always, profound? Isn't it rather...um..._subjective? _And if it is, how can you be so insistent on confining profundity to your favorite field of science?
> 
> I'm not quibbling or being fussy. I find your presentation at least ambiguous, and when we're exploring a concept with several possible meanings that creates great difficulties.


In a nutshell, objects are neither sublime nor profound. I think we can agree on that, My thesis (I much prefer brevity) is that that objects, whether art pictures, photographs, music, can sometimes induce/inspire/generate/encourage feelings of both the sublime and of the profound. My point--and it is similar to a point made by Richard Feynman--is that the scope of human life and experience, focused on itself, with its own emotions directed to checking its "pulse and heat rate" is capable of only inducing a feeling of the sublime, often very strongly. This is the Burkean outlook--he sees mountains, the Alps, towering over him, and feels the terror I described previously. But he has no knowledge of how the mountains became as they were: sedimentation, igneous intrusion, folding under great pressures, uplift, erosion, glaciation, etc. He may feel the sublime to the max. But it is only the scientifically aware person, layman or professional, who can sense the grandeur of the forces and the immensity of the time it took to create those mountains. Knowledge of those sorts of data and of the beauty of the now well-attested scientific "stories" that give us the AHA understanding, generates an awe and a transport that is profound and and is of the profound.

Feynman somewhere (I can't instantly find the reference but it may be in his book _The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, _gets at the same point when he notes that the universe, viewed as a stage, is far too immense for the little human play being enacted thereon, or rather, that our human troubles and travails are far too puny to explain the existence of the great theater in which the play is enacted. I recommend Feynman's book because he says a lot about the awe and joy he finds in science. He also discusses the R word in some detail. I hope this helps explain my position.


----------



## Strange Magic

EdwardBast said:


> Tease.
> 
> The combinations of features and contexts that produce profundity in music arise from emergent properties, that is, properties that can't be reduced to any necessary or consistent sub-structural bases, properties that are always more than the sum of their parts. This irreducibility puts notions like profundity out of the purview of scientific inquiry. The best discussion of this I know is in Chapter 7 ("Aesthetics Supervenience") of Jerrold Levinson's _Music, Art, and Metaphysics_.


What other subjects are out of the purview of scientific inquiry? I had no idea such things existed.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Woodduck: *"I'm not quibbling or being fussy. I find your presentation at least ambiguous, and when we're exploring a concept with several possible meanings that creates great difficulties."


Just a note. I counted 16 question marks in your full above quote. Are these all real questions troubling people, in your opinion? I had no idea my theses were so vague and indecipherable; some here seem to grasp them. Perhaps, in a spirit of Socratic examination, we should posit a 16-question drill for any post longer than a couple of sentences.


----------



## EdwardBast

Strange Magic said:


> What other subjects are out of the purview of scientific inquiry? I had no idea such things existed.


You've never wondered why there are categories like "the arts" and "the humanities?" These are good places to look for things not readily amenable to scientific inquiry and the scientific method.


----------



## Strange Magic

EdwardBast said:


> You've never wondered why there are categories like "the arts" and "the humanities?" These are good places to look for things not readily amenable to scientific inquiry and the scientific method.


You are pulling my leg, certainly. Every aspect of reality and our notions of it are within the purview of scientific inquiry. To deny this is to enter boldly into woo-woo country: _"Here there are demons,"_


----------



## fluteman

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I think this is a too simplistic view. First, I don't think all classical art aims to deal in universal truths or psychological insights; just as many are interested in rendering the tastes and fashions and trends of their own particular time. It's why so much classical music featured forms of popular dances in their day because, just as today, there is a whole group of subjectivities who only care for music insofar as they can dance to it (Ezra Pound once quipped that; "poetry withers the further it gets from music; music withers the further it gets from dance." I don't necessarily agree, but it's a good articulation of a certain perspective).
> 
> Second, I don't think all popular art avoids universal truths and psychological insights. Of all 20th century music artists I can't think of any in the classical tradition that cared more about such things than, say, Bob Dylan, who was a massively popular artists. And I even think such things can be found in relatively slight popular art.
> 
> Finally, I'm not certain universal truths and psychological insights are a necessary component for great or lasting art. Much music, especially, is by its very nature abstract, and the fact that we're able to metaphorically link music to aspects of our human experience doesn't mean that music contains truths and insights; it's more a testament of our very human ability to take anything and find a way to make it relevant to us and our experiences. Perhaps certain music is more malleable for doing this, but it's still a very, innately subjective thing.


Respectfully, the flaw in your analysis of my comment is that you try to draw a sharply defined boundary between the ideas of classical and popular art, or assume I am trying to do so, and then mention someone like Bob Dylan, a boundary-blurring artist. You might also have mentioned Laurie Anderson, Brian Eno or David Byrne, or even Philip Glass.
Also respectfully, the fact that music is abstract, and deals in concepts and ideas rather than concrete, physical forms, is not what is relevant here. The nature of those underlying concepts and ideas is. Charles Rosen, in his books The Classical Style and The Romantic Generation, and Walter Jackson Bate, in his book From Classic to Romantic: Premises of Taste in 18th Century England (which deals with art in general, primarily poetry and literature but also visual art and music) discuss how certain basic concepts consistently permeate and underly the art of the Classical and Romantic Periods.
In short, aesthetic taste is not an innately subjective thing, at least not completely. Nor do we have the ability to take anything and find a way to make it relevant to us and our experiences. Rather, we live in a certain cultural and social context that unavoidably colors our perceptions and tastes. That is why the fashions of one era, or even one year, can differ from those of the next. Yet, some artistic concepts remain compelling centuries, or even millennia, after their appearance. That suggests some concepts are less dependent on the fashions or context of the moment, and more lasting and universal, than others.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> Honestly, I don't see your point.


Could you use Strauss' Salome (and its profundity) as an example to explain your points in this thread?


----------



## hammeredklavier

wormcycle said:


> What's your point? That terms like sublime, genial, wonderful should be used universally or not at all? Opinion like in this quote is worth as much as my opinion, or maybe even less





fluteman said:


> Yet, some artistic concepts remain compelling centuries, or even millennia, after their appearance. That suggests some concepts are less dependent on the fashions or context of the moment, and more lasting and universal, than others.


What do you think of this (how would you refute it)?:


hammeredklavier said:


> in the end, it's _all about popularity_. Again, a certain member in the past made a good point by posting the following in another thread (something for us to think about):
> 
> "All of the factors contributing to greatness are interrelated and dependent on each other. For example, one factor mentioned above is the tradition of received wisdom: belief in A's greatness has been passed down from generation to generation, reinforced by music textbooks and concert performances and internet forums, while belief in B's greatness has not. Another factor mentioned above is the test of time: A seems greater than B because the former's music has survived till today while the latter's has not. But these two factors are mutually reinforcing: if music textbooks have chapters on A but not B, then of course the former is going to have a leg up on the latter when it comes to the test of time. Conversely, if A's music is still performed today while B's is not, then of course music textbooks are going to have chapters on the former but not the latter. Likewise, another factor that has been mentioned is influence: A has demonstrably had a lasting influence on later composers, even today, while B has not. This is also inherently connected to the above factors: since A appears in textbooks and is more widely performed than B, then of course he is going to have a greater influence on later composers than B will.
> 
> In other words, the concept of greatness is a complex and circular system. By this point in time it's also a self-sustaining one, precisely because of the circularity. After all, this system is basically what we call a canon, and it is the very purpose of a canon to be self-perpetuating. As I wrote about in another thread some years ago, it is difficult to imagine any canonical composer being removed from the cycle and losing their canonical status, and it's difficult to imagine any non-canonical composer being inserted into the cycle and acquiring canonical status. I don't think the canon was always closed, and I don't want to think it is now, but if I'm being honest with myself then I have to think realistically that it is."


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> Charles Rosen, in his books The Classical Style and The Romantic Generation...


Sorry, but your beloved Charlatan Rosen can be shown to be wrong in various things objective-argumentation.79894/page-25 (look through pages 24~26). "Experts" are also fans of things; just cause they studied history and theory it doesn't mean they make objectively better aesthetic judgments.


hammeredklavier said:


> Sure. A clown who doesn't make mistakes in his acting (and does it flawlessly) scores higher points and has potential to gain greater fame than a clown who makes mistakes in his. "Objectively great" things = things that have amassed large numbers of fans. "Greatness" is essentially what fans attribute to things they love and would defend them against criticisms. Since people are allergic to the term "tyranny", I'll say "argumentum ad populum".
> in the end, all you're repeating is "well-composed music is all about good melody, good harmony, good counterpoint, good sense of form ..."


-----



fluteman said:


> how certain basic concepts consistently permeate and underly the art of the Classical and Romantic Periods.


On the contrary - every 18th century composer kept the "rules of good taste", so it's even harder to determine objectively what was trash and what was gold from that time.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> Is it to help us poor benighted Bach-Mozart-Beethoven fans finally realize that our "idols" are really no better than


Sure, let's say objective artistic hierarchies do exist. But just cause they exist, how does it automatically lead to the conclusion; "Mozart is objectively on a higher plain than von Beecke"? This is something you have to prove separately from the "existence of artistic hierarchies".
Try to answer; "Why isn't von Beecke mentioned alongside Mozart?". All you can do is to repeat "Because Mozart is more popular today" in cleverly different wordings.
Again, Mozart's style of harmony was once perceived to be undesirable. Just cause people who held those views in Mozart's time are now dead, it doesn't mean they don't matter anymore objectively. Is greatness absolute and unchanging?
Try to answer this: "Why isn't any artist from the period 1000~1700 considered to be as profound as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven? Was it a "low point" or "dark age" of European music?"

Ignaz von Beecke (1733-1803) string quartet in C (circa. 1780)




piano quintet in A minor (1770)


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Could you use Strauss' Salome (and its profundity) as an example to explain your points in this thread?


Which points? And did I say _Salome_ was profound?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

fluteman said:


> Respectfully, the flaw in your analysis of my comment is that you try to draw a sharply defined boundary between the ideas of classical and popular art, or assume I am trying to do so, and then mention someone like Bob Dylan, a boundary-blurring artist. You might also have mentioned Laurie Anderson, Brian Eno or David Byrne, or even Philip Glass.
> Also respectfully, the fact that music is abstract, and deals in concepts and ideas rather than concrete, physical forms, is not what is relevant here. The nature of those underlying concepts and ideas is. Charles Rosen, in his books The Classical Style and The Romantic Generation, and Walter Jackson Bate, in his book From Classic to Romantic: Premises of Taste in 18th Century England (which deals with art in general, primarily poetry and literature but also visual art and music) discuss how certain basic concepts consistently permeate and underly the art of the Classical and Romantic Periods.
> In short, aesthetic taste is not an innately subjective thing, at least not completely. Nor do we have the ability to take anything and find a way to make it relevant to us and our experiences. Rather, we live in a certain cultural and social context that unavoidably colors our perceptions and tastes. That is why the fashions of one era, or even one year, can differ from those of the next. Yet, some artistic concepts remain compelling centuries, or even millennia, after their appearance. That suggests some concepts are less dependent on the fashions or context of the moment, and more lasting and universal, than others.


I don't think I attempted to draw a "sharply defined boundary," I simply wasn't aware you'd object to my mentioning of Dylan as a popular music artist. I mean, Dylan had clear roots in folk music, which throughout most history was, almost by definition, the popular music of the people in contrast to the classical tradition. When Dylan started "blurring genres" it wasn't by incorporating classical influences, but by incorporating rock and and psychedelic influences (later some Gospel and blues) which were also popular genres. The artists you mentioned are, IMO, much more boundary-blurring than Dylan. 

I don't even think music deals with concepts and ideas, except musical ones. I mean, just to take an example, how does music represent "truth?" We can, at most, attach certain musical ideas to non-musical ideas, as Wagner did, and create a connection that way, but that's about it. Certainly, we can find metaphoric or isomorphic relations to music and psychological or physical states. As I've said many times the sonata form itself (and popular song form, and most basic jazz forms) are close to the infamous monomyth or "hero's journey," so it's very easy to make such connections with our own lives. 

I'm also not sure how you get from the above to the conclusion "aesthetic taste is not an innately subjective thing." How not so? The fact is that our subjectivity, which isn't arbitrary, creates art-objects that resonate with our subjectivities--at least some of them. The only part of this equation that isn't subjective is the art-object itself, but without subjectivities there is neither nothing to create the art, nor nothing to react to/resonate with the art. 

I think you'd be surprised at human's ability to make most anything relevant to us and our experiences. So much of the fundamental human condition, as well as what's expressed in art, is finding ways to meaningfully tie together all the heterogenous aspects of experience through metaphor, isomorphism, narrative, mythology, etc. The human mind is always trying to make sense of all the data it's bombarded with, and it's even capable of detecting patterns and meanings that aren't there at all. Leave a poet alone with the most random objects in a room, like, say, a spork, and they will find ways to make connections between it and the fundamental truths of life and the universe (I'm only slightly exaggerating here). 

I don't disagree with art's ability to remain relevant after fashions fade because of its ability to appeal to fundamental aspects of human nature/experience, but I don't think this point is a counter to anything I've said above, nor in what you were responding to.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> You are pulling my leg, certainly. Every aspect of reality and our notions of it are within the purview of scientific inquiry. To deny this is to enter boldly into woo-woo country: _"Here there are demons,"_


Not to be a buttinski, but EB did say "readily amenable to scientific inquiry," not "completely off limits to" it. Neuroscientists can certainly devote their lives to figuring out exactly how the first movement of Beethoven's Ninth gives rise to the particular feelings and ideas it tends to among a wide spectrum of listeners, but musicians and audiences, who are not demon-worshipers, don't need to wait for the charts and graphs to get out of the music what it's capable of giving. 


Strange Magic said:


> In a nutshell, objects are neither sublime nor profound. I think we can agree on that, My thesis (I much prefer brevity) is that that objects, whether art pictures, photographs, music, can sometimes induce/inspire/generate/encourage feelings of both the sublime and of the profound. My point--and it is similar to a point made by Richard Feynman--is that the scope of human life and experience, focused on itself, with its own emotions directed to checking its "pulse and heat rate" is capable of only inducing a feeling of the sublime, often very strongly. This is the Burkean outlook--he sees mountains, the Alps, towering over him, and feels the terror I described previously. But he has no knowledge of how the mountains became as they were: sedimentation, igneous intrusion, folding under great pressures, uplift, erosion, glaciation, etc. He may feel the sublime to the max. But it is only the scientifically aware person, layman or professional, who can sense the grandeur of the forces and the immensity of the time it took to create those mountains. Knowledge of those sorts of data and of the beauty of the now well-attested scientific "stories" that give us the AHA understanding, generates an awe and a transport that is profound and and is of the profound.
> 
> I hope this helps explain my position.


It does. Thanks. But at the risk of annoying you with more questions, are you placing art entirely within 'the scope of human life and experience, focused on itself, with its own emotions directed to checking its "pulse and heat rate"'?


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> Sure, let's say objective artistic hierarchies do exist. But just cause they exist, how does it automatically lead to the conclusion; "Mozart is objectively on a higher plain than von Beecke"?


I didn't say anything about "objective artistic hierarchies". I said "artistic hierarchies". Actually I don't care that much if it's subjective or objective or a little o' this and a little o' that. They're still there regardless.

I don't see how it's incumbent upon me to hold von Beecke in exactly the same esteem that I hold Mozart, or Graupner in the same esteem that I hold Bach. They didn't write the same things, hammeredklavier. "It's all subjective, so you therefore must value everything equally" doesn't make much sense.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Strange Magic said:


> Referring back to my proposal in post #22 to link the concepts of the sublime with that of the profound, I here will somewhat de-link them, this time focusing on the differences between the two. It seems to me that the sense of the sublime can come in various gradations of intensity and of the presence or absence of a focus--a specific tangible or nameable focus--some object or specific concept--upon which to fix its attention. In the case of music other than clearly programmatic music, there is no nexus to which the feeling of the sublime is linked. This is similar then to introvertive mysticism where the self is submerged into The One (if that can be said to be the focus). In contrast to this is the much rarer extrovertive mysticism wherein the ultimate reality is sought outside oneself, in the greater and non-human universe beyond. The American poet Robinson Jeffers is an prime exemplar at times, but not always, of extrovertive mysticism. Here is where the artistic sublime most closely attains the stature of the profound.
> 
> I submit again that the concept of the profound requires a focus--tangible or otherwise closely definable--and that only science can offer profundity. I submit that sublimity does not require such a tangible or closely definable focus, there can be gradations of the sublime in the arts, even approaching profundity. If one considers the Hubble telescope's photograph _Pillars of Creation _to be art, it then comes very close to being profound. If one considers that same photo as a direct picture of astronomical reality, it then becomes entirely profound. If music like program music has a focus, a story or depiction, it is not profound. If music does not have such a focus, it is also not profound. It may be sublime, and when it is, it can induce ecstasy. That's not too shabby!


You say that the sublime involves concepts of awe and terror, and that an object of focus, like the vastness of the universe, is capable of provoking this feeling while art is not... I'm not sure upon what basis this claim is being made. I mean, just to take the one example you made of the Pillars of Creation photograph, it would be entirely possible for an artist to paint something very similar, and then what would be the fundamental difference between the painting and the photograph? Simply our knowledge that one has a real referent in reality while the other is just a representation of that real referent? I'm not even sure that distinction makes much sense--certainly not in their subjective effects of the feelings provoked--when broken down. 

However much music is different from, say, the landscapes of Ansel Adams or the cosmos observed by astronomers it is not difficult to understand how we can create metaphoric and isomorphic links between them. Sound is a physical force in itself, and at high enough volumes does very well to imitate the immense grandeur of landscapes, the cosmos, and similar things. Anyone who's ever experienced the power of a large church organ knows the physical power of that sound well, and it can be as awesome and terrifying as witnessing the force and power of a hurricane. With large enough pipes they can produce tones low enough to feel like it's rattling the soul from your body... and this is just on the physical sound power alone, not taking into account music's abilities to evoke the sublime by actual musical (rather than sound) means. 

As for the concept of the profound, to me it seems there are two crucial elements of the profound, one of which is tied to the sublime and the other is not. The first one that is tied to the sublime is the intensity of the emotions and experiences it stirs. The second one that isn't tied to the sublime is the nature of finding important patterns, even truths, that lie buried under the apparent chaos of our experience; whether we find such things in nature, as science does, or psychologically within ourselves doesn't make much difference, at least not to how I perceive the meaning of the word. By uniting patterns I don't simply mean, eg, the recognition of sonata form, but the way in which the various patterns of music provokes us to connect it metaphorically and isomorphically with either externally observed patterns or internally felt patterns, even emotional ones, that tend to lie buried or dormant until music unearths them. 

So while I would agree there is a difference in science's ability to find "profound truths" of nature by finding the underlying patterns of causality that gives coherency to the often-seeming chaos of that nature, I do think there is a similarity there with our ability to detect patterns in music and then create links between those patterns and our own experiences. This is a much more subjective thing, of course, than science is, because science is limited to the studying the objective aspects of nature, while the linking of abstract musical patterns to our experiences depends both on our subjective experiences (which vary from person to person at least somewhat; perhaps there are common generalities, but also many specific differences) and our subjective ability to make such connections, which doesn't have the same standard of evidential truth that science has. 



Strange Magic said:


> This is the Burkean outlook--he sees mountains, the Alps, towering over him, and feels the terror I described previously. But he has no knowledge of how the mountains became as they were: sedimentation, igneous intrusion, folding under great pressures, uplift, erosion, glaciation, etc. He may feel the sublime to the max. But it is only the scientifically aware person, layman or professional, who can sense the grandeur of the forces and the immensity of the time it took to create those mountains. Knowledge of those sorts of data and of the beauty of the now well-attested scientific "stories" that give us the AHA understanding, generates an awe and a transport that is profound and and is of the profound.


I rather wish I'd seen this post before I typed all of the above; but let that stand, and let me note that it seems to me the only difference you're making between the profound and sublime is that the latter is a kind of purely experiential thing, while the former requires understanding the underlying causes of the thing experienced. While I think that's a fair distinction, I would say that patterns very much exist in art, as does our ability to relate those patterns, even if abstractly, to our own experiences; and this isomorphic pattern knitting is not dissimilar to what the scientist does with the exception that the scientist isn't involving their subjective experiences but are only concerned with the patterns of objective nature. Is it perhaps useful to have two different terms to distinguish these differences? Perhaps, but I think for most casual discussion such a distinction would rarely matter. 



Strange Magic said:


> What other subjects are out of the purview of scientific inquiry? I had no idea such things existed.


Normative ethics, for one. Science can study the effects of certain ethical systems (applied ethics), it can help us figure out what is meant by ethics (meta-ethics and descriptive ethics); but it can't tell us what we ought to do without humans defining the ultimate goal to be achieved. It's a bit like saying science can help us discover what is true, but it can't tell us that we should care about truth. I would also suggest that axiomatic systems are outside the purview of science, including math and logic. We may settle on the axioms because they are useful in modeling empirical reality, but that's more an argument from pragmatism and gets into a bit of a chicken-and-the-egg thing with empiricism VS rationality.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> When people say that one piece of music is profound and another isn't, they _may_ be saying merely that one piece makes them feel more strongly than the other, but they may also mean (as I would) that one piece presents content more evocative of profound concepts and values, even somewhat apart from how strongly they respond to it emotionally.


Friend Woodduck, you have good points, but I must still respectfully disagree on some of them. Listen to this, MH358, paying careful attention to the harmonies in the introduction, and in the sections at 5:00 (e8ba5g_jF5M&t=4m10s) and 9:22 (e8ba5g_jF5M&t=9m13s), for example:





Does every Classical period composer more popular today than Haydn has a symphonic style more "objectively profound" than his?
Even if there's a Classical period composer with a symphonic style (more popular today than Haydn's) that can be perceived as "less profound" in the "general sense", can we say he objectively doesn't deserve to be popular? No. It's simply what people appreciate, regardless of whether or not it's "profound in the general sense". Who can blame them for it? In the end, popularity is all that matters when it comes to these matters of aesthetics (unless people try to distort things like historical facts).
Remember what Forster said.


Forster said:


> In the case of the example, I'd refer to my earlier post about what constitutes profound content - its tendency towards the Deep, the Meaningful, often the Tragic as compared with any other content often deemed shallow (and therefore, by definition, not profound). My view is that the 'serious' is not intrinsically of greater value than the 'non-serious'.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> Theories... predictions... Back to science, are we? Back to the impossibility of knowing anything without a unit of measurement?


Science is built on the foundations of rationality and empiricism. I’ve asked this before: what other methods would you like to introduce towards knowing something? Personal experience is fine for knowing some things, like what I ate yesterday, but not for others because the limitations of human experience and perception.



Woodduck said:


> In plain language, you believe that if art were actually good rather than merely liked, everyone should like it equally well.
> 
> I think that's nonsense, and obvious nonsense at that.


I appreciate that you think this, but I can’t appreciate what I personally see as your failure to explain this by frequently going off into notions of what I see as fundamentally describing how certain art is able to be liked by certain subjectivities that are primed to like that art.



Woodduck said:


> And now back to polls and sample sizes for those who can't imagine that the triumph of Wagner's monster epics and the disappearance of Meyerbeer's coloratura-and-light shows has anything to do with the _profundity_ of either.


It has to do with the different potential of their different works to appeal to the different subjectivities that interact with them. Obviously, Wagner’s had much more potential to appeal to many more on a deeper level that’s kept him relevant for as long as he’s been relevant; this is still all within the realm of certain subjectivities being primed to respond to Wagner in that way, which doesn’t negate Wagner’s ability in appealing to those subjectivities (these two factors are co-dependent). Still, Wagner didn’t have the skill to appeal to all human subjectivities, either in his own time or across time. Meyerbeer had even less ability to appeal to as many as Wagner did, though perhaps he had more to appeal to the subjectivities of his own time. To go pragmatic, why must we go farther than this? What is to be gained by doing so and trying to announce that Wagner is somehow objectively better? He’s better in the ability to appeal to more people across time than Meyerbeer; yes, but that is, fundamentally (I’m sorry) a poll. It wouldn’t delegitimize anyone who actually thought Meyerbeer to be better for appealing to their own subjectivity.



Woodduck said:


> I don't care what most religious people claim. Their experience of angels and devils has nothing to do with an artist's experience of his work processes and results, and your evident need to equate them is a flaw in your view of reality.


You can claim this all you want but you have not demonstrated a difference. All I see are two people claiming truth with no objective means of epistemically supporting themselves. Also, if you don’t care what most religious people claim—and I assume you don’t care because you’d argue they can’t support the claim that their experiences point to any objective truth—then why should anyone care about what you claim as truth?



Woodduck said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "understanding."


You introduced the term; what did YOU mean?



Woodduck said:


> Romance novels appeal to more people than _Moby Dick_ and _Crime and Punishment_. Do they tell us more about the "human condition" ? What is the _human_ condition, anyway? Whose condition are we talking about? Yours? Mine? Donald Trump's?


Absolutely romance novels tell us something about the human condition. So does Harry Potter. You ever seen Jordan Peterson lecturing on the metaphoric depths of Harry Potter? (He also has many fascinating lectures on The Bible in precisely this similar vein: the ways in which its stories metaphorically connect to universal human experiences of life) Moby Dick and Crime & Punishment tell us plenty too, but I’m not sure they tell us more or less than romance novels and Harry Potter; the major difference is that the latter aren’t TRYING to tell us anything, they’re just writing stories inspired by those fundamental conditions, while Dostoevsky thought he knew about those fundamental conditions and really wanted to tell us about him through a character like Raskalnikov; and I’ve mentioned in the last pages of the “Tchaikovsky/2nd rate composer” thread I think Dostoyevsky’s insistence on telling us these things makes him out to be as much of a failed philosopher than a great novelist.

The rest of what you say starts getting into the value of understanding individual subjectivities as much as universal or group subjectivities. Again, part of the wonder of art is precisely in the ability to appeal to all subjectivities, all ways of experiencing and feeling life as a human being. Some of those ways are universal, others aren’t. We are individuals that contain many connections and similarities with all humans, but differences as well. Any art that manages to speak strongly to subjectivities, whether it’s an individual, a group, or all of humanity, should be praised for its ability to do so. What is the harm in being so inclusive? There’s enough art out there for all of us.



Woodduck said:


> Ah. So the "human condition" means whatever takes us along the path of least resistance for the least common denominator.
> 
> Glad we cleared that up.


I’m not sure what this means, but it seems a rather rational assertion that the art that speaks most profoundly to the most universal aspects of the human condition would also be the art that appeals to the most humans. How else would you even determine such a thing?



Woodduck said:


> The term "profound" is often enough used loosely - to designate simply a strong emotional response - that I think we have to allow that as one legitimate definition. Strange Magic wants to go to a different extreme and confine the use of the word to his own field of interest, science. I find both the common looseness and SM's strictness tending to the same sort of dichotomization of reality that plagues the "objective/subjective" issue in talking about art.


While a tangential point, one key difference is that the objective/distinction dichotomy is a legitimate, actual dichotomy. Things either exist within human subjectivities or in objective reality; they don't (can't) exist in both. There are many complex interactions between the objective and subjective, such as how objects are inferred from their empirical and subjective representations inside the human brain, but even then it's possible to conceptually disentangle the perception of the object from the object itself (though this distinction is rarely useful). The looseness/strictness of definitions is much more of a spectrum than a dichotomy. We aren't stuck between the poles of precision and complete ambiguity, as if the meanings of words were either particles with an exact location or a wavefunction of multiple possible locations.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> It's simply what people appreciate, regardless of whether or not it's "profound in the general sense". Who can blame them for it? In the end, popularity is all that matters when it comes to these matters of aesthetics.


There's the circularity again. They're "popular" because they're "popular", which avoids any explanation as to why they became "popular" at all. Ah, music dictionaries and theoreticians. Well then again explain to me why these particular composers were rather arbitrarily selected for exaltation.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

dissident said:


> I don't see how it's incumbent upon me to hold von Beecke in exactly the same esteem that I hold Mozart, or Graupner in the same esteem that I hold Bach. They didn't write the same things, hammeredklavier. "It's all subjective, so you therefore must value everything equally" doesn't make much sense.


You've made this similar point before, but I don't think any subjectivists have ever said or even suggested you must value everything equally. What we're constantly saying is that you are free to value anything however you like; just don't try to claim others are wrong for valuing things differently. The teenager is no more wrong for thinking Bieber better than Mozart than you are in thinking the opposite. Concepts of right and wrong or objective truth simply don't apply to aesthetic tastes.


----------



## 59540

Eva Yojimbo said:


> You've made this similar point before, but I don't think any subjectivists have ever said or even suggested you must value everything equally. What we're constantly saying is that you are free to value anything however you like; just don't try to claim others are wrong for valuing things differently. The teenager is no more wrong for thinking Bieber better than Mozart than you are in thinking the opposite. Concepts of right and wrong or objective truth simply don't apply to aesthetic tastes.


It was addressed to hammeredklavier, who apparently does think that if I value Mozart I'm being unreasonably slighting to more obscure composers who are "just as good". Who have I claimed is "wrong" anyway? I think a lot of this is rooted in insecurity in one's own artistic preferences. If time spent listening to Bieber is as sound an investment or as enriching as time spent listening to Mozart, I wouldn't have to be reminded of it. Over and over.


----------



## Strange Magic

*Woodduck: *Here is EB's statement:


> *EdwardBast: *"This irreducibility puts notions like profundity out of the purview of scientific inquiry."





> *Woodduck: "...* are you placing art entirely within 'the scope of human life and experience, focused on itself, with its own emotions directed to checking its "pulse and heat rate"'?"


I hope I am fully understanding your question, but I would say Yes--art is an entirely human activity and artifact. It can attempt to mimic nature, often quite successfully--I am thinking of the Luminist painters and their ability to induce a reflective mood and to lose oneself in the landscape, as well as induce a state of near ecstasy when exhibited in a mass. The strongest reaction to painted art that I experienced came at the Phila. Art Museum where the exhibitors filled a room with the great classics of Luminism. The effect was immediate and I had to sit down to regain my composure while being exposed to the radiation given off by this massed art. Sublime!

I think Robinson Jeffers would be sympathetic to my position though he was often imbuing the natural world with an alien intelligence, a personality far beyond our ken. I think he understood that the profound lay in the findings of science. I am thinking of the famous passage in _Roan Stallion _with his idea of his god "walking lightning-naked on the Pacific".


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

dissident said:


> It was addressed to hammeredklavier, who apparently does think that if I value Mozart I'm being unreasonably slighting to more obscure composers who are "just as good". Who have I claimed is "wrong" anyway? I think a lot of this is rooted in insecurity in one's own artistic preferences. If time spent listening to Bieber is as sound an investment or as enriching as time spent listening to Mozart, I wouldn't have to be reminded of it. Over and over.


I think hammeredklavier is concerned, and not unjustly so, that so much of our artistic hierarchies, so to speak, are founded on the received wisdom of what art others before us liked. I think he has a point to some extent, as there's no doubt that, at the very least, Mozart's popularity means he we will be heard by far more people than M. Haydn ever will. If they were heard equally would their popularity shift? Would it shift without the received wisdom of authorities about Mozart being better? These aren't easy questions to answer, and are worth asking. I don't think hammered is trying to suggest you are somehow wrong for liking Mozart, he's just trying to get people to realize that other composers may be just as deserving of our attention, even based on our own aesthetic values, but we overlook them for reasons having nothing to do with the quality of their music.


----------



## 59540

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I think hammeredklavier is concerned, and not unjustly so, that so much of our artistic hierarchies, so to speak, are founded on the received wisdom of what art others before us liked. I think he has a point to some extent, as there's no doubt that, at the very least, Mozart's popularity means he we will be heard by far more people than M. Haydn ever will. If they were heard equally would their popularity shift? Would it shift without the received wisdom of authorities about Mozart being better? These aren't easy questions to answer, and are worth asking. I don't think hammered is trying to suggest you are somehow wrong for liking Mozart, he's just trying to get people to realize that other composers may be just as deserving of our attention, even based on our own aesthetic values, but we overlook them for reasons having nothing to do with the quality of their music.


Why haven't M. Haydn and Mozart been heard equally? Or Bach and Graupner? I often feel a kind of obligation to give a composer a fair hearing, but that doesn't mean that if I don't like the product aesthetically that I'm not being fair. It means that I just don't like it.

I think that if humanity had had these preoccupations with "elitism" and a concomitant leveling impulse over the past two or three millennia, we wouldn't have much "great art" today to speak of.


> but we overlook them for reasons having nothing to do with the quality of their music.


That's not necessarily true. I tend to listen with an open mind, and I haven't found any of his examples from the more obscure composers to be all that compelling musically.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

dissident said:


> I think that if humanity had had these preoccupations with "elitism" and a concomitant leveling impulse over the past two or three millennia, we wouldn't have much "great art" today to speak of.


It's an interesting hypothesis but not one I think could be proven; it's not like we can rewind history and run multiple trials to see what kind of art a leveling Vs hierarchical impulse would produce. I mean, there has been much more of that leveling impulse in the 20th century and I think the 20th century has produced a great deal of great art across different art-forms, even if more in some than in others.



dissident said:


> That's not necessarily true. I tend to listen with an open mind, and I haven't found any of his examples from the more obscure composers to be all that compelling musically.


It's fine to say one listens with an open mind--I like to think I do too--but it's very difficult to demonstrate the extent to which things, like the aforementioned received wisdom, influences us even if unconsciously. The only way to really know would be to let people listen to popular Vs obscure composers who'd never heard of either and see what they think, and even that would have its caveats.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> Sorry, but your beloved Charlatan Rosen can be shown to be wrong in various things objective-argumentation.79894/page-25 (look through pages 24~26). "Experts" are also fans of things; just cause they studied history and theory it doesn't mean they make objectively better aesthetic judgments.
> On the contrary - every 18th century composer kept the "rules of good taste", so it's even harder to determine objectively what was trash and what was gold from that time.





hammeredklavier said:


> Sure, let's say objective artistic hierarchies do exist. But just cause they exist, how does it automatically lead to the conclusion; "Mozart is objectively on a higher plain than von Beecke"? This is something you have to prove separately from the "existence of artistic hierarchies".
> Try to answer; "Why isn't von Beecke mentioned alongside Mozart?". All you can do is to repeat "Because Mozart is more popular today" in cleverly different wordings.
> Again, Mozart's style of harmony was once perceived to be undesirable. Just cause people who held those views in Mozart's time are now dead, it doesn't mean they don't matter anymore objectively. Is greatness absolute and unchanging?
> 
> Try to answer this: "Why isn't any artist from the period 1000~1700 considered to be as profound as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven? Was it a "dark age" of European music?"


You have been someone promoting the ‘everything is subjective’ position. Why are you now using various arguments inferring ‘objectivity’ to promote the above? And btw, you know darn well that Mozart doesn’t hold the position he does because of simplistic popularity.

And please stop asking questions of everybody else. If you have considerable convincing evidence that von Beecke is just as accomplished as Mozart, then spit it out.


----------



## 59540

> It's fine to say one listens with an open mind--I like to think I do too--but it's very difficult to demonstrate the extent to which things, like the aforementioned received wisdom, influences us even if unconsciously.


When I first came across much of the classical music that I still love, I had very little knowledge of the "received wisdom". But it would also be very difficult to determine the extent to which to desire to be regarded as "emancipated" from the "received wisdom" influences how one hears obscure composers, many of whom may very well have earned the obscurity. I think music that's of "value" will find an audience and have staying power.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> You have been someone promoting the ‘everything is subjective’ position. Why are you now using various arguments inferring ‘objectivity’ to promote the above?


Perhaps I'm wrong/misreading him, but I think he was entertaining the hypothetical of objectivity to investigate the logical coherency of that position. So he's saying that even if we assume objective hierarchies exist this doesn't mean you've actually proven Mozart is objectively better than any other composer, especially when one is just offering different variations on him being more popular (I assume most here wouldn't accept popularity as the standard for judging objective betterness).


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Perhaps I'm wrong/misreading him, but I think he was entertaining the hypothetical of objectivity to investigate the logical coherency of that position. So he's saying that even if we assume objective hierarchies exist this doesn't mean you've actually proven Mozart is objectively better than any other composer, especially when one is just offering different variations on him being more popular (I assume most here wouldn't accept popularity as the standard for judging objective betterness).


Perhaps I’m misunderstanding. Let’s just say I find his posts increasingly obscure lately. For instance, he seems to be promoting Michael Haydn as being objectively at a par with Mozart et al. Or, at least that’s how I read it.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

dissident said:


> When I first came across much of the classical music that I still love, I had very little knowledge of the "received wisdom". But it would also be very difficult to determine the extent to which to desire to be regarded as "emancipated" from the "received wisdom" influences how one hears obscure composers, many of whom may very well have earned the obscurity. I think music that's of "value" will find an audience and have staying power.


Funnily enough, I can't remember a time when I was aware of music but NOT aware of Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart's reputation; we were taught about them as early as music classes in gradeschool. As for the rest, I agree with you; the bias towards finding the "hidden gems" of obscure art/artists and to rebel against hierarchies and received wisdom are biases themselves that also exert varying levels of influence on people. I would like to think that art that's of value will find an audience, but I'm also aware of many of the accidents of history. John Donne was almost buried into obscurity until TS Eliot rescued him in the 20th century, largely due to the force of his own authority. What if TS Eliot had latched onto George Herbert instead?


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> he seems to be promoting Michael Haydn as being objectively at a par with Mozart et al.


Have I argued that as an objective fact? If so, where have I done that specifically?


----------



## 59540

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Funnily enough, I can't remember a time when I was aware of music but NOT aware of Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart's reputation; we were taught about them as early as music classes in gradeschool.


Beethoven and Mozart, yes; but I wasn't aware of much Bach beyond the WTC. My piano teacher was more an admirer of Chopin and Beethoven. But again it will raise the question "why Bach, Beethoven and Mozart and not M. Haydn, Telemann and Hummel?"


> John Donne was almost buried into obscurity until TS Eliot rescued him in the 20th century, largely due to the force of his own authority. What if TS Eliot had latched onto George Herbert instead?


In many ways the rediscovery of George Herbert was even more spectacular than that of Donne.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

dissident said:


> Beethoven and Mozart, yes; but I wasn't aware of much Bach beyond the WTC. My piano teacher was more an admirer of Chopin and Beethoven. But again it will raise the question "why Bach, Beethoven and Mozart and not M. Haydn, Telemann and Hummel?"
> 
> In many ways the rediscovery of George Herbert was even more spectacular than that of Donne.


I think I've addressed your first question enough times by now and you know my position. As for Herbert and Donne, their rediscoveries were both indeed remarkable, but Herbert has nowhere near the reputation and popularity Donne does. Personally I think they were equals, with Herbert being a bit more refined and Donne being a bit more flamboyant. Donne makes a bigger first impression, but Herbert is a poet I appreciate more the older I get.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> Have I argued that as an objective fact? If so, where have I done that specifically?


Then, on what basis have you been promoting him as unfairly positioned behind other composers? You sure made it sound like you were presenting an objective argument, otherwise why post after post on the subject if it was really just off the top of your head?


----------



## fluteman

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't disagree with art's ability to remain relevant after fashions fade because of its ability to appeal to fundamental aspects of human nature/experience....


This to me, is the whole point here, and the only reliable way to describe what 'profundity' is as applied to art. Note that "art's ability to remain relevant after fashions fade" is something that can only be observed empirically. There really is no other way to get at it. One could do ex post analysis of art that has passed the test of time and theorize as to why it has that timeless quality, and while many do such analysis, and it can be useful and illuminating, it can never be conclusive.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> Why haven't M. Haydn and Mozart been heard equally?


These might be adequate answers (or not):
"The fact that his music was not distributed very widely in his lifetime did not help, also the fact that he couldn’t be captured in the narrative of Vienna the musical capital pushed him to the margins.” 
-Professor David Wyn Jones (interview-with-david-wyn-jones/)
"I think one of the reasons why he did not get as famous as his brother is that he never wanted his music printed. Joseph Haydn's works really disseminated throughout Europe via printing, and that's what lacks with Michael Haydn's music. And Michael Haydn stayed in Salzburg all the time, so he didn't have the same exposure." 
-Dr. Eva Neumayr (YA2sTVyDNrA&t=16m44s)


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> Then, on what basis have you been promoting him as unfairly positioned behind other composers?


Not really promoting him; I'm just using him as an example to explain my view of people's conception of things such as greatness, profundity.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> You have been someone promoting the ‘everything is subjective’ position.





hammeredklavier said:


> My arguments are more subtle than that. I'll explain with another example. Anyone can honestly think that, for instance; "Of course Mozart is _damn good_; it's just that all (the advantage) he has over his contemporaries is _creaminess, _which is _good_ for all of us for sure", —having both an objective sense of seeing things ("Mozart is _good"), _and a subjective opinion ("it's all _creaminess"_) at the same time.
> Captainnumber36: "his sugar gets too sweet after a while."
> Xisten267: "everything too happy, pretty and fluffy in his music,"
> Woodduck: "Don't feel bad. It isn't you. I sensed that about him from the start and have kept my distance. I find him a useful companion when I'm in the mood for skittles, but the scatology is wearing after a while."


----------



## 59540

Eva Yojimbo said:


> ...As for Herbert and Donne, their rediscoveries were both indeed remarkable, but Herbert has nowhere near the reputation and popularity Donne does. ...


Well T. S. Eliot was an advocate for the Metaphysical poets in general, so in a sense he did "latch onto" him as well, along with Cowley and a couple of others. See Eliot's essay "The Metaphysical Poets". But this is neither here nor there really. Maybe a better juxtaposition would've been "What if T. S. Eliot had latched onto Dryden..."


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

dissident said:


> Well T. S. Eliot was an advocate for the Metaphysical poets in general, so in a sense he did "latch onto" him as well, along with Cowley and a couple of others. See Eliot's essay "The Metaphysical Poets". But this is neither here nor there really. Maybe a better juxtaposition would've been "What if T. S. Eliot had latched onto Dryden..."


I have read that essay, though it's been a while, but my memory is that Eliot was nowhere near as, let's say, enthusiastic about Herbert as he was with Donne; but Dryden might've been a better choice to better illustrate the point.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> Not really promoting him...


Come on now.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> My arguments are more subtle than that. I'll explain with another example. Anyone can honestly think that, for instance; "Of course Mozart is _damn good_; it's just that all (the advantage) he has over his contemporaries is _creaminess, _which is _good_for all of us for sure", —having both an objective sense of seeing things ("Mozart is _good"), _and a subjective opinion ("it's all _creaminess"_) at the same time.
> Captainnumber36: "his sugar gets too sweet after a while."
> Xisten267: "everything too happy, pretty and fluffy in his music,"
> Woodduck: "Don't feel bad. It isn't you. I sensed that about him from the start and have kept my distance. I find him a useful companion when I'm in the mood for skittles, but the scatology is wearing after a while."


When I see these kinds of responses, my response is ‘they don’t know their Mozart’. ‘Creaminess, sugar sweet, fluffy’: very profound criticism! (In keeping with the OP).

Btw, your response to dissident above infers objective evidence that Michael Haydn’s position was due to those factors mentioned and not due to inferiority of his music.


----------



## 59540

DaveM said:


> When I see these kinds of responses, my response is ‘they don’t know their Mozart’. ‘Creaminess, sugar sweet, fluffy’: very profound criticism! (In keeping with the OP).


Well one of those has gone from "creaminess" to "the greatest composer of ALL TIME!!!!!" back to "pretty lame". Oh well.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I'm not trying to be iconoclastic; please listen to me


hammeredklavier said:


> Why not, as long as the decision is subjective? For example, think of the kind of arguments the "Mozart partisans" resorted to in threads like <Greatest Ever Opera Composer> against Puccini, Verdi, Wagner (which I think were unfair); "he didn't write any bad work", "he was great with all genres", "all he wrote was perfect", as if Mozart was the only one who had these attributes objectively. But what if there was a forgotten contemporary of Mozart who can be just as deserving to be described by these attributes, depending on the subjective evaluation by each of us. The "tyranny of objectivity" has caused all kinds of harm even without many of us realizing.





hammeredklavier said:


> This is also how I feel we must approach this whole thing; simply let each of us decide for ourselves how much value something has and "just leave it at that". What's the use of forcing other people "acknowledge the objective greatness of something?"; Glorifying (even further) stuff that has been glorified enough already? It would do more harm than good. It's 2022 now and there's still plenty of music by obscure composers we haven't heard yet since it's not recorded or performed. How can we be so sure of their "greatness", if we haven't given them equal amount of chance as the famous composers?
> And I believe a large portion of "useless/pointless debates" on certain famous composers, for instance, "Mozart vs. Beethoven" (even though they can be thought to have little to do with each other artistically), has been waged on the premise or the mindset that they're objectively "summits of Western music".


----------



## 59540

> who can be just as deserving to be described by these attributes,


"Just as deserving" according to you. And if you think that way, that's fine. So what's your problem with someone else thinking otherwise?


----------



## Luchesi

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I think hammeredklavier is concerned, and not unjustly so, that so much of our artistic hierarchies, so to speak, are founded on the received wisdom of what art others before us liked. I think he has a point to some extent, as there's no doubt that, at the very least, Mozart's popularity means he we will be heard by far more people than M. Haydn ever will. If they were heard equally would their popularity shift? Would it shift without the received wisdom of authorities about Mozart being better? These aren't easy questions to answer, and are worth asking. I don't think hammered is trying to suggest you are somehow wrong for liking Mozart, he's just trying to get people to realize that other composers may be just as deserving of our attention, even based on our own aesthetic values, but we overlook them for reasons having nothing to do with the quality of their music.


I tell myself, I don't care whose name is on the score or when hearing a work I can't identify, but we are swayed by the mention of the name of a minor composer, for example. It's the same in any subject in which we have past experiences (good and bad). 
The problem for me with M. Haydn is few keyboard works for tracing his development. If I can't explore and apply, I don't have enough time for it. It's the same with many many modern works, for me.


----------



## DaveM

IMO, one can’t prevent a _convincing_ argument promoting one artist over another based on pure subjectivity. If the evaluation and comparison of composers is based totally on individual subjectivity then no argument can possibly stand up suggesting that one composer should have had a different standing relative to others. In short, you can’t have it both ways.

In the arts, some artists excel above others and objective reasons for it are not hard to find otherwise all artists might as well be called amateurs. Not considering Mozart and Beethoven, with a few others, to be at the summit of the CP era of western CM is at the very least an affectation.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Science is built on the foundations of rationality and empiricism. I’ve asked this before: what other methods would you like to introduce towards knowing something? Personal experience is fine for knowing some things, like what I ate yesterday, but not for others because the limitations of human experience and perception.


Knowledge isn't first acquired by a "method," but by direct experience. Methods may be needed later, depending on the sort of knowledge we're talking about. My knowledge that I'm improving a piece of music I'm composing when I strike out my introductory bars and substitute something more in keeping with the overall point of the work doesn't rely on any "method." In the course of composing I'll do the same thing hundreds of times to make something that HAS a recognizable point, as opposed to something random, clumsy and self-negating. Your assertion that an artist is just doing what feels good and that no result has any more real merit or value than any other - after all, someone might prefer chaos to order - is, excuse my French, grotesque, inhuman, and dumb. But apparently that's where "rational" subjectivism lands you. If all values are equal and optional depending on whether we "feel" like holding them, then no art can be superior no matter what values it embodies or expresses.

As I've said, when logic takes you to an absurd conclusion, there's a problem with your premises. The trouble is, you seem not to recognize an absurd conclusion when you reach it.



> [The triumph of Wagner over Meyerbeer] has to do with the different potential of their different works to appeal to the different subjectivities that interact with them. Obviously, Wagner’s had much more potential to appeal to many more on a deeper level that’s kept him relevant for as long as he’s been relevant; this is still all within the realm of certain subjectivities being primed to respond to Wagner in that way, which doesn’t negate Wagner’s ability in appealing to those subjectivities (these two factors are co-dependent). Still, Wagner didn’t have the skill to appeal to all human subjectivities, either in his own time or across time. Meyerbeer had even less ability to appeal to as many as Wagner did, though perhaps he had more to appeal to the subjectivities of his own time. To go pragmatic, why must we go farther than this? What is to be gained by doing so and trying to announce that Wagner is somehow objectively better? He’s better in the ability to appeal to more people across time than Meyerbeer; yes, but that is, fundamentally (I’m sorry) a poll. It wouldn’t delegitimize anyone who actually thought Meyerbeer to be better for appealing to their own subjectivity.


Yanking this out of the ivory tower and bringing it down here where people speak normally, Wagner's art quite obviously has more to say about and to human beings than Meyerbeer's does. If you don't think that that (among other things) makes it greater art, and Wagner a greater artist, suit yourself.



> You can claim this all you want but you have not demonstrated a difference. All I see are two people claiming truth with no objective means of epistemically supporting themselves. Also, if you don’t care what most religious people claim—and I assume you don’t care because you’d argue they can’t support the claim that their experiences point to any objective truth—then why should anyone care about what you claim as truth?


So you really see no difference in truth value between the claim that Haydn was a better composer than Benjamin Franklin (he wrote string quartets too) and the claim that the world was created in six days and then drowned in a forty-day downpour, from which a pair of every single species on the planet was rescued in a wooden boat?

The problem with the latter belief is that it's obviously nonsensical. It contradicts our experience of the way the world works. Most religious ideas do. It's almost a requirement.



> Absolutely romance novels tell us something about the human condition.


That's why I can't wait to read my next one. But it has to have Fabio on the cover.



> Moby Dick and Crime & Punishment tell us plenty too, but I’m not sure they tell us more or less than romance novels and Harry Potter; the major difference is that the latter aren’t TRYING to tell us anything,


So that's what distinguishes Nora Roberts from Herman Melville and Feodor Dostoevsky? I guess I'll have to take your word for it. Maybe someone else here has spent enough time with romance novels to show me their unsuspected depths and extraordinary aesthetic qualities.



> It seems a rather rational assertion that the art that speaks most profoundly to the most universal aspects of the human condition would also be the art that appeals to the most humans. How else would you even determine such a thing?


My statement was: _"Romance novels appeal to more people than Moby Dick and Crime and Punishment. Do they tell us more about the 'human condition' ? What is the human condition, anyway? Whose condition are we talking about? Yours? Mine? Donald Trump's?" _

I'd say that the most universal aspects of the human condition are the ones we share with worms, warblers and wombats, plus some minimal level of rationality that may or may not function well. Not a very inspiring collection of traits for art to speak "profoundly" to. It's what I meant when I said, in response to your elevation of the great unwashed, _"So the 'human condition' means whatever takes us along the path of least resistance for the least common denominator." _Who cares if more people have read books with Fabio on the cover than ones with a white whale? I don't know those people, and I don't need to know them and what aspects of the "human condition" their soft porn speaks to. I was drawn to classical music as a child because it appealed to the most exciting aspects of my own "human condition" - aspects like a growing aesthetic perception and an active imagination - that the stuff other kids were listening to seemed not to touch. I enjoyed silly popular songs too, like other kids, but I damn well knew the difference. I knew that some aspects of the "human condition" were universal, but as _potentialities_ in us, and that great art could be both an expression and embodiment of them and a challenge to develop them further.

I still know the difference between Fabio and Moby Dick, and the difference between Meyerbeer and Wagner, and the difference between art that speaks profoundly and perceptively and art that tickles the surface of life or wallows in its refuse like a pig. There's room for art at all levels of depth - we need easy fun as well as spiritual enrichment - but we need to keep our perceptions and our values in order. Spare me your exaltation of the man in the street and his unassailable subjective values and exquisite artistic tastes. People are shooting each other in the street, waving QAnon placards, trying to overturn elections, and gunning for women who think they own their own bodies. Is there art that "speaks profoundly" to those aspects of the "human condition"? Roll over, Beethoven.


----------



## Strange Magic

*@Woodduck: *Your pipe organ example differs from my concept of awe and grandeur of a natural extra-human object (huge mountains, etc.) in scale, I would suggest. A large machine making a big noise is the same idea of hearing a loud train whistle when one is least expecting it, or jumping up at the surprise in the Surprise symphony. That difference in scale and in knowing or guessing or assuming that the big noise was of human origin is enough to separate the profound from the sublime.


> *Woodduck: "*It's a bit like saying science can help us discover what is true, but it can't tell us that we should care about truth. I would also suggest that axiomatic systems are outside the purview of science, including math and logic."


A) you are correct in that science can asymptotically approach truth better than any other system or method yet devised, but you are correct also in science not telling us whether we should care what is true--we must make certain assumptions such as is the planet worth saving (and us with it), should people do unto others as they would have done unto themselves, etc. But science, better again than any other method, can supply the data and the tools to effect ameliorative change or maintain a desirable stasis.
B) As a full materialist, I hold that everything is composed of matter and also of the forces (often particles) that interact within matter or through the space occupied by matter. Art is matter, photons, sound waves, psychological effects, neurochemistry--all fit subjects for scientific investigation. Things such as logic and mathematics exist in brains and not out in space, and Kurt Godel showed that mathematics itself cannot be proven to be consistent using the tools of the system itself--it requires an outside introduction of certain axioms to make it work, and these come from the human brain and are thus open to study. Empiricism. Actually we may agree on much of the material in your posts and mine, with only the caveat that I avoid any sort of transcendentalism seeking to exist above and beyond matter. To thus exceed the chains of having to actually exist, even as brain chemicals and the firing of neurons, puts us into a world where literally "anything goes".


----------



## Strange Magic

In reading the various posts, it becomes ever more clear that many do not grasp my fundamental position that all esthetics are *personal*. I liberate completely the individual's ability to enjoy, loathe, admire, grade, rank any and all art. This does not mean that all art is equal; it means that the individual controls the grading and ranking to suit his/her own requirements. People are equal in their right, validity, freedom, to hold fast to those things that are important to them as art and the experience of art. Whether one chooses to follow the guidance of another or of a cluster or of critics is a matter of individual choice--we all actually thus pick and choose--it cannot be denied. What is non-demonstrable is that some art is greater than some other art merely by the fact that a consensus, a cluster, an authority figure says so. Art just is; we endow it as individuals with qualities and properties beyond those clearly and universally measurable.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> Btw, your response to dissident above infers objective evidence that Michael Haydn’s position was due to those factors mentioned and not due to inferiority of his music.


In the 18th and 19th centuries, Schubert, Bruckner, Weber, etc, thought that Michael Haydn was unmatchable in liturgical music and songs; (with all things such as variety, quantity, quality considered). Mozart died leaving some masterpieces from his Salzburg years, (including a sketchy requiem from his late years), in this field. Try moving outside of boundaries of idolatry and you'll see a lot more than you do now.
The attitude_ "I'm not interested in delving deeper into 18th century Classicism; I'm just interested in what's popular today"_ should not be passed as "insight" in these matters.
I guess there's no point discussing X with people who've listened to X's music only a couple of hours. They _don't know the stuff_, but _pretend that they do. _If given blind tests, they won't pass any of them. _Relying on received wisdom_ is all they can do.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> In the 18th and 19th centuries, Schubert, Bruckner, Weber, etc, thought that Michael Haydn was unmatchable in liturgical music and songs; (with all things such as variety, quantity, quality considered). Mozart wrote some masterpieces in his Salzburg years, (including a sketchy requiem in his late years), in this field. Try moving outside of boundaries of idolatry and you'll see a lot more than you do now.
> 
> _"I'm not interested in delving deeper into 18th century Classicism. I'm just interested in what's popular today"_ should not be passed as "insight" in these matters.
> I guess there's no point discussing X with people who've listened to X's music only a couple of hours.
> They just _don't know_, but _pretend to know the stuff. _If given tests, they won't pass any of them. _Relying on received wisdom_ is all they can do.


I don’t think you understand what objectivity is because you rail against objectivity on the one hand while at the same time suggesting that people are not educated enough about a subject you are promoting. If evaluating composers is entirely subjective then one’s uneducated position is as worthwhile as your (alleged) educated position. Likewise, if all evaluations are subjective then you should have no problem with unabashed idolatry.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> This does not mean that all art is equal..


Of course it does. As you would have it, pure subjectivity at the heart of all evaluations implies that all evaluations are equal. If they are not, then something objective is in play.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> Of course it does. As you would have it, pure subjectivity at the heart of all evaluations implies that all evaluations are equal. If they are not, then something objective is in play.


Nope. What it means is that someone reacts to a piece of music positively or negatively. In essence they create their own "canon" of works/composers. Obviously they do not think all works are equal.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> Nope. What it means is that someone reacts to a piece of music positively or negatively. In essence they create their own "canon" of works/composers. Obviously they do not think all works are equal.


That’s their individual subjective opinion. Other subjective opinions may be different. Collectively, if all the subjective opinions have equal value then all works of art are equal. The only thing that can change this dynamic is objectivity. For the life of me, I don’t know how anybody, especially those claiming experience in the world of CM, can stick with this total subjective position and ignore the obvious weakness in evaluating composers and their works. It diminishes the accomplishments of those that have made the genre what it is.

When it comes to individual composers and their works, I have subjective preferences, but they don’t interfere with my ability to recognize objective evidence of the accomplishments of composers and their works that may place them above composers and their works that I prefer. All this talk about polls, popularity and idolatry indicates that some people can’t comprehend the fact that there is more to recognizing accomplishments in the arts than just ‘I like’.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> Nope. What it means is that someone reacts to a piece of music positively or negatively. In essence they create their own "canon" of works/composers. Obviously they do not think all works are equal.


Of course, but why would any other listener care?


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

My profound discovery from this thread so far is that Benjamin Franklin composed. And just the other day, I found out that Nietzsche also composed music. Are there any other historical figures moonlighting as musicians I should be aware of?


----------



## Red Terror

4chamberedklavier said:


> My profound discovery from this thread so far is that Benjamin Franklin composed. And just the other day, I found out that Nietzsche also composed music. Are there any other historical figures moonlighting as musicians I should be aware of?


Both of their musical efforts were less than "profound".


----------



## Forster

Strange Magic said:


> In reading the various posts, it becomes ever more clear [...]


In reading the various posts, I feel that clarity is ever more elusive. Each of us has a conception of what 'profound' is for us, but attempts to elucidate for each other seem destined to be thwarted.

The only thing that we seem to have in common is the notion that 'profound' can refer to an intensity of emotion, but not everyone agrees that art can generate it (with SM asserting that only science can do this). There is no agreement on what 'content' in music might be referred to as profound, or even whether music has any content (as in ideas) other than the music itself.

Can anyone else add to my list of what we disagree on?


----------



## Sid James

Strange Magic said:


> This I find more or less in agreement with my posts #22 and #185. The only difference and it's only a minor one is your use of the word catharsis. I follow Burke's analysis that the experience of the sublime rests upon terror, including the terror of death, but I would amend Burke's remark to call it the terror of change--sometime abrupt change (the cusp experience) or of the drowning of the personality (trance effect) or a combination of the two, resulting in the (momentary) loss of one's sense of selfhood, the terror of the "death of the self".. This is another way of teasing out from a somewhat other direction the psychological factors at work when we experience the feeling of the sublime in music


That makes sense to me too. There is that quality being enveloped by or immersed in the piece, so you're not fully in control.

To my way of thinking, Turner's paintings are a good early example of the sublime in visual art. Some pieces of music have that sense of unfolding landscape, vastness, immensity of scale. Bruckner would be among them. By the time we reach the 20th century, that sense of terror - or "the horror" as its named in _Heart of Darkness_ - is given an added psychological dimension with the Expressionist movement in art, which has parallels in music (e.g. Schoenberg).


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> In reading the various posts, it becomes ever more clear that many do not grasp my fundamental position that all esthetics are *personal*. I liberate completely the individual's ability to enjoy, loathe, admire, grade, rank any and all art. *This does not mean that all art is equal*; it means that the individual controls the grading and ranking to suit his/her own requirements. People are equal in their right, validity, freedom, to hold fast to those things that are important to them as art and the experience of art. Whether one chooses to follow the guidance of another or of a cluster or of critics is a matter of individual choice--we all actually thus pick and choose--it cannot be denied. What is non-demonstrable is that some art is greater than some other art merely by the fact that a consensus, a cluster, an authority figure says so. *Art just is; we endow it as individuals with qualities and properties beyond those clearly and universally measurable.*


NO ONE disputes that every individual is entitled to his own hierarchy of artistic value. That has never been in question, and has never been the subject of any debate, here or elsewhere, so far as I'm aware. If people are arguing with you, it's with something else. That something else is your assertion that quality in art is meaningless - that, in fact, art itself is meaningless - by virtue of any intrinsic qualities and outside of the judgment of individuals, or groups of individuals. That means that no art can legitimately be said to be better than any other. Protest all you want that you're perpetually misunderstood, but it's obvious that your aesthetics reduces to "I like this better than that."

Insisting that all you're claiming is your right to like what you want to like is not only a fight picked with no one, it isn't an aesthetic argument. Your statement above that "this does not mean that all art is equal" is correct; in fact it says nothing about art at all. But the other part of your claim, the claim that ALL value judgments about art are personal, DOES mean that all art is equally good - that a work of art has no intrinsic qualities that make it better or worse. Saying that some works of art or artists can indeed be superior to others, but only in the personal opinion of whoever happens to be looking at it or listening to it, is engaging in doublespeak.

So is all art equally good or not? And if it isn't, how would you - how would any aesthetic subjectivist - know?


----------



## Forster

^ The question cannot be satisfactorily answered, either by an aesthetic subjectivist or an aesthetic objectivist (assuming we know what these terms mean). Since there are no criteria universally agreed that should apply when making an evaluation, all such evaluations are necessarily incomplete. If one wants to dispense with criteria altogether, one could just say, no, not all art is equally good; some is better than another, and I can tell you that I know the 'good' when I see it (or listen to it.)

Neither is satisfactory.

Since no-one here _actually_ believes that all art is equally good, the question seems pointless.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

What would a world where all art is equally good look like? If all art were equally good, then they should be given the same amount of attention. No preferential treatment.

I don't think that the subjectivists here advocate for that. I can see them advocating for more recognition of less appreciated types of art, but not so much that it crowds out conventional art.

The subjectivist position makes it possible, _in theory_, for all art to be equally good. But in practice, even if all art were equally good, some works of art will still be given more attention than others. Not because they are inherently better, but because a larger no. of people appreciate their aesthetic; the dominating aesthetic is just a reflection of what most people like. The subjectivists here may believe that something is not necessarily better than another, but that doesn't mean they are going to force people to like things they don't like, especially if people are not receptive to a certain aesthetic.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> NO ONE disputes that every individual is entitled to his own hierarchy of artistic value. That has never been in question, and has never been the subject of any debate, here or elsewhere, so far as I'm aware. If people are arguing with you, it's with something else. That something else is your assertion that quality in art is meaningless - that, in fact, art itself is meaningless - by virtue of any intrinsic qualities and outside of the judgment of individuals, or groups of individuals. That means that no art can legitimately be said to be better than any other. Protest all you want that you're perpetually misunderstood, but it's obvious that your aesthetics reduces to "I like this better than that."
> 
> Insisting that all you're claiming is your right to like what you want to like is not only a fight picked with no one, it isn't an aesthetic argument. Your statement above that "this does not mean that all art is equal" is correct; in fact it says nothing about art at all. But the other part of your claim, the claim that ALL value judgments about art are personal, DOES mean that all art is equally good - that a work of art has no intrinsic qualities that make it better or worse. Saying that some works of art or artists can indeed be superior to others, but only in the personal opinion of whoever happens to be looking at it or listening to it, is engaging in doublespeak.
> 
> So is all art equally good or not? And if it isn't, how would you - how would any aesthetic subjectivist - know?


Just a quick note: If someone has been paying attention to these hundreds of posts over many threads, that someone would see many posters asserting that the subjectivist view demands that all art be equal. In a sense all art is equal in having no properties--measurable properties beyond mass, color, odor, duration, creator, date created, size, shape etc.--that can possibly be used to rank, grade, otherwise evaluate it other than by each individual perceiver or, through polling and clustering, or other pure assertion. Other than size, etc., which planet is better than another? If you say "better for human beings", you are imposing your unique (or even very widely shared) standards upon the hapless planet when all it did was to be.

A benefit of my position is that everyone can make a god of their own artistic requirements, findings, preferences, and share them if they choose (and we all choose, don't we) with other autonomous perceivers of art. We are even free to agree or disagree on the proper criteria for judging art. *Uhuru!*

I don't know how to be more clear.


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> Of course, but why would any other listener care?


I am interested in people's passions/enthusiasms, about music, reading, cooking, fishing - it doesn't matter what the subject is, I am interested in hearing about someone's interests. It has been the basis for all my friendships and romantic involvements.

I am very interested when someone talks about the music _they_ love, but am bored when someone tells me about a review they read, or a list of great composers, or that a specific work is considered great.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Of course it does. As you would have it, pure subjectivity at the heart of all evaluations implies that all evaluations are equal. If they are not, then something objective is in play.


See my post #333 above. Some art is different from others only in that there is, objectively and demonstrably, a difference of opinion as to its greatness, meaning, etc. Otherwise all art is equal as I have carefully stated with the caveats above, All evaluations are equal in that every valuation, like every voter or citizen, is equal. You may disagree, and are free to do so, and I salute that as a demonstration of my thesis.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> All evaluations are equal in that every valuation, like every voter or citizen, is equal.


So then why is there so much upset if someone says "avant garde music/hip hop/pop is garbage"? That's as valid a vote as any.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> That’s their individual subjective opinion. Other subjective opinions may be different. Collectively, if all the subjective opinions have equal value then all works of art are equal. The only thing that can change this dynamic is objectivity. For the life of me, I don’t know how anybody, especially those claiming experience in the world of CM, can stick with this total subjective position and ignore the obvious weakness in evaluating composers and their works. It diminishes the accomplishments of those that have made the genre what it is.
> 
> When it comes to individual composers and their works, I have subjective preferences, but they don’t interfere with my ability to recognize objective evidence of the accomplishments of composers and their works that may place them above composers and their works that I prefer. All this talk about polls, popularity and idolatry indicates that some people can’t comprehend the fact that there is more to recognizing accomplishments in the arts than just ‘I like’.


What is the objective evidence? Consensus? Critical acclaim? Divine or Platonic assertion? "We all say so, so it must be true".


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> So then why is there so much upset if someone says "avant garde music/hip hop/pop is garbage"? That's as valid a vote as any.


I agree: why so much group upset about about any sort of music or art? Art just is. I don't particularly care for hip-hop (Neneh Cherry is the closest I got) or avant garde music, so put me down as being in that cluster.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> I agree: why so much group upset about about any sort of music or art? Art just is. I don't particularly care for hip-hop (Neneh Cherry is the closest I got) or avant garde music, so put me sown as being in that cluster.


Further, and following the (inexorable?) logic, ridiculing your particular tastes and preferences is a valid vote, for whatever reason. And if ten or twenty or a thousand join in the derision and disapproval, all you can do is accept their subjective judgement that your subjective preferences are laughable. "You" here being non-specific, of course. Not just "group upset"; why "individual upset"? One "poll" or "cluster" is no better or worse than another.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> Benjamin Franklin (he wrote string quartets too)


"Quartet for 3 Violins and Cello is a composition commonly attributed to Benjamin Franklin."




has a practically easy, simplistic, folksy feel that would have worked far better in the context of a village festival in colonial America than Mozart K.465 would have, from the perspective of people in Franklin's place and time.
You see a lot of things are about context. Music written by composers such as Bach and Mozart also had its respective social functions in their places and times. What if a person thinks Stockhausen and Penderecki are more relevant to our age than Bach and Mozart because


hammeredklavier said:


> "It makes sense that we're experiencing a horror renaissance. The genre took off during the Great Depression and has been there for us in difficult times to accentuate and provide some semblance of shelter from our biggest fears. Since the dawn of the medium, music has proven just as important to film as visuals are; film scores complete the illusion of movement and help to further remove us from reality. But more so than any other genre of film music, horror is distinct and modern.
> Cliff Martinez explained this to me perfectly when I interviewed him about his score for Nicolas Winding Refn's The Neon Demon (2016). "I hear some of the most adventurous, sound designer-ly music that seems to be happening a lot more in horror scores," he offered. "Also horror is the stuff that sounds more like modern 20th century symphonic music - it's the only stuff that references Stockhausen or Penderecki or Ligeti. That stuff doesn't go a long way in your romantic comedies or anyplace else, but it has a home in horror movies." Modern music, often composed in response to an increasingly terrifying reality, has become the perfect accompaniment to the nightmares we put up on the silver screen."
> 31 Essential Horror Soundtrack Songs
> 
> "From Bodysong (2003) to There Will Be Blood (2007) - which was disqualified from the Oscars because the soundtrack included music he had already released - there is much to love about his non-Radiohead cannon. The former film's score uses limited transposition and impressionistic strings; Stockhausen-inspired movements and exposing Olivier Messiaen's theory of grouping melodies around interval groups." FEATURE: Decomposition: The Modern Horror Film Soundtrack – and Why Less Can Mean More — Music Musings & Such


"Polyphony is overrated. Counterpoint is too strict. If you've got melody on the brain it's for you, but Debussy? Was his music full of counterpoint? Satie?
There's really no need for "counterpoint" as a separate category, now that _harmony_ has progressed to the point it has now. What used to be a "passing tone" B-C is now a major seventh chord.
You polyphony guys are old hat. The study of it is really more of a historical pursuit than it is a vital, living style of music.
Row, row, row your boat, gently into obsolescence." -millionrainbows


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> So then why is there so much upset if someone says "avant garde music/hip hop/pop is garbage"? That's as valid a vote as any.


To the extent I am bothered by someone dissing a kind of music I like it is similar to someone saying my wife is ugly (that hasn't happened, but it would be hurtful if it had).

We have a personal stake in the music we find interesting, valuable, good. I consider it a form of rudeness for someone to go out of their way to call music worthless that they know someone likes. It is unnecessary and only designed to be unkind.

But it would not be hurtful to say, "I don't like avant-garde/ hip-hop music."


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> Further, and following the (inexorable?) logic, ridiculing your particular tastes and preferences is a valid vote, for whatever reason. And if ten or twenty or a thousand join in the derision and disapproval, all you can do is accept their subjective judgement that your subjective preferences are laughable. "You" here being non-specific, of course. Not just "group upset"; why "individual upset"? One "poll" or "cluster" is no better or worse than another.


I quite agree! I believe you may be beginning to understand. 

[edit]: I can either accept or reject their specific judgement about my preferences as I see fit, as can they about my evaluations of their evaluations. It's all about freedom to be oneself as one contemplates the arts.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> has a practically easy, simplistic, folksy feel that would have worked far better in the context of a village festival in colonial America than Mozart K.465, from the perspective of people in Franklin's place and time.


Those are your subjective opinions. You really can't speak from the perspective of the people in Franklin's time and place. I say it's every bit "as good as" and "deserving as" K. 465. Prove me wrong.


> Music written by composers such as Bach and Mozart had its respective social functions.


Hm. Not the oft-mentioned Art of Fugue.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> I consider it a form of rudeness for someone to go out of their way to call music worthless that they know someone likes. It is unnecessary and only designed to be unkind.


True, but some just may subjectively call it honesty.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> Not the oft-mentioned Art of Fugue.





hammeredklavier said:


> "Bach gave the title Das Wohltemperirte Clavier to a book of preludes and fugues in all 24 keys, major and minor, dated 1722, composed "for the profit and use of musical youth desirous of learning, and especially for the pastime of those already skilled in this study"."
> The purpose of the Art of the Fugue was most likely the same. Lots of 18th century composers employed by the church wrote versets (eg. look at Pasterwitz) and other similar collections of contrapuntal pieces out of necessity (for educational and recreational purposes). That was part of their tradition of profession and craftsmanship. Also, due to the Baroque idiomatic use of rhythm and dynamics in Bach, it may sound to the modern ears like it's not for "entertainment", but the same can be said about just about anything Baroque; Purcell fantasies for viols and Biber sonatas. Once you understand how a fugue or a canon from those times works, there's nothing hard to "get" (I'm not implying Bach lacks inspiration or mastery, by this). I think it's nonsensical to think Bach somehow had an "avant-garde" mindset, actually intended to write things not for "entertainment". Bach himself in his time never actually thought in that way, just like how he thought the Doctrine of the Affections was always the way to compose music; he would have thought the music of the later eras with their mood swings (involving multiple themes), for instance, as lacking focus and confusing.





tdc said:


> A while ago MR posted a topic where he suggested Bach was critical of Rameau's theory of harmony and he suggested Bach was old fashioned in his outlook on music. I responded that Rameau's theory was a simplification of the contrapuntal approach to composition. So yes, I have basically thought this for a long time (I don't think MR does, he views counterpoint as a more old fashioned and outdated approach to music making as far as I can tell).
> Perhaps this is also related to why Bach didn't write any books on composition but used his music as his teaching material.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> I quite agree! I believe you may be beginning to understand.
> 
> [edit]: I can either accept or reject their specific judgement about my preferences as I see fit, as can they about my evaluations of their evaluations. It's all about freedom to be oneself as one contemplates the arts.


But you really don't, considering you've cried elsewhere about the indignity of having others look down on your preferences.


----------



## 59540

> The purpose of the Art of the Fugue was most likely the same.


Maybe, but we don't know. "Social function" is such a broad term anyway.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> True, but some just may subjectively call it honesty.


It often is simple egoism and unkindness.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> But you really don't, considering you've cried elsewhere about the indignity of having others look down on your preferences.


I don"t recall ever crying about others looking down on my preferences. I clearly recall saying that there are no valid reasons to look down upon the preferences of others. But I am willing to be instructed.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> True, but some just may subjectively call it honesty.


One can't subjectively say that hip-hop is garbage unless they qualify it by adding, "to me." Attempting to claim that an entire genre of music is garbage, objectively, is not only untrue, but insulting to anyone who finds value in that music.

Why do we (collectively) engage in this objective/subjective debate so often on TC?


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> I don"t recall ever crying about others looking down on my preferences. I clearly recall saying that there are no valid reasons to look down upon the preferences of others. But I am willing to be instructed.


Wait a second. "No valid reasons to look down upon"? I thought any reason was valid.


----------



## SanAntone

There is a world of difference in stating a dislike for a kind of music, and "looking down" on it and those who enjoy it.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> One can't subjectively say that hip-hop is garbage unless they qualify it by adding, "to me."


I thought that went without saying.


> Attempting to claim that an entire genre of music is garbage, objectively, is not only untrue...


Huh? It's true to those who say so.


> Why do we (collectively) engage in this objective/subjective debate so often on TC?


Because the "subjectivists" are always bringing it up. Who started this thread?


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> There is a world of difference in stating a dislike for a kind of music, and "looking down" on it and those who enjoy it.


They're both valid subjective reactions.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> I thought that went without saying.


Not in a discussion of objective/subjective judgments.

I find it more engaging when someone describes their preferences in like/dislike language as opposed to garbage/great language. The former is a conversation starter, the latter a conversation ender, and a hint to me that should avoid that person in the future.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> my response is ‘they don’t know their Mozart’.


No one in this thread has said or implied that Bach, Mozart, Beethoven don't deserve the popularity they enjoy today. Even if a person gets strong heart-wrenching feelings (and even weep) from listening to the rondo from the Posthorn serenade, he can still be embarrassed to tell people around him who would respond; "You still listen to this music? Holy.. Do you keep a powdered wig in your closet?" "Wow.. this pleasant.. pleasant stuff.. Real men shouldn't be moved by this."


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> They're both valid subjective reactions.


Are you intentional being obtuse, or do you sincerely not understand how language can be rude?


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> No one in this thread has said or implied that Bach, Mozart, Beethoven don't deserve the popularity they enjoy today.


So why do they deserve it?


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Are you intentional being obtuse, or do you sincerely not understand how language can be rude?


Rudeness to you can be honesty to someone else.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Not in a discussion of objective/subjective judgments.
> 
> I find it more engaging when someone describes their preferences in like/dislike language as opposed to garbage/great language. The former is a conversation starter, the latter a conversation ender, and a hint to me that should avoid that person in the future.


Sorry but I'm detecting traces of some kind of objectivity in statements like that. It's somehow objectively true that nothing is really "garbage". I'm just following the logic of "every vote is equally valid".


----------



## fbjim

Generally, when one discusses music, it's not for the purposes of expressing disdain for others or screaming at each other on the level of personal insults.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> Generally, when one discusses music, it's not for the purposes of expressing disdain for others or screaming at each other on the level of personal insults.


So what if it is? And what are you defining as an "insult"? And who's objectively determining "bad faith", which is a term you often use?


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> So what if it is? And what are you defining as an "insult"? And who's objectively determining "bad faith", which is a term you often use?


This seems like a bizarre derail.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> Rudeness to you can be honesty to someone else.


There's absolutely no need to get mad at other people for having differences of opinion. I do respect your views too, btw. I don't think they're objectively wrong or unreasonable. Just different ways (to look at things) from mine.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> Sorry but I'm detecting traces of some kind of objectivity in statements like that. It's somehow objectively true that nothing is really "garbage". I'm just following the logic of "every vote is equally valid".


There is a difference in expressing an opinion and rendering a judgment. I am only really interested in discussions of opinions and find judgment based statements to be presumptuous and disrespectful. It is probably at the root of why people think of Classical music fans as snobs.

I am also not interested in philosophical debates about whether art/music can be objectively assessed.

For me, the interest is in getting to know someone through their description of the kind of music which they find interesting and engaging. Not in hearing about the music they think is better than another kind of music, or the kind of music they think is garbage.


----------



## fbjim

Just to try to answer for the sake of making things more social, hopefully, the type of bad faith accusations that tend to be bad for discussion, which thankfully haven't been happening a lot lately, are accusations that one side in a discussion does not genuinely like the music they say they do, and only are saying so to look smart/cool/progressive/trendy/etc. Once you've gone into claiming that one side of a discussion is lying, further discussion isn't possible.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> There is a difference in expressing an opinion and rendering a judgment.


What's the difference?


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> This seems like a bizarre derail.


It's not a derail at all, it's getting some definition.


> Just to try to answer for the sake of making things more social, hopefully, the type of bad faith accusations that tend to be bad for discussion, which thankfully haven't been happening a lot lately, are accusations that one side in a discussion does not genuinely like the music they say they do, and only are saying so to look smart/cool/progressive/trendy/etc. Once you've gone into claiming that one side of a discussion is lying, further discussion isn't possible.


Well if "one side" suspects that (another form of "you can't possibly really like that stuff") then you in your subjective wisdom know that it's not possible to prove your true devotion to this music, and you just pass it by like any other subjective opinion. But "the music you like is stupid" isn't the same as "you're stupid". Also it's interesting that apparently only one side is susceptible to such "bad faith".

What this is demonstrating is that all votes aren't equally valid, are they? There are acceptable votes and unacceptable ones.


----------



## fbjim

There's a long and probably boring discussion that could be had about the subjective values of etiquette, social tact, etc but I think the acronym "DBAA" sums it up.


Calling someone a liar is extremely confrontational. There are areas where being extremely confrontational may be appropriate but the discussion of musical tastes tends not to be one of them.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> What's the difference?


I thought I had explained that in the rest of my post you snipped.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> There's a long and probably boring discussion that could be had about the subjective values of etiquette, social tact, etc but I think the acronym "DBAA" sums it up.
> 
> 
> Calling someone a liar is extremely confrontational. There are areas where being extremely confrontational may be appropriate but the discussion of musical tastes tends not to be one of them.


Well who's judging what an "A" is? I don't think etiquette demands that if I think this music is "bad", and my opinion is solicited, then I must remain silent.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> I thought I had explained that in the rest of my post you snipped.


Well you really didn't define either. Just "opinion good" "judgement bad".


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> Wait a second. "No valid reasons to look down upon"? I thought any reason was valid.


No *valid *reason. You, however can and will do what you like, including mocking others' musical tastes.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> No *valid *reason. You, however can and will do what you like, including mocking others' musical tastes.


Well my valid reason, using the Strange Magic rulebook, is that every vote is equal and valid. Surely you're not going to start circumscribing these valid votes with objective restrictions, are you?


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> Well who's judging what an "A" is? I don't think etiquette demands that if I think this music is "bad", and my opinion is solicited, then I must remain silent.


This is a music discussion message board. This is not Fight Club, or a drunken screaming match. I would hope people at the very least have a shared goal of discussing music, otherwise I would question why they are on a music discussion message board.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> Well you really didn't define either. Just "opinion good" "judgement bad".


Opinion = expressing like/dislike, always interpreted as a subjective, personal, view
Judgment = expressing value or worth, usually implying some objective basis

Opinion is neutral, respectful of others' opinions; judgment presumes the superiority of a personal view stemming from an elevated opinion of oneself.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Opinion = expressing like/dislike, always interpreted as a subjective, personal, view
> Judgment = expressing value or worth, usually implying some objective basis


I don't see how the statement "hip hop is crap" can't fit into both.



> Opinion is neutral, respectful of others' opinions; judgment presumes the superiority of a personal view stemming from an elevated opinion of oneself.


So "it's all subjective, but your subjective reaction should follow these guidelines".


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> This is a music discussion message board. This is not Fight Club, or a drunken screaming match. ...


Well to some people the opinion "avant garde music is garbage" is equivalent to throwing fists. I wonder why. It's just another subjective opinion, right?


----------



## fbjim

is it really necessary to re-create the concepts of tact and social diplomacy from first principles via discussion


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> is it really necessary to re-create the concepts of tact and social diplomacy from first principles via discussion


Tact and diplomacy in expressing an aesthetic opinion? Why would it be necessary at all, since it's understood that all such opinions are subjective anyway? If someone says they hate Baroque music, that's a valid response. If someone says they hate avant garde, that's a personal attack.


----------



## fbjim

I don't think an extended derail on the subjective nature of social norms, social sanctions for violating those norms, and the concept of tact is really productive.

It boils down to excessively combative, hostile people being bad for discussion.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> Well my valid reason, using the Strange Magic rulebook, is that every vote is equal and valid. Surely you're not going to start circumscribing these valid votes with objective restrictions, are you?


Two plus two equals four. You are free to say they equal five. You have every right to your view, but this is an area where there is no valid disavowal of four being the sum of two plus two. There is no valid evidence that one art object, like a planet, is better than another. They just exist.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> Two plus two equals four. You are free to say they equal five. You have every right to your view, but this an area where there is no valid disavowal of four being the sum of two plus two. There is no valid evidence that one art object, like a planet, is better than another. They just exist.


And there's no valid evidence that one isn't worse than another. I'm as free to think of your playlist as crap as I am free to think of my own as golden. And there's not a bit of evidence you can produce to contradict that. And it's a valid vote.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> ...
> It boils down to excessively combative, hostile people being bad for discussion.


But that's another subjective opinion. Just about anyone who has a strong opinion against avant garde work is probably going to be considered "excessively combative and hostile" by you.


----------



## Strange Magic

fbjim said:


> I don't think an extended derail on the subjective nature of social norms, social sanctions for violating those norms, and the concept of tact is really productive.
> 
> It boils down to excessively combative, hostile people being bad for discussion.


I agree. I am looking for a reasoned essay or other presentation from certain people on the subject, rather than a steady stream of commentary--often that requires correction--from the sidelines. Others have, thankfully, been abundant in their explanations of their positions. This post will likely be commented upon from the sidelines as being commentary from the sidelines but I have been fulsome in my repeated presentations of my views. Others, not so much.


----------



## fbjim

Someone pointed out a while ago that there _is_ something of an asymmetry where expressing a liking or enthusiasm for something is less likely to be taken as hostile than expressing disdain or hatred.

This is loosely true, though it's certainly possible to be hostile in the act of expressing that you like something, i.e. "People who don't like x are closed-minded/philistines/deaf". I also don't personally care if someone says they dislike certain works or composers if the topic of discussion is based on whether you like or dislike a certain work of music, or whether you prefer one composer to another. It's less likely to be productive if someone wades into a thread discussing the works of a given composer to opine that said composer is garbage.

Expressing moral judgement over certain works, or especially the listeners of those works is far more problematic- there are _very_ narrow cases where I might see this as justifiable but these aren't very likely to come up in classical music forums.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> And there's no valid evidence that one isn't worse than another. I'm as free to think of your playlist as crap as I am free to think of my own as golden. And there's not a bit of evidence you can produce to contradict that. And it's a valid vote.


I agree: there is no contradiction as above. The only question is one of whether one goes out of one's way to antagonize others and to mock their choices. But if it turns you on.....


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> I am interested in people's passions/enthusiasms, about music, reading, cooking, fishing - it doesn't matter what the subject is, I am interested in hearing about someone's interests. It has been the basis for all my friendships and romantic involvements.
> 
> I am very interested when someone talks about the music _they_ love, but am bored when someone tells me about a review they read, or a list of great composers, or that a specific work is considered great.


That's helpful thanks. You're interested in people's reactions and their likes and dislikes.

I'm interested in the objective reasons for specifically, case by case, how such expressiveness is achieved. It's somewhat similar.


----------



## Strange Magic

fbjim said:


> Someone pointed out a while ago that there _is_ something of an asymmetry where expressing a liking or enthusiasm for something is less likely to be taken as hostile than expressing disdain or hatred.
> 
> This is loosely true, though it's certainly possible to be hostile in the act of expressing that you like something, i.e. "People who don't like x are closed-minded/philistines/deaf". I also don't personally care if someone says they dislike certain works or composers if the topic of discussion is based on whether you like or dislike a certain work of music, or whether you prefer one composer to another. It's less likely to be productive if someone wades into a thread discussing the works of a given composer to opine that said composer is garbage.
> 
> Expressing moral judgement over certain works, or especially the listeners of those works is far more problematic- there are _very_ narrow cases where I might see this as justifiable but these aren't very likely to come up in classical music forums.


As I have posted many times, I think it is both true and wise in my case to consider and to state, if necessary, that I am not the intended audience for certain musics or art objects, or that I am ill-equipped in my own mind to judge of some works. Less chance of being considered even more obnoxious to some posters than I already am. 

BTW the originator of the initial thread was our old stalwart KenOC. I merely resurrected it.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> If someone says they hate Baroque music, that's a valid response. If someone says they hate avant garde, that's a personal attack.


Both of those views are neutral opinions, and perfectly acceptable and polite. It doesn't matter if the music that is hated is Baroque or avant-garde, what is being expressed is a personal opinion. 

However, saying avant-garde music is _garbage_ is not a neutral opinion, but a value judgment, and disrespectful if said to someone who has just expressed their admiration for a piece of avant-garde music.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> No one in this thread has said or implied that Bach, Mozart, Beethoven don't deserve the popularity they enjoy today. Even if a person gets strong heart-wrenching feelings (and even weep) from listening to the rondo from the Posthorn serenade, he can still be embarrassed to tell people around him who would respond; "You still listen to this music? Holy.. Do you keep a powdered wig in your closet?" "Wow.. this pleasant.. pleasant stuff.. Real men shouldn't be moved by this."


Why do those three deserve the popularity?


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Both of those views are neutral opinions, and perfectly acceptable and polite. It doesn't matter if the music that is hated is Baroque or avant-garde, what is being expressed is a personal opinion.
> 
> However, saying avant-garde music is _garbage_ is not a neutral opinion, but a value judgment, and disrespectful if said to someone who has just expressed their admiration for a piece of avant-garde music.


Saying such and such is "garbage" is the same as saying you hate it, and by the subjectivist view I would think that I am entitled to that 100% valid opinion. Otherwise all this is is a construct through which acceptance or affirmation is required. That doesn't seem like "subjective" to me.


DaveM said:


> Why do those three deserve the popularity?


I asked the same thing. It seems like an odd comment after so many posts saying that we only like them because they're "popular". Maybe hammeredklavier is saying that every composer who ever put pen to paper deserves popularity.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> I agree: there is no contradiction as above. The only question is one of whether one goes out of one's way to antagonize others and to mock their choices. But if it turns you on.....


That isn't for you to judge, is it? I mean we can't know or identify the "good" without identifying the "ungood". With no "ungood" there is no such thing as "good" anyway. It's all good by default. Such comparisons or polarities may or may not be subjective, but you can't talk them out of existence. And anyway, with a firm subjectivist grounding (contradiction, but still) such "antagonism" and "mockery" can just be attributed to another subjective opinion. Nothing personal since it's all personal.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> Why do those three deserve the popularity?


What do you think about


hammeredklavier said:


> Pachelbel - Canon In D Major. Best version. (uploaded on Jan 26, 2008)
> *74,073,931 views* youtube.com/watch?v=NlprozGcs80
> Canon in D (Pachelbel's Canon) - Cello & Piano [BEST WEDDING VERSION] (uploaded on Jun 18, 2019)
> *58,403,735 views* youtube.com/watch?v=Ptk_1Dc2iPY
> Trans-Siberian Orchestra - Christmas Canon (Official Music Video) [HD] (uploaded on Oct 26, 2009)
> *39,869,806 views* youtube.com/watch?v=4cP26ndrmtg
> Pachelbel - Canon in D (Best Piano Version) (uploaded on Jun 4, 2011)
> *38,556,817 views* youtube.com/watch?v=rNsgHMklBW0
> pachelbel's Canon in D--Soothing music(the best version) (uploaded on Jul 3, 2007)
> *33,533,820 views* youtube.com/watch?v=hOA-2hl1Vbc
> Canon In D | Pachelbel's Canon | 1 Hour Version (uploaded on Apr 26, 2013)
> *25,641,997 views* youtube.com/watch?v=qVn2YGvIv0w
> and there are more...
> (+there are also rock versions like "Canon Rock - Jerry C cover by Laura Lace", which has over 100 million views)
> 
> Air - Johann Sebastian Bach (uploaded on Jan 25, 2010)
> *74,878,302 views* youtube.com/watch?v=rrVDATvUitA
> バッハ「G線上のアリア」　Bach "Air on G String"
> *23,939,523 views* youtube.com/watch?v=thQWqRDZj7E
> David Garrett - AIR (Johann Sebastian Bach). (uploaded on Oct 14, 2011)
> *12,066,292 views* youtube.com/watch?v=x1ByRGNIpFA
> Bach, Air ("on the G string", string orchestra) (uploaded on Feb 26, 2009)
> *10,505,531 views* youtube.com/watch?v=E2j-frfK-yg
> (only 4 videos with 10mil+ views and that's it.)


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> That isn't for you to judge, is it? I mean we can't know or identify the "good" without identifying the "ungood". With no "ungood" there is no such thing as "good" anyway. It's all good by default. Such comparisons or polarities may or may not be subjective, but you can't talk them out of existence.


I think it is self-evidently good to not antagonize, belittle, or disrespect publicly others' choices in music, wine, ice cream, or planets. But people are free to do so--that way bad behavior can be seen as the necessary counterpart to good behavior. No Yin without the Yang.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> What do you think about
> _Pachelbel - Canon In D Major. Best version. (uploaded on Jan 26, 2008)
> 74,073,931 views youtube.com/watch?v=NlprozGcs80
> Canon in D (Pachelbel's Canon) - Cello & Piano [BEST WEDDING VERSION] (uploaded on Jun 18, 2019)
> 58,403,735 views youtube.com/watch?v=Ptk_1Dc2iPY
> Trans-Siberian Orchestra - Christmas Canon (Official Music Video) [HD] (uploaded on Oct 26, 2009)
> 39,869,806 views youtube.com/watch?v=4cP26ndrmtg
> Pachelbel - Canon in D (Best Piano Version) (uploaded on Jun 4, 2011)
> 38,556,817 views youtube.com/watch?v=rNsgHMklBW0
> pachelbel's Canon in D--Soothing music(the best version) (uploaded on Jul 3, 2007)
> 33,533,820 views youtube.com/watch?v=hOA-2hl1Vbc
> Canon In D | Pachelbel's Canon | 1 Hour Version (uploaded on Apr 26, 2013)
> 25,641,997 views youtube.com/watch?v=qVn2YGvIv0w
> and there are more...
> (+there are also rock versions like "Canon Rock - Jerry C cover by Laura Lace", which has over 100 million views)
> 
> Air - Johann Sebastian Bach (uploaded on Jan 25, 2010)
> 74,878,302 views youtube.com/watch?v=rrVDATvUitA
> バッハ「G線上のアリア」　Bach "Air on G String"
> 23,939,523 views youtube.com/watch?v=thQWqRDZj7E
> David Garrett - AIR (Johann Sebastian Bach). (uploaded on Oct 14, 2011)
> 12,066,292 views youtube.com/watch?v=x1ByRGNIpFA
> Bach, Air ("on the G string", string orchestra) (uploaded on Feb 26, 2009)
> 10,505,531 views youtube.com/watch?v=E2j-frfK-yg
> (only 4 videos with 10mil+ views and that's it.)_


Okay, so the popularity of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven is nothing more than that comparable to works appearing in/on most ‘classical-light’ playlists or DVDs. Likewise, to understand the popularity of the works of The Beatles, one need look no further than ‘Yummy, Yummy, Yummy (I’ve got love in my Tummy)’ and ‘I’m Henry the Eighth I Am’. Got it.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> Saying such and such is "garbage" is the same as saying you hate it


Oh, no, I find that the two statements are completely different. As I said saying one "hates" a piece of music is an opinion about taste in music. However, saying that the music is "garbage", is an attempt to characterize the music with an implication that the speaker has the expertise to make such a value judgment.

The first opinion is a perfectly acceptable expression of personal preference.

The second claim cannot be supported since no one can have such expertise to characterize and entire genre of music as garbage, and it would be hard to justify even concerning a single work. For every expert that says a work is garbage there will be two to say it is a masterpiece.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> I think it is self-evidently good to not antagonize, belittle, or disrespect publicly others' choices in music, wine, ice cream, or planets. But people are free to do so--that way bad behavior can be seen as the necessary counterpart to good behavior. No Yin without the Yang.


"Self-evidently good"? What on earth do you mean? Like Bach is "self-evidently great"? Since it's all just subjective personal opinion, and each opinion is valid, it's not really possible to antagonize, belittle or disrespect except in the eyes of those who aren't quite as enlightened about the validity of subjective votes. It's not "bad behavior"; it's voicing your equally valid opinion.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> ...
> The first opinion is a perfectly acceptable expression of personal preference.
> ...


_Acceptable_? Who or what is determining acceptability?


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

DaveM said:


> Okay, so the popularity of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven is nothing more than that comparable to works appearing in/on most ‘classical-light’ playlists or DVDs. Likewise, to understand the popularity of the works of The Beatles, one need look no further than ‘Yummy, Yummy, Yummy (I’ve got love in my Tummy)’ and ‘I’m Henry the Eighth I Am’. Got it.


I agree with hammered's implied point that some things aren't necessarily more popular because they are "the best", but I think people should be careful to go overboard with the idea and conclude that no popular work has "earned" its popularity or that no work of art can be better (in some respects) than others (not saying that this is what Hammered believes, but this is for our dear audience who might get the wrong idea)


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> _Acceptable_? Who or what is determining acceptability?


Being unnecessarily combative, hostile or otherwise violating etiquette can result in social sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "people will think you're a jerk", or "people might get upset at you for causing derails". 

Speaking of derails I can not really see the relevance of this.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> Being unnecessarily combative, hostile or otherwise violating etiquette can result in social sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "people will think you're a jerk", or "people might get upset at you for causing derails".
> 
> Speaking of derails I can not really see the relevance of this.


It's extremely relevant when we're talking about the "allowability" and "acceptability" of equally valid subjective responses. It's not a "derailing" just because it gives you the urge to pull out Emily Post. 

"All evaluations are equal in that every valuation, like every voter or citizen, is equal."
--Strange Magic

If you can accept that, then there's really no breach of etiquette and nobody's being a jerk.


----------



## fbjim

4chamberedklavier said:


> I agree with hammered's implied point that some things aren't necessarily more popular because they are "the best", but I think people should be careful to go overboard with the idea and conclude that no popular work has "earned" its popularity or that no work of art can be better (in some respects) than others (not saying that this is what Hammered believes, but this is for our dear audience who might get the wrong idea)


"Deserve" or "earning" is a value statement and I kind of think statements like that just boil down to "this is popular but I think it's bad". I don't think it's possible to ask if a work "deserves" to be popular without bringing questions of aesthetic taste into it.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> It's extremely relevant when we're talking about the "allowability" and "acceptability" of equally valid subjective responses. It's not a "derailing" just because it gives you the urge to pull out Emily Post.


A discussion forum consists of social interaction. When talking with other people there are going to be behaviors that tend to give people a positive impression of you, or a negative one. There are also going to be behaviors that are conductive to good discussion, and ones that are conductive to toxic, hostile discussion.

Whether or not you care if people think you're a jerk is up to you, but I'd like to think everyone here has at least some investment in preventing unnecessary hostility.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> A discussion forum consists of social interaction. When talking with other people there are going to be behaviors that tend to give people a positive impression of you, or a negative one. There are also going to be behaviors that are conductive to good discussion, and ones that are conductive to toxic, hostile discussion.
> 
> Whether or not you care if people think you're a jerk is up to you, but I'd like to think everyone here has at least some investment in preventing unnecessary hostility.


I'll just repeat what I typed above:

"All evaluations are equal in that every valuation, like every voter or citizen, is equal."
--Strange Magic

If you can accept that, then there's really no breach of etiquette and nobody's being a jerk.

It would seem that "hostility" arises when people think that music they consider to be somehow objectively good is under attack. In other words, it would appear that subjectivists aren't always very good at practicing what they preach.


----------



## fbjim

When I'm talking about hostility and toxicity I am not talking about people saying they dislike music. In fact I've said that it's entirely possible to express admiration for music in an excessively hostile way.


----------



## Luchesi

fbjim said:


> "Deserve" or "earning" is a value statement and I kind of think statements like that just boil down to "this is popular but I think it's bad". I don't think it's possible to ask if a work "deserves" to be popular without bringing questions of aesthetic taste into it.


You're well-informed about music, fair minded and you seem to be an objective observer. Can you tell us what you've learned in here?

I've learned that CM listeners care very much about the aesthetic tastes (likes and dislikes) of others. It's somehow relevant in evaluations, but I'm not clear on why. Naturally we want to belong, we want to save time by hearing recommendations , we want to follow the trends perhaps. 

I remember being surprised that I could predict weekly changes in the ranking of songs in the top 20 on the radio in the 60s and 70s. Of course I could have been fooling myself, but it was fun and seemed doable. So, in the aggregate, statistically, there's something to this popularity thing..


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> When I'm talking about hostility and toxicity I am not talking about people saying they dislike music. In fact I've said that it's entirely possible to express admiration for music in an excessively hostile way.


I don't sense hostility from anyone advocating any kind of music. Or from someone who says they can't stand Baroque music. I may not agree, but I don't consider it hostile. On the other hand I've seen threads in which attacking John Cage and his work was taken as a personal insult to Cage fans. It's puzzling.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

fbjim said:


> "Deserve" or "earning" is a value statement and I kind of think statements like that just boil down to "this is popular but I think it's bad". I don't think it's possible to ask if a work "deserves" to be popular without bringing questions of aesthetic taste into it.


Right, it does bring in questions of aesthetic taste, but I don't see the issue with that. These tastes are based on standards, & whether one aesthetic standard is better than another is a subjective matter, but it doesn't mean that all works will meet a particular aesthetic standard equally well. Some might be better at accomplishing a specific goal. That's why I tacked on that works of art can be better "in some respects", not better in every way.


----------



## fbjim

Luchesi said:


> You're well-informed about music, fair minded and you seem to be an objective observer. Can you tell us what you've learned in here?
> 
> I've learned that CM listeners care very much about the aesthetic tastes (likes and dislikes) of others. It's somehow relevant in evaluations, but I'm not clear on why. Naturally we want to belong, we want to save time by hearing recommendations , we want to follow the trends perhaps.
> 
> I remember being surprised that I could predict weekly changes in the ranking of songs in the top 20 on the radio in the 60s and 70s. Of course I could have been fooling myself, but it was fun and seemed doable. So, in the aggregate, statistically, there's something to this popularity thing..


What always strikes me about your posts is how differently you seem to consume music than the way I do. I've never been one to dive into scores, get into theoretical analysis, or really try to figure out how a piece works, but it clearly gives you a lot of joy to do that. 

I don't think that's unusual or a particularly stunning observation; in fact I think a lot of great art can be experienced from a variety of approaches like this.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> _Acceptable_? Who or what is determining acceptability?


IMO it is not rude or disrespectful to state a negative opinion about music or composer that I may admire, e.g. "I cannot tolerate the music of John Cage.". To each his own. But to instead say, e.g., that John Cage is a charlatan is what I would consider rude and disrespectful to all those members who have expressed admiration for his work. 

This is my own view and one in which you may not agree. For all I know you have never been invested in a composer or his music enough to take offense if someone told you his music was garbage. Or maybe you think that my skin is not thick enough.

I don't know. 

All I feel sure of is that the kind of disrespectful language I am describing is unnecessary in order to express a negative opinion, it is gratuitously judgmental and goes beyond stating a preference of taste.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> I don't sense hostility from anyone advocating any kind of music. Or from someone who says they can't stand Baroque music. I may not agree, but I don't consider it hostile. On the other hand I've seen threads in which attacking John Cage and his work was taken as a personal insult to Cage fans. It's puzzling.


If someone says "people who hate composer x are deaf/soulless/have bad taste/whatever", I'd consider that at least a bit hostile, depending on the tone of the post.


----------



## fbjim

SanAntone said:


> IMO it is not rude or disrespectful to state a negative opinion about music or composer that I may admire, e.g. "I cannot tolerate the music of John Cage.". To each his own. But to instead say, e.g., that John Cage is a charlatan is what I would consider rude and disrespectful to all those members who have expressed admiration for his work.
> 
> This is my own view and one in which you may not agree. For all I know you have never been invested in a composer or his music enough to take offense if someone told you his music was garbage. Or maybe you think that my skin is not thick enough.
> 
> I don't know.
> 
> All I feel sure of is that the kind of disrespectful language I am describing is unnecessary in order to express a negative opinion, it is gratuitously judgmental and goes beyond stating a preference of taste.



Cage was something of a specific case where the notoriety of a single specific work of his, and a swath of low-effort jokes about said work made it very difficult to have any kind of discussion about a composer who, if I remember right, composed a lot of music.

"Charlatan"/"emperors new clothes"/etc is borderline, and while I wouldn't say it's explicitly like, hostile in every possible usage, it amounts to saying that listeners are either being fooled, or are mis-representing their own tastes to try to look cool, and that's not likely to ever be taken well.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> IMO it is not rude or disrespectful to state a negative opinion about music or composer that I may admire, e.g. "I cannot tolerate the music of John Cage.". To each his own. But to instead say, e.g., that John Cage is a charlatan is what I would consider rude and disrespectful to all those members who have expressed admiration for his work.
> 
> This is my own view and one in which you may not agree. For all I know you have never been invested in a composer or his music enough to take offense if someone told you his music was garbage. Or maybe you think that my skin is not thick enough.
> 
> I don't know.
> 
> All I feel sure of is that the kind of disrespectful language I am describing is unnecessary in order to express a negative opinion, it is gratuitously judgmental and goes beyond stating a preference of taste.


I'm neutral on Cage's body of work but I do think he was sincere in his outlook and what he wanted to accomplish. If someone thinks he was a charlatan or that at the least he wasn't very talented musically, what's that to you if you love Cage? It's not an insult directed at you.


fbjim said:


> If someone says "people who hate composer x are deaf/soulless/have bad taste/whatever", I'd consider that at least a bit hostile, depending on the tone of the post.


But you, having security in your own tastes and the knowledge that that's just another subjective opinion, just brush it off. Right? Btw I've not heard anyone called "soulless or deaf" here, and "bad taste" is yet another subjective judgement.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> But you, having security in your own tastes and the knowledge that that's just another subjective opinion, just brush it off. Right? Btw I've not heard anyone called "soulless or deaf" here, and "bad taste" is yet another subjective judgement.


I'm not concerned about my feelings being hurt here. I'm concerned about this being a net negative when it comes to discussing music.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> ...
> "Charlatan"/"emperors new clothes"/etc is borderline, and while I wouldn't say it's explicitly like, hostile in every possible usage, it amounts to saying that listeners are either being fooled, or are mis-representing their own tastes to try to look cool, and that's not likely to ever be taken well.


How is that any different from being told that I love Bach because of the influence of the "received wisdom"?


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

dissident said:


> I don't sense hostility from anyone advocating any kind of music. Or from someone who says they can't stand Baroque music. I may not agree, but I don't consider it hostile. On the other hand I've seen threads in which attacking John Cage and his work was taken as a personal insult to Cage fans. It's puzzling.


I won't assume that you have no basis for thinking that there's a double standard, but to be fair to fans of John Cage & other avante-garde fans, they most likely hear people disparage their preferences way more often than fans of baroque. Perhaps not in the TalkClassical forums where people are more welcoming, but in most other spaces. I can see why they'd be less patient.



fbjim said:


> "Charlatan"/"emperors new clothes"/etc is borderline, and while I wouldn't say it's explicitly like, hostile in every possible usage, it amounts to saying that listeners are either being fooled, or are mis-representing their own tastes to try to look cool, and that's not likely to ever be taken well.


This is a tricky one to navigate. Modern music fans have a right to feel insulted when people imply they're being fooled or pretending, but the issue is the "emperor's new clothes" sentiment pops up so often that, while I'm not condoning it, modern music fans should by now expect those kinds of comments & not take them too personally. It comes with the territory.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> I'm not concerned about my feelings being hurt here. I'm concerned about this being a net negative when it comes to discussing music.


Stravinsky and his admirers were probably called all sorts of terrible things in his day. So was Wagner and Beethoven. Big deal.


----------



## 59540

4chamberedklavier said:


> I won't assume that you have no basis for thinking that there's a double standard, but to be fair to fans of John Cage & other avante-garde fans, they most likely hear people disparage their preferences way more often than fans of baroque. Perhaps not in the TalkClassical forums where people are more welcoming, but in most other spaces. I can see why they'd be less patient.
> ...


But that's just it. If you really and truly feel that it all comes down to completely subjective individual opinions, then it doesn't matter. All you can say is "well, I don't know for sure. Maybe I _am_ being fooled, but I like this stuff anyway".


----------



## DaveM

4chamberedklavier said:


> *I agree with hammered's implied point that some things aren't necessarily more popular because they are "the best", *but I think people should be careful to go overboard with the idea and conclude that no popular work has "earned" its popularity or that no work of art can be better (in some respects) than others (not saying that this is what Hammered believes, but this is for our dear audience who might get the wrong idea)


Unfortunately, his main message is not making the implied point above. It is aimed particularly at Mozart and the like with terms such as idolatry and quotes such as ‘creaminess’ and ‘sugary sweet’ from various people, one of which has declared the baroque and classical era ‘lame’. It strikes me that, ironically, to find profound discussions of CM, one will have to look elsewhere than in a thread on ‘Profundity’.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

dissident said:


> But that's just it. If you really and truly feel that it all comes down to completely subjective individual opinions, then it doesn't matter. All you can say is "well, I don't know for sure. Maybe I _am_ being fooled, but I like this stuff anyway".


I won't rule out the possibility of composers who don't believe in what they're selling & are just out to dupe people, but if there are people out there who like it, it shouldn't be too far-fetched to believe that the composer himself likes his compositions.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> How is that any different from being told that I love Bach because of the influence of the "received wisdom"?


If someone says the sole reason you like Bach is because he's popular, then that would be comparable. Saying that Bach's work is of enough historical import to be influential on the way we listen to classical music, how we evaluate it, and the culture of classical music at large is not only not the same, it's actually a tremendous _complement_ to Bach.


----------



## Luchesi

fbjim said:


> What always strikes me about your posts is how differently you seem to consume music than the way I do. I've never been one to dive into scores, get into theoretical analysis, or really try to figure out how a piece works, but it clearly gives you a lot of joy to do that.
> 
> I don't think that's unusual or a particularly stunning observation; in fact I think a lot of great art can be experienced from a variety of approaches like this.


It's just me. My career has been briefing chemists and physicists. No mentions of likes or dislikes.

And a piano teacher, tuner, part time. Children don't like this or that, endlessly.
Tuning customers like or don't like a stretched treble or rounder bass notes. Always something.. 
I get fed up, but I sublimate it or rationalize it away (it's still in my unconscious coloring everything, apparently).

I'd like to share the joy of analysis, but I've learned in here how difficult that is. And yet, in our talkbacks (explaining things) after our performances, we get a very good turnout.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> If someone says the sole reason you like Bach is because he's popular, then that would be comparable. ...


That's been said too.


----------



## fbjim

Luchesi said:


> It's just me. My career has been briefing chemists and physicists. No mentions of likes or dislikes.
> 
> And a piano teacher, tuner, part time. Children don't like this or that, endlessly.
> Tuning customers like or don't like a stretched treble or rounder bass notes. Always something..
> I get fed up, but I sublimate it or rationalize it away (it's still in my unconscious coloring everything, apparently).
> 
> I'd like to share the joy of analysis, but I've learned in here how difficult that is. And yet, in our talkbacks (explaining things) after our performances, we get a very good turnout.


It's comparable to me talking with other film lovers, I think. There are some people who really love getting deep into the technical aspects of cinematography, editing, and direction, and write all sorts of fascinating formal analysis on that aspect of film, and others who love film but don't really care to look at that kind of thing in scholarly detail.


----------



## 59540

4chamberedklavier said:


> I won't rule out the possibility of composers who don't believe in what they're selling & are just out to dupe people, but if there are people out there who like it, it shouldn't be too far-fetched to believe that the composer himself likes his compositions.


That's the way it is with Satie. I don't know completely what was in his head or if there is a serious/satirical dividing line there, but I enjoy listening to and playing his music either way.


----------



## fbjim

4chamberedklavier said:


> I won't rule out the possibility of composers who don't believe in what they're selling & are just out to dupe people, but if there are people out there who like it, it shouldn't be too far-fetched to believe that the composer himself likes his compositions.


Cage is one of those cases where even if you take the view that he didn't take his music seriously (which I doubt - Cage was many things but I never think he was insincere) - so many composers and musicians I admire took inspiration from him that I can't personally just dismiss it, as strange as I find some of his music.


----------



## Woodduck

Forster said:


> ^ The question cannot be satisfactorily answered, either by an aesthetic subjectivist or an aesthetic objectivist (assuming we know what these terms mean). Since there are no criteria universally agreed that should apply when making an evaluation, all such evaluations are necessarily incomplete. If one wants to dispense with criteria altogether, one could just say, no, not all art is equally good; some is better than another, and I can tell you that I know the 'good' when I see it (or listen to it.)
> 
> Neither is satisfactory.
> 
> Since no-one here _actually_ believes that all art is equally good, the question seems pointless.


"The question" in question is posed to someone who denies that any criteria exist by which anyone, including the artist, can determine levels of excellence in works of art. "The question" is not pointless.



Strange Magic said:


> Just a quick note: If someone has been paying attention to these hundreds of posts over many threads, that someone would see many posters asserting that the subjectivist view demands that all art be equal. *In a sense all art is equal in having no properties--measurable properties beyond mass, color, odor, duration, creator, date created, size, shape etc.--that can possibly be used to rank, grade, otherwise evaluate it other than by each individual perceiver *or, through polling and clustering, or other pure assertion. Other than size, etc., which planet is better than another? If you say "better for human beings", you are imposing your unique (or even very widely shared) standards upon the hapless planet when all it did was to be.
> 
> A benefit of my position is that everyone can make a god of their own artistic requirements, findings, preferences, and share them if they choose (and we all choose, don't we) with other autonomous perceivers of art. We are even free to agree or disagree on the proper criteria for judging art. *Uhuru!
> 
> I don't know how to be more clear.*


The statement in bold above appears to be intended as the clearest you can make. Here it is:

_"In a sense all art is equal in having no properties--measurable properties beyond mass, color, odor, duration, creator, date created, size, shape etc.--that can possibly be used to rank, grade, otherwise evaluate it other than by each individual perceiver or, through polling and clustering, or other pure assertion."_

I don't know whether "in a sense" is intended as a qualifier to "all art is equal," which is what it would be in normal usage. It would imply that in some other sense, not all art is equal. But, letting that go, I will point out that _nothing_ is evaluated "other than by each individual perceiver." Evaluation is the activity of a brain, and only individuals have brains. That leaves only one essential idea in your assertion, the idea of measurement. Your contention is that artistic value - quality or excellence - can't be measured - quantified in numbers - and therefore cannot exist outside the mind of the individual observer. The premise assumed by this requirement for physical measurement is that no value judgments of any kind, except those of simple physical utility ("this is better for this purpose than that") have any validity outside the mind of an individual, since values are not measurements of physical properties. As a thoroughgoing materialist, which you've said you are, you must believe that all value judgments, including moral judgments, rest finally upon personal feelings - tastes, sentiments, wishes, whims, etc., and that no objectively valid jusifications for them can or need be made.

This is a logically consistent position. If you can live by it, accepting all of its implications all of the time, congratulations. I know I can't, and I know that artists who create these magnificent works we all love can't. They actually think that their struggles to find the better note, color, line or word is in fact a struggle to find something better - something that makes their work more coherent and meaningful - not merely a way of making themselves feel better. But then a preference for coherence and meaningfulness is a value judgment, and since coherence and meaningfulness can't be physically measured...

The reason I suspect you of doublespeak is that you occasionally make a statement such as the one above: "*This does not mean that all art is equal." *What does that mean to you? In what "sense" are works of art not equal? You can't mean "not all art is equal in my personal judgment," since that's established and indisputable, and no one has raised an objection to it. Nor can it mean, "not all art is equal in reputation," for the same reasons. I recall a similar statement in another thread which seemed even more explicit in its apparent contradiction of your thoroughgoing subjectivism. Such statements inevitably raise doubts about your consistency. Is it possible that your views on art are more nuanced than you claim they are? Hope springs eternal...


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> In reading the various posts, it becomes ever more clear that many do not grasp my fundamental position that all esthetics are *personal*. I liberate completely the individual's ability to enjoy, loathe, admire, grade, rank any and all art. This does not mean that all art is equal; it means that the individual controls the grading and ranking to suit his/her own requirements. People are equal in their right, validity, freedom, to hold fast to those things that are important to them as art and the experience of art. Whether one chooses to follow the guidance of another or of a cluster or of critics is a matter of individual choice--we all actually thus pick and choose--it cannot be denied. What is non-demonstrable is that some art is greater than some other art merely by the fact that a consensus, a cluster, an authority figure says so. Art just is; we endow it as individuals with qualities and properties beyond those clearly and universally measurable.


All true. Also, there is no such thing as an absolutely unbiased or neutral audience member. Our aesthetic tastes are always inescapably impacted by our particular upbringing, life experience and environment, and our general cultural and social context, in countless ways, large and small. One corollary to that is, one individual's tastes can never perfectly and completely match another's. But there is also the important and empirically observable phenomenon that people from similar environments and backgrounds tend to share many aesthetic tastes and values, at least in an approximate sense.
None of that has any relevance to the "right" of the individual to his or her own individual tastes. In fact, it is more than a right, it is an essential part of human nature.
The empiricist comfortably accepts all of that and doesn't fall into the trap of trying to prove the objective validity of any aesthetic principle.


----------



## fbjim

fluteman said:


> All true. Also, there is no such thing as an absolutely unbiased or neutral audience member. Our aesthetic tastes are always inescapably impacted by our particular upbringing, life experience and environment, and our general cultural and social context, in countless ways, large and small. One corollary to that is, one individual's tastes can never perfectly and completely match another's. But there is also the important and empirically observable phenomenon that people from similar environments and backgrounds tend to share many aesthetic tastes and values, at least in an approximate sense.
> None of that has any relevance to the "right" of the individual to his or her own individual tastes. In fact, it is more than a right, it is an essential part of human nature.
> The empiricist comfortably accepts all of that and doesn't fall into the trap of trying to prove the objective validity of any aesthetic principle.



I don't want to speak for someone else, but the general impression I get is that a subjective view of aesthetics does _not_ hold that all art is necessarily equal in every possible frame of reference. Instead it holds that a) art has no inherent value that can be separated from some sort of frame of reference, b) frames of reference exist where it is possible to compare and assign values to different works of art, and c) whether or not one accepts or sees art in a given reference frame is very much up to them (meaning that even if works can be compared within a certain framing, the importance that one assigns to this frame is very much down to the listener's own aesthetic values)


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> Of course it does. As you would have it, pure subjectivity at the heart of all evaluations implies that all evaluations are equal. If they are not, then something objective is in play.


I don't believe this is what is being asserted - or, at least this is not what I believe.

An assertation that - oh, I dunno - Michael Haydn has had as much impact on the development of Western music, or as much repute as Beethoven is just factually wrong. That is the objective fact that is "in play". I think the subjective view does not state that an assertation that Michael Haydn was a "more major" composer than Beethoven is valid. Instead, the amount someone decides that they care about this fact when evaluating music is the question of subjective preference.

Lemme put it this way. If someone says Meyerbeer was a better composer than Wagner I'd put it down to personal preference. If someone said "Meyerbeer is a better composer than Wagner because his work is more enduringly popular" I'd ask what he's smoking.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fbjim said:


> An assertation that - oh, I dunno - Michael Haydn has had as much impact on the development of Western music, or as much repute as Beethoven is just factually wrong.





hammeredklavier said:


> different composers were "innovative", "influential", "inventive" with different things, under different circumstances. It's something we can't objectively measure quantitatively or qualitatively in various cases.
> 
> I also mentioned that Bruckner was avidly interested in F.J. Aumann's liturgical music, avidly revised the instrumentation and studied the counterpoint and the "colored harmony", in Sankt Florian.
> "In Sankt Florian, most of the repertoire consisted of the music of Michael Haydn, Johann Georg Albrechtsberger and Franz Joseph Aumann." (wiki/Anton_Bruckner#Organist_in_Sankt_Florian)
> With this in mind, I'll address dissident's question, which I missed some time ago:
> "What does it say about the influence of Michael Haydn, beyond Schubert's weeping at his grave?"
> 
> Consider, for instance:
> "The numerous settings of liturgical texts in German, the secular German part-songs and Lieder, together with his expanding sphere of influence as a teacher of composition in the 1790s, place Michael Haydn in a position of importance in the early history of both German sacred music and German song. One of his students Georg Schinn (1768-1833), left Salzburg in 1808 to take a position in the Munich Hofkapelle, where Michael Haydn's Latin and German sacred music was performed frequently throughout the 19th century." <Michael Haydn and "The Haydn Tradition:" A Study of Attribution, Chronology, and Source Transmission / Dwight C. Blazin / P.28>
> 
> Why assume that, if Beethoven was in Haydn's position, Beethoven would have influenced Mozart and Weber (who wrote some of his early dramatic works under Haydn's supervision) the same way Haydn did? No matter how highly you regard Beethoven, he wasn't the one who wrote watch?v=I-TeHK-bVvU in 1769.
> 
> "According to contemporary reports, instead of the usual Baroque scenery, in the subsidiary piece the theatre was made up »in the manner of an alpine hut. On one side there was a waterfall, on the other a high mountain cliff. In the morning and evening sunlight [...] one could see the cattle up on the Alpine pastures.« Haydn's Wedding on the Alpine Pasture was no doubt a pioneering work for the Salzburg Theatre. The individual arias and instrumental movements together with the entire singspiel were adapted by Haydn himself and other composers and - as witness numerous copies of the work - were soon in wide distribution in the abbeys of Kremsmünster and Seitenstetten or being taken further afield by the boatsmen who plied the waters of the Salzach river at Laufen." (an excerpt from the program notes for Brunner's recording of Die Hochzeit auf der Alm MH107)
> 
> Today, we are shoved in our throats, the _dogma_; "it was _all about_ Bach, Mozart, Beethoven. They were the ones who _did everything (pretty much)_". But if we were educated from youth to be more open to _free-thinking_; for example, "Aumann could have been influential in ways Mozart wasn't", —our way to view classical music history _could have_ been different.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> Unfortunately, his main message is not making the implied point above.


Here's my main message:


hammeredklavier said:


> Things can be and have qualities to be popular, but whether or not they're popular because they're superficially appealing, sentimental, or over the top, or have attractive concepts (eg. "avantgardists of their time", "tortured artists", "musical philosophers", "masters of universal laws of complexity/simplicity") etc, still depends on how each one of us perceives them.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> I don't believe this is what is being asserted - or, at least this is not what I believe.
> 
> An assertation that - oh, I dunno - Michael Haydn has had as much impact on the development of Western music, or as much repute as Beethoven is just factually wrong. That is the objective fact that is "in play". I think the subjective view does not state that an assertation that Michael Haydn was a "more major" composer than Beethoven is valid. Instead, the amount someone decides that they care about this fact when evaluating music is the question of subjective preference.
> 
> Lemme put it this way. If someone says Meyerbeer was a better composer than Wagner I'd put it down to personal preference. If someone said "Meyerbeer is a better composer than Wagner because his work is more enduringly popular" I'd ask what he's smoking.


Well, you seem to be making a case for there being objective reasons why Beethoven and Wagner reign above Michael Haydn and Meyerbeer, respectively, and God bless you for it.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> Well, you seem to be making a case for there being objective reasons why Beethoven and Wagner reign above Michael Haydn and Meyerbeer, respectively, and God bless you for it.


I don't know if this has been contested seriously. Where subjectivity comes into play is if someone doesn't agree with the value system which values certain works higher based on influence or impact. 

Or as one of the philosophers of our age, Kanye West once said - "what's a god to a non-believer?"


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> Well, you seem to be making a case for there being objective reasons why Beethoven and Wagner reign above Michael Haydn and Meyerbeer, respectively, and God bless you for it.


but they weren't the ones who wrote




in 1771. Unless you can prove "if they had their prime years around that time, they would have done things just as good or even better", it's essentially a useless debate in terms of "objective profundity" or whatever.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> Here's my main message:
> 
> 
> 
> _Things can be and have qualities to be popular, but whether or not they're popular because they're superficially appealing, sentimental, or over the top, or have attractive concepts (eg. "avantgardists of their time", "tortured artists", "musical philosophers", "masters of universal laws of complexity/simplicity") etc, still depends on how each one of us perceives them._
Click to expand...

Here‘s my main message:
In the arts, once, for whatever reason, a blueprint or foundation for what attracts a sizable number of people, with all their various individual subjective persuasions, has been created, then there can be objective reasons why certain artists excel above others. Thus, in the CP era, we have blueprints including the sonata form with a theme and the development of a theme, orchestration with particular instruments that individually were developed and improved, solo compositions for piano, violin, cello etc., each with characteristics attractive to those drawn to the genre.

Thus we have a scenario under which one can see objective reasons why the works of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart stood out. This can be particular excellence in the various subsets of symphonies, concertos, sonatas, opera (Mozart and Beethoven, though opera not so much for the latter) or in one particular subset such as opera (Wagner). Of course, it’s a little more complex than that.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

I'm about to finish listening to a Michael Haydn symphony cycle right now, not long after completing Joseph's. I'd say their "hit-or-miss" rates are roughly the same, at more or less 42%. To my ears, they are equally good, but Joseph has the advantage of quantity. I can understand if "received wisdom" makes people unfairly overestimate Joseph Haydn's music, but I don't see why this bias towards Joseph necessarily means that people would be reluctant to listen to Michael or rush to put him down. I would be thrilled to find out that so-and-so composer is just as good as so-and-so. Wouldn't people want to be exposed to more great music?


----------



## fbjim

I think Haydn also has the significant advantage of historical repute as a pioneer of musical form - both with symphonies but also notably with his string quartets.

Agreed though that there are a lot of composers who wrote technically proficient classical music that nobody really pays attention to these days. Cherubini comes to mind. I think there's an entire thread about underrated classical-period composers somewhere.

e) Mozart and Joseph Haydn also had very recognizable personal styles, and this, I think is where changing tastes can be a part of things. A lot of listeners very much value personal voice/style in artists these days more than strict textbook-correct use of counterpoint and classical period form.


----------



## DaveM

Seems to be a bug preventing this post.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> but they weren't the ones who wrote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in 1771.


Well Mozart or Beethoven didn’t write this either, so your point escapes me:


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> I love Bach because of the influence of the "received wisdom"


There's nothing wrong with that. Nobody has the right to criticize you for your aesthetic decisions. But have you been to various websites and seen people comment?:
"He was the only one who wrote in complex methods even after they declined in popularity, the kind of mindset every true artist should have!".
And there we have the "Bach myth". (By this, I'm not saying Bach is overrated in any way). It's much like the "Mozart myth" you discussed in other threads:
"His musical designs were so perfect, no one could match him. Everything he wrote in minor keys is so tragic, it is as if he's foretelling his early demise!"
There's nothing wrong with having admiration or respect for artists, but if the cultism is so strong it clouds our vision, and even entire history books are written based around the myths — it poses a bit of a problem (and I object to Fluteman's support for these things). Don't you think?


hammeredklavier said:


> If you have a copy of Charles Rosen's <The Classical Style>, have a look at page 281, where he discusses Mozart's K.174 quintet; _"The immediate model for this work is not at all Michael Haydn, as has been thought, much less Boccherini, but ..."_
> In this manner, he goes onto discuss Mozart's other quintets, how they were homage to a certain composer (other than Michael Haydn).
> The closeness of chromatic language and stuff Mozart has with Michael, —Rosen does not mention.
> MH287: watch?v=qIPffGnkaKU&t=3m33s (compare with K.515/i)
> MH284: watch?v=ppTToo8lrMQ&t=6m6s (compare with K.465/i)
> Each of Michael Haydn's quintets (MH187, MH189, MH367, MH411, MH412) predates Mozart's by several months ~ 1 year (MH367, the slow movement of which resembles that of K.465, predates it by months), but Rosen does not mention this either.
> The relationship between the fugal final movements of MH287 and K.387 (both of which begin on 4-note patterns) the slow variation movements of both composers' A major quartets, MH299 and K.464, (+ a bunch of other things) —he does not mention.
> Why? It's because Rosen did NOT know the stuff.


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> I don't want to speak for someone else, but the general impression I get is that a subjective view of aesthetics does _not_ hold that all art is necessarily equal in every possible frame of reference. Instead it holds that a) art has no inherent value that can be separated from some sort of frame of reference, b) frames of reference exist where it is possible to compare and assign values to different works of art, and c) whether or not one accepts or sees art in a given reference frame is very much up to them (meaning that even if works can be compared within a certain framing, the importance that one assigns to this frame is very much down to the listener's own aesthetic values)


Ironically, this is very much the approach of an author such as Charles Rosen, yet it gets him into hot water here at TC, and probably elsewhere too. For though he goes to great pains to establish a 'frame of reference', to use your terminology, having done that, he expresses his opinion as to which music is the greatest and which is not so great in no uncertain terms. 

Rosen could have omitted or toned down some of his more sweeping opinions, for example, that since Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven were the greatest composers of the classical period, and since other composers of that period only did what those three did but not as well, only the music of those three composers need be considered in an analysis of the classical style. He could simply have written the rest of his book and edited that statement out.

In the end, opinions are always just opinions. Even having established his frame of reference, Rosen must subjectively prioritize the many skills involved in working within the classical style and subjectively attach more value to one composer's characteristic approach to certain problems than another's. Among other things. Still, his analysis is useful and illuminating. To the posters here who keep asking, "What is so great about Mozart?", it likely is the best possible answer.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> Unless you can prove "if they had their prime years around that time, they would have done things just as good or even better", it's essentially a useless debate in terms of "objective profundity" or whatever.


Well I can’t prove that if I had been trained on the piano at an earlier age I might have been a world-reknown pianist either so, again, your point escapes me.

Bottom line: These kinds of hypotheticals prove or even suggest absolutely nothing.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> "The question" in question is posed to someone who denies that any criteria exist by which anyone, including the artist, can determine levels of excellence in works of art. "The question" is not pointless.
> 
> 
> The statement in bold above appears to be intended as the clearest you can make. Here it is:
> 
> _"In a sense all art is equal in having no properties--measurable properties beyond mass, color, odor, duration, creator, date created, size, shape etc.--that can possibly be used to rank, grade, otherwise evaluate it other than by each individual perceiver or, through polling and clustering, or other pure assertion."_
> 
> I don't know whether "in a sense" is intended as a qualifier to "all art is equal," which is what it would be in normal usage. It would imply that in some other sense, not all art is equal. But, letting that go, I will point out that _nothing_ is evaluated "other than by each individual perceiver." Evaluation is the activity of a brain, and only individuals have brains. That leaves only one essential idea in your assertion, the idea of measurement. Your contention is that artistic value - quality or excellence - can't be measured - quantified in numbers - and therefore cannot exist outside the mind of the individual observer. The premise assumed by this requirement for physical measurement is that no value judgments of any kind, except those of simple physical utility ("this is better for this purpose than that") have any validity outside the mind of an individual, since values are not measurements of physical properties. As a thoroughgoing materialist, which you've said you are, you must believe that all value judgments, including moral judgments, rest finally upon personal feelings - tastes, sentiments, wishes, whims, etc., and that no objectively valid jusifications for them can or need be made.
> 
> This is a logically consistent position. If you can live by it, accepting all of its implications all of the time, congratulations. I know I can't, and I know that artists who create these magnificent works we all love can't. They actually think that their struggles to find the better note, color, line or word is in fact a struggle to find something better - something that makes their work more coherent and meaningful - not merely a way of making themselves feel better. But then a preference for coherence and meaningfulness is a value judgment, and since coherence and meaningfulness can't be physically measured...
> 
> The reason I suspect you of doublespeak is that you occasionally make a statement such as the one above: "*This does not mean that all art is equal." *What does that mean to you? In what "sense" are works of art not equal? You can't mean "not all art is equal in my personal judgment," since that's established and indisputable, and no one has raised an objection to it. Nor can it mean, "not all art is equal in reputation," for the same reasons. I recall a similar statement in another thread which seemed even more explicit in its apparent contradiction of your thoroughgoing subjectivism. Such statements inevitably raise doubts about your consistency. Is it possible that your views on art are more nuanced than you claim they are? Hope springs eternal...


On the level of the individual, all art is not equal--we all grade and rank and evaluate art as it suits us. Once outside the purview of the individual, all art is equal because it just is. Like planets just are. You can forget "in a sense."


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> "Self-evidently good"? What on earth do you mean? Like Bach is "self-evidently great"? Since it's all just subjective personal opinion, and each opinion is valid, it's not really possible to antagonize, belittle or disrespect except in the eyes of those who aren't quite as enlightened about the validity of subjective votes. It's not "bad behavior"; it's voicing your equally valid opinion.


Okey Dokey. As you say. Lead horses to water, but......


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> And there's no valid evidence that one isn't worse than another. I'm as free to think of your playlist as crap as I am free to think of my own as golden. And there's not a bit of evidence you can produce to contradict that. And it's a valid vote.


You may be getting the picture. Still looking for that reasoned exposition.....


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> Okey Dokey. As you say. Lead horses to water, but......





Strange Magic said:


> You may be getting the picture. Still looking for that reasoned exposition.....


That's right. Retreat into squibdom.


----------



## Strange Magic

fbjim said:


> I don't believe this is what is being asserted - or, at least this is not what I believe.
> 
> An assertation that - oh, I dunno - Michael Haydn has had as much impact on the development of Western music, or as much repute as Beethoven is just factually wrong. That is the objective fact that is "in play". I think the subjective view does not state that an assertation that Michael Haydn was a "more major" composer than Beethoven is valid. Instead, the amount someone decides that they care about this fact when evaluating music is the question of subjective preference.
> 
> Lemme put it this way. If someone says Meyerbeer was a better composer than Wagner I'd put it down to personal preference. If someone said "Meyerbeer is a better composer than Wagner because his work is more enduringly popular" I'd ask what he's smoking.


The results of polling (popularity) are an objective fact. Mote people prefer Wagner over Meyerbeer. Once we say that, we have exhausted any further way of assessing "greatness".


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> On the level of the individual, all art is not equal--we all grade and rank and evaluate art as it suits us. Once *outside the purview of the individual, all art is equal because it just is. Like planets just are.*


Planets are not created and structured in specific ways by human minds in order to represent life, embody values, and communicate ideas and emotions. Those things, which are what art is all about, are not things that "just are." They have to be achieved, and artists have to think and work and refine their perceptions and their craft in order to do them and be recognized for having done them. The implication of your thinking is, at best, that human beings have no ability to perceive whether the artist has done these things well or poorly - and, at worst, that there's really no such thing as doing them well or poorly.


----------



## 59540

Woodduck said:


> ...As a thoroughgoing materialist, which you've said you are, you must believe that all value judgments, including moral judgments, rest finally upon personal feelings - tastes, sentiments, wishes, whims, etc., and that no objectively valid jusifications for them can or need be made.
> 
> This is a logically consistent position. If you can live by it, *accepting all of its implications all of the time*, congratulations. I know I can't, and I know that artists who create these magnificent works we all love can't. They actually think that their struggles to find the better note, color, line or word is in fact a struggle to find something better - something that makes their work more coherent and meaningful - not merely a way of making themselves feel better. But then a preference for coherence and meaningfulness is a value judgment, and since coherence and meaningfulness can't be physically measured...
> ...


 Bingo, and thus the need for "in a sense" qualifiers. And the appeals to "etiquette", "good behavior" and "respect".


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Here‘s my main message:
> In the arts, once, for whatever reason, a blueprint or foundation for what attracts a sizable number of people, with all their various individual subjective persuasions, has been created, then there can be objective reasons why certain artists excel above others. Thus, in the CP era, we have blueprints including the sonata form with a theme and the development of a theme, orchestration with particular instruments that individually were developed and improved, solo compositions for piano, violin, cello etc., each with characteristics attractive to those drawn to the genre.
> 
> Thus we have a scenario under which one can see objective reasons why the works of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart stood out. This can be particular excellence in the various subsets of symphonies, concertos, sonatas, opera (Mozart and Beethoven, though opera not so much for the latter) or in one particular subset such as opera (Wagner). Of course, it’s a little more complex than that.


If by "objective reasons":, you mean a consensus within a cluster, then, yes, it is an objective fact that the consensus' criteria have been met (when they have). No problem with that; in fact it is at the heart of my observations about the establishment of greatness, profundity, whatever, in the arts..


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> The results of polling (popularity) are an objective fact. Most people prefer Wagner over Meyerbeer. Once we say that, we have exhausted any further way of assessing "greatness".


That is absolutely... let's see...hmmm... Let's go with "apalling." But it really is what someone must say when their only way of judging art is with their taste buds. 

I advise avoiding the collective "we." If _you, individually,_ have so little understanding of music, opera, drama, philosophy, psychology, and whatever else distinguishes the brilliant, thoughtful, original, rich, resonant and influential art of Wagner from the confections of Meyerbeer, as to be unable to tell, or at least sense on some level, that the former is a far greater artist than the latter, just say so and leave the rest of humanity out of it. Not that the rest of humanity cares what you think of it as it fills opera houses for _Tristan_ but can't find a performance of _Le Prophete_ to fill houses for.


----------



## hammeredklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> have you gone to various websites and seen people comment?


For instance, have a look at the article <I Believe in Mozart: Symphony No. 41 in C Major> 2013/03/18/i-believe-in-mozart-symphony-41-in-c-major/








_"I'm back baby!"_

We have been constantly "educated" (or "brainwashed" depending on how you look at it) in this way. _"Thank Bach only, and no one else."_
What if we had been educated from childhood about, for instance, the complex organ works of Johann Ludwig Krebs and nothing about Bach? Would things have been the same? (I'm just asking).


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> What if we had been educated from childhood about, for instance, the complex organ works of Johann Ludwig Krebs and nothing about Bach? Would things have been the same? (I'm just asking).


Why _weren't_ we educated from childhood by Krebs and not by Bach? You're always framing this as if it's some accident or else some mysterious influence somewhere arbitrarily picked Bach for who knows what reason.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> ...
> We have been constantly "educated" (or "brainwashed" depending on how you look at it) in this way. _"Thank Bach only, and no one else."_
> What if we had been educated from childhood about, for instance, the complex organ works of Johann Ludwig Krebs and nothing about Bach? Would things have been the same? (I'm just asking).


By the way I think I can put my finger exactly on the difference between Bach and that selection there. I only listened for a few minutes, but that selection to me is _static_. It's sort of "blocky" with the repetition of small units, while in Bach there is a sense of linear, forward progress and development. Compare that with


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> I only listened for a few minutes, but that selection to me is _static_. It's sort of "blocky" with the repetition of small units, while in Bach there is a sense of linear, forward progress and development.


That's because the Haydn utilizes archaic expressions in its Classical framework (and they only last 2 minutes; everything resolves before it gets "too excessive"). I'm not sure Bach even has that sort of "non-metric" stuff. Your opinion is subjective of course, just like Kreisler jr's on Bach. Bach lacks gradations of dynamics, changes of rhythm, "development sections", due to the idiom he worked with. Listen to the Dies irae, which I posted earlier.


----------



## hammeredklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> Your opinion is subjective of course, just like Kreisler jr's on Bach.


Or Denk's on the Goldbergs: "The first flaw of this masterpiece is a doozy. The piece is eighty minutes long, and mostly in G major. Just think about that for a minute. Then (without a bathroom break) think very similar thoughts for 79 more minutes, winding around the same basic themes, and then you will have some idea of what it's like to experience—you might even say survive—the _Goldbergs_. Let's not delude ourselves. No amount of artistry and inspiration (sorry Glenn, not even you) can make you forget that you are hearing 80 minutes of G major; it's like trying not to notice Mount Everest. Not only is it G major, but it is always, (nauseatingly?) the same sequence of harmonies within G major. This is more than a compositional roadblock; it's essentially a recipe for monotony and failure. The _Goldbergs _are a fool's errand attempted by the greatest genius of all time." Why I Hate The 'Goldberg Variations'


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> That's right. Retreat into squibdom.


My bad! I confess to giving into lobbing back..But it is, you will admit, frustrating to engage with someone who offers no coherent and carefully explicated position but merely snipes away at the views of others and must be corrected periodically. But such is life on the Internet.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

At least Bach did not write a 6 hour string quartet.


----------



## Barbebleu

Thanks for the pointer to the Denk critique Hammered. Highly enjoyable and you can see that Denk has real respect, admiration and affection for the Goldbergs.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> That is absolutely... let's see...hmmm... Let's go with "apalling." But it really is what someone must say when their only way of judging art is with their taste buds.
> 
> I advise avoiding the collective "we." If _you, individually,_ have so little understanding of music, opera, drama, philosophy, psychology, and whatever else distinguishes the brilliant, thoughtful, original, rich, resonant and influential art of Wagner from the confections of Meyerbeer, as to be unable to tell, or at least sense on some level, that the former is a far greater artist than the latter, just say so and leave the rest of humanity out of it. Not that the rest of humanity cares what you think of it as it fills opera houses for _Tristan_ but can't find a performance of _Le Prophete_ to fill houses for.


But what if I prefer Wagner to Meyerbeer? What becomes of your counterargument which, at its heart, is still a combination of polling and following "authorities"? I always leave the rest of humanity out of it, as I regard my evaluations as good as anyone else's (maybe better,). Meanwhile, please continue to be appalled. You appear to really enjoy fully venting your righteous indignation. and I have grown used to it.


----------



## Barbebleu

Johnnie Burgess said:


> At least Bach did not write a 6 hour string quartet.


That we know of! 😂

btw has this thread not diverted wildly off-piste?


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Or Denk's on the Goldbergs: "The first flaw of this masterpiece is a doozy. The piece is eighty minutes long, and mostly in G major. Just think about that for a minute. Then (without a bathroom break) think very similar thoughts for 79 more minutes, winding around the same basic themes, and then you will have some idea of what it's like to experience—you might even say survive—the _Goldbergs_. Let's not delude ourselves. No amount of artistry and inspiration (sorry Glenn, not even you) can make you forget that you are hearing 80 minutes of G major; it's like trying not to notice Mount Everest. Not only is it G major, but it is always, (nauseatingly?) the same sequence of harmonies within G major. This is more than a compositional roadblock; it's essentially a recipe for monotony and failure. The _Goldbergs _are a fool's errand attempted by the greatest genius of all time." Why I Hate The 'Goldberg Variations'


1. Many, many people are quite happy listening to the "Goldbergs" from start to finish. I've done so and would do so again. 
2. Like "Art of Fugue," the "Goldbergs" may not have been intended to be taken in all at once, or Bach may not have cared one way or the other. He wanted to see how much he could do with a tune. He did marvelous things. 
3. There's plenty of variety and contrast among the variations.
4. Denk (whoever he is) is not obligated to play or listen to music that bores him. We're all bored by something, and no one else needs to care.
5. And your point was...?


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Planets are not created and structured in specific ways by human minds in order to represent life, embody values, and communicate ideas and emotions. Those things, which are what art is all about, are not things that "just are." They have to be achieved, and artists have to think and work and refine their perceptions and their craft in order to do them and be recognized for having done them. The implication of your thinking is, at best, that human beings have no ability to perceive whether the artist has done these things well or poorly - and, at worst, that there's really no such thing as doing them well or poorly.


Are we back to vesting art objects with qualities beyond the measurable? In that case, Anything Goes because no one can agree on those non-measurable qualities without polling and clustering.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> That's because the Haydn uses archaic expressions in its Classical framework (and they only last 2 minutes; everything resolves before it gets "too excessive"). I'm not sure Bach even has that sort of "non-metric" stuff. Your opinion is subjective of course, just like Kreisler jr's on Bach. Bach has no gradations of dynamics, changes of rhythm, "development sections", due to the idiom he worked with. Listen to the Dies irae, which I posted earlier.


So did Bach. The theme of the Credo is from Gregorian chant.


> "development sections"


Lol, the whole movement is a "development section".


----------



## hammeredklavier

Barbebleu said:


> Thanks for the pointer to the Denk critique Hammered


Oh hi, I didn't know you were here. Btw, what do you think of the brief discussion on the profundity of Strauss in this thread? What is "Profundity"?--Revisited!


----------



## Barbebleu

Woodduck said:


> 1. Many, many people are quite happy listening to the "Goldbergs" from start to finish. I've done so and would do so again.
> 2. Like "Art of Fugue," the "Goldbergs" may not have been intended to be taken in all at once, or Bach may not have cared one way or the other. He wanted to see how much he could do with a tune. He did marvelous things.
> 3. There's plenty of variety and contrast among the variations.
> 4. Denk (whoever he is) is not obligated to play or listen to music that bores him. We're all bored by something, and no one else needs to care.
> 5. And your point was...?


Did you read the full article W? It’s not what it appears to be. Rather, it is a very affectionate tongue in cheek look at a seminal work that is fully recognised by Jeremy Denk.


----------



## Barbebleu

hammeredklavier said:


> Oh hi, I didn't know you were here. Btw, what do you think of the brief discussion on the profundity of Strauss in this thread? What is "Profundity"?--Revisited!


Must have missed that ‘cos I was laughing so much at some of the posts! 😂


----------



## 59540

Woodduck said:


> ...
> 4. Denk (whoever he is) is not obligated to play or listen to music that bores him. We're all bored by something, and no one else needs to care.
> ...


Jeremy Denk, a classical pianist. He wrote a series of blog entries for NPR back in 2012 called (tongue-in-cheek) "Why I Hate the Goldberg Variations" and hammered has been referring to it for quite a while now as if it's a negative review of the work.








Why I Hate The 'Goldberg Variations'


All this week, we've been delving into Bach's 'Goldberg Variations'




www.npr.org


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> Bingo, and thus the need for "in a sense" qualifiers. And the appeals to "etiquette", "good behavior" and "respect".


Good God, the "appeal to etiquette" had nothing to do with this argument and everything to do with trying to make things possibly slightly less combative. Not everything has to be a point-scoring exercise.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> Good God, the "appeal to etiquette" had nothing to do with this argument and everything to do with trying to make things possibly slightly less combative. Not everything has to be a point-scoring exercise.


Don't start none, won't be none or something.


----------



## fbjim

No, I'm seriously dismayed here that I was sincerely trying to explain why I think certain things can cause discussions to turn combative and toxic, and you're acting like I was trying to score points off you or win some theoretical argument. 

I wasn't talking in hypotheticals there. It really isn't necessary for anyone to be so belligerent.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> No, I'm seriously dismayed here that I was sincerely trying to explain why I think certain things can cause discussions to turn combative and toxic, and you're acting like I was trying to score points off you or win some theoretical argument.
> 
> I wasn't talking in hypotheticals there. It really isn't necessary for anyone to be so belligerent.


OK, let's start from the beginning then. If you truly believe that all these opinions and valuations are strictly subjective and that all votes are equally valid, why should there be any "toxicity" at all?


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> But what if I prefer Wagner to Meyerbeer? What becomes of your counterargument which, at its heart, is still a combination of polling and following "authorities"? I always leave the rest of humanity out of it, as I regard my evaluations as good as anyone else's (maybe better,). Meanwhile, please continue to be appalled. You appear to really enjoy fully venting your righteous indignation. and I have grown used to it.


Never mind what I "appear to enjoy." You're very selective in what you "appear to enjoy" responding to. Is there a dance called the "sidestep"? You do it clumsily. You do _not_ leave the rest of humanity out of it when you tell everyone what "we" are capable of understanding and judging. 

"What if I prefer Wagner to Meyerbeer?" is a meaningless question. There are undoubtedly people who prefer Meyerbeer to Wagner. A mere preference for his shallow stage spectacles over Wagner's multidimensional explorations of life and ideas doesn't lead intelligent, sensitive, perceptive people to the conclusion that Meyerbeer is superior to, or even equal to, Wagner as an artist. Most people who have more than a superficial interest in art are not confused in that way.


----------



## Woodduck

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


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> If by "objective reasons":, you mean a consensus within a cluster, then, yes, it is an objective fact that the consensus' criteria have been met (when they have). No problem with that; in fact it is at the heart of my observations about the establishment of greatness, profundity, whatever, in the arts..


You wouldn’t know it from most of your posts. Perhaps it would help if you revisited/mentioned that from time to time. Also, considering that this is a classical music forum and that the CP era music continues to be the life-blood of the genre and without it, this forum might not even exist, perhaps a term somewhat more _profound_ than ‘_a cluster’ _might be more appropriate.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> OK, let's start from the beginning then. If you truly believe that all these opinions and valuations are strictly subjective and that all votes are equally valid, why should there be any "toxicity" at all?


No. If you don't care about whether discussions get overly combative and personal than just ignore it. All I'm saying is that when I said that, I wasn't trying to win the Great Objectivity Debate.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> No. If you don't care about whether discussions get overly combative and personal than just ignore it. All I'm saying is that when I said that, I wasn't trying to win the Great Objectivity Debate.


Well the ones who get hottest under the collar seem to be those who are most convinced of the subjectivity of responses to music. I can't figure out why that would be.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Are we back to vesting art objects with qualities beyond the measurable? In that case, Anything Goes because no one can agree on those non-measurable qualities without polling and clustering.


Everything about this is wrong. "We" are not "vesting" anything with anything. I'm pointing out what is actually given to us by artists, embodied in the works they produce, there for us to try to comprehend. You, apparently, see none of it - nothing you don't see in a chunk of rock floating in space.

Whether we can agree on everything an art work is trying to convey, or on what aspects of it are more important, or on whether we find the experience rewarding, doesn't remove the presence of a complex of signs and symbols, created intentionally by an artist, and capable of conveying meaning. Planets do not convey meaning.

I'm starting to feel like a preschool teacher.


----------



## 59540

DaveM said:


> You wouldn’t know it from most of your posts. Perhaps it would help if you revisited/mentioned that from time to time. Also, considering that this is a classical music forum and that the CP era music continues to be the life-blood of the genre and without it, this forum might not even exist, perhaps a term somewhat more _profound_ than ‘_a cluster’ _might be more appropriate.


"Very well then. Let's say this 'node' or 'cumulus' of... things... believe Beethoven to be superior to Cherubini..."


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> Well the ones who get hottest under the collar seem to be those who are most convinced of the subjectivity of responses to music. I can't figure out why that would be.


"Personally attacking people and calling them liars will upset them" is not some kind of data point to be made in an ongoing debate, it's just a general principle of tact. 

I'm not even accusing you, nor anyone specifically of doing this, to be clear. I have no idea why you would try to tie this back into whatever this has to do with aesthetic evaluation.


----------



## Woodduck

Barbebleu said:


> Did you read the full article W? It’s not what it appears to be. Rather, it is a very affectionate tongue in cheek look at a seminal work that is fully recognised by Jeremy Denk.


Thanks. Apparently hammeredk is unaware of the joke too.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> "Personally attacking people and calling them liars will upset them" is not some kind of data point to be made in an ongoing debate, it's just a general principle of tact.
> ...


Who's calling anyone a liar? I still don't see much of a difference between being told that I like the music that I like because I want to be one of the Best and Brightest and someone accusing someone of liking the avant garde just to be trendy. In that case the "liar" accusation gets thrown around quite a bit. In addition I don't see how an attack on, say, Ferneyhough's work can ever be construed to be a personal attack on fbjim.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

I'm short on time today, but I will comment on this: 



dissident said:


> Tact and diplomacy in expressing an aesthetic opinion? Why would it be necessary at all, since it's understood that all such opinions are subjective anyway?


The problem is that it's not understood by everyone, and even though I know philosophically that someone saying certain music is garbage is a subjective opinion, to the person saying it they may not mean it that way. They may think that it's an objective value judgment (even if such things are impossible) and have that opinion be attended by value judgments upon the people who like that music. As @SanAntone said, it would be like someone insulting his wife; a subjective opinion, sure, but still rude, and for most it breaks the golden rule; would you want other people negatively judging you, the music you love, etc.? You may say "I don't care," and that's fine, but many people do care and they aren't going to take kindly to it; and why risk offense when there is a non-offensive way of saying the same thing by acknowledging it a personal opinion while being respectful of others' tastes? 

If everyone is on the same page that all value judgments are personal opinions then using the "garbage/great" language would be fine because the "to me" or "in my opinion" qualifiers would be implicitly understood by everyone, including the person making the statement; but not everyone is on that same page here or elsewhere.


----------



## fbjim

Like a lot of social behavior, the context matters a lot too. If someone says "Composer is garbage" in a thread "Do you like composer or not", I don't really care nor should I think anyone could care that much, because the thread is about whether or not you like a composer, and anyone visiting that thread should probably expect both positive and negative opinions on them, and shouldn't take things personally.

Meanwhile someone saying "Composer is garbage" in a thread intended to discuss which works about that composer they like, or seriously discussing their output of work is being pointlessly disruptive, more than anything.

The things I see as more likely to cause genuine personal affronts are if someone attacks the listeners (or non-fans) of a composer, or if someone ventures beyond aesthetic evaluation and implies that the composer, and their works, are morally deficient, and attacks them on moral, political or ideological grounds.


----------



## 59540

Eva Yojimbo said:


> They may think that it's an objective value judgment


But since you know better you can just shrug it off. Done.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

dissident said:


> But since you know better you can just shrug it off. Done.


I DO shrug it off. I'm not so insecure that random people insulting the music I like is going to bother me; you have to get used to it when your music tastes are as omnivorous as mine are because everyone I talk to is going to hate some of the music I love. I'm not everyone, though, and I see no harm and much benefit of being respectful others' tastes and opinions.


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> Everything about this is wrong. "We" are not "vesting" anything with anything. I'm pointing out what is actually given to us by artists, embodied in the works they produce, there for us to try to comprehend. You, apparently, see none of it - nothing you don't see in a chunk of rock floating in space.
> 
> Whether we can agree on everything an art work is trying to convey, or on what aspects of it are more important, or on whether we find the experience rewarding, doesn't remove the presence of a complex of signs and symbols, created intentionally by an artist, and capable of conveying meaning. Planets do not convey meaning.
> 
> I'm starting to feel like a preschool teacher.


Human beings imbue things with meaning all the time, even when none was, or possibly could, be intended. 

Planets are rocks floating in space - the concept of some planets being more "interesting" than others, perhaps because they could possibly support life, comes from us. More to the point of aesthetics, humans positively love to imbue events and things with symbolic meaning in nearly the same way as one would do with art. Nobody wrote the Titanic Disaster but that doesn't stop us from potentially seeing it as a symbol of hubris.

Art can certainly have intended, textual meaning but I do not subscribe to the idea that everything in art is done as an active act by an artist to try to get us to find the morsels of symbolism, meaning and emotion, like an easter egg hunt. Strange things happen when art is released for public consumption, and stranger things happen when those listeners are separated from the artist by centuries of time. 

This doesn't at all mean art is arbitrarily made or that artists don't care about craftsmanship, but I don't think the idea that every reaction we have to art comes _from_ the art, and not from our reaction to it, is a complete description of what happens when we experience art.


----------



## fbjim

just to reword that: when we have a strong reaction to art, I don't think it's always, or necessarily the case that we've found something embedded in art which was always there, waiting to be uncovered. I think a strong reaction can actually be a process (or, metaphorically, like a chemical reaction) that happens within a listener when they experience art.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

fbjim said:


> Art can certainly have intended, textual meaning but I do not subscribe to the idea that everything in art is done as an active act by an artist to try to get us to find the morsels of symbolism, meaning and emotion, like an easter egg hunt. Strange things happen when art is released for public consumption, and stranger things happen when those listeners are separated from the artist by centuries of time.


I'd even add that with art that IS like this, imbued with their designers with intended meanings and such like an Easter Egg hunt, doesn't mean it's necessarily good art (in this case "good" meaning "art that will be liked/loved"). To take two examples, there are a ton of meaningful details in the anime series Neon Genesis Evangelion, many of which I spent years analyzing because the work affected me on a profound level. Meanwhile, there's also a work like Joyce's Finnegans Wake, where nearly every sentence is full of puns and other wordplay that could be read a dozen different ways and all of them would be right... it's also nigh impenetrable reading to anyone who doesn't want to go through it with a fine-toothed comb to tease out these meanings, and the only people who care to do such things are literature professors... and even then, only some of them. 

So do such meaningful details matter? Well, they matter to whom they matter to. If you don't like a work for whatever reason the fact that it's packed with details and meanings isn't going to matter to you much. If you do care about the work then you might care about such things; but I think it's a mistake to assume that those details are WHY you liked the thing in the first place. This is something I came to realize over the years (yes years) I spent analyzing Evangelion and discussing it with others; that the unique emotional connection I had with that series was just as dependent upon my subjective state when I viewed it (I was very depressed at the time) and it (almost literally) saved my life. I couldn't expect others to react the same way as I had done, and even if I can try to justify its "greatness" by analyzing all those details in the craft, such things are rather trivial in comparison to the initial emotional impact of the work, which depended as much upon my subjective mind-set when viewing it as it did with what the work itself is.


----------



## fbjim

One reason I really resist the view of art as completely explainable as symbols written by an artist for people to find is that it really just reminds me of the very poor way that concepts of metaphor, symbolism and critical reading are frequently taught in public schools. 

Usually what happens is a book with very obvious, textual symbolism or allegory like Lord of the Flies, or The Great Gatsby gets assigned, and people get assigned essays and quizzes about the symbolism in the work. This leads students to believe that a) symbolism is an explicit thing with one correct answer as to what any given thing in a book "means", and b) they're stupid for not agreeing or seeing what the textbook author posits about a work's symbolism. 

It's not really a good way to teach critical reading, nor get people actually interested in literature.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

fbjim said:


> One reason I really resist the view of art as completely explainable as symbols written by an artist for people to find is that it really just reminds me of the very poor way that concepts of metaphor, symbolism and critical reading are frequently taught in public schools.
> 
> Usually what happens is a book with very obvious, textual symbolism or allegory like Lord of the Flies, or The Great Gatsby gets assigned, and people get assigned essays and quizzes about the symbolism in the work. This leads students to believe that a) symbolism is an explicit thing with one correct answer as to what any given thing in a book "means", and b) they're stupid for not agreeing or seeing what the textbook author posits about a work's symbolism.
> 
> It's not really a good way to teach critical reading, nor get people actually interested in literature.


Strongly agree, and the fact that there's a huge gray area between allegory--or a narrative work in which its constituent elements have an intended symbolic meaning--and significance--in which many of these same elements are used for their evocative, provocative, and richness of possible meanings--is something that's never taught, and often something that co-exists within works. Many artists like the nail down their intended meanings and use rather rigorously defined (at least to them) symbols; other artists are more intuitive and will pick symbols or images (or whatever else) for all the various connotations and intimations of possible meanings (intellectual, emotional, aesthetic, tonal, etc.), and plenty of artists are a mix of both (or never think about neither) depending on the work or even the element in question. None of this ambiguity is taught in public schools; nor is the fact that there's so much more to textual criticism and analysis than just trying to "crack the code" of meaning. That entire approach may be more or less fruitful depending on the work in question.


----------



## hammeredklavier

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


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> Human beings imbue things with meaning all the time, even when none was, or possibly could, be intended.
> 
> Planets are rocks floating in space - the concept of some planets being more "interesting" than others, perhaps because they could possibly support life, comes from us. More to the point of aesthetics, humans positively love to imbue events and things with symbolic meaning in nearly the same way as one would do with art. Nobody wrote the Titanic Disaster but that doesn't stop us from potentially seeing it as a symbol of hubris.
> 
> Art can certainly have intended, textual meaning but I do not subscribe to the idea that everything in art is done as an active act by an artist to try to get us to find the morsels of symbolism, meaning and emotion, like an easter egg hunt. Strange things happen when art is released for public consumption, and stranger things happen when those listeners are separated from the artist by centuries of time.
> 
> This doesn't at all mean art is arbitrarily made or that artists don't care about craftsmanship, but I don't think the idea that every reaction we have to art comes _from_ the art, and not from our reaction to it, is a complete description of what happens when we experience art.


I don't disagree with anything here. Nothing you've said contradicts anything I said. People can imbue anything with any meaning that occurs to them. That doesn't invite us to impose bizarre interpretations on paintings or to worship rocks as deities. Besides, I wasn't responding to an attempt to read meaning into things that have none. I was answering the contention that works of art contain no more intrinsic meaning than rocks. 

Art, unlike nature, is fundamentally representational - an embodiment and concretization of something, real, imaginary, concrete or abstract. We want to experience our values, our ideas about life and ourselves, in a form that gives them more vivid reality and permanence. Art has served this primary purpose from prehistory to the present. Nature may provoke ideas and feeelings - or rather, we may experience ideas and feelings in response to it - but it doesn't represent them.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Never mind what I "appear to enjoy." You're very selective in what you "appear to enjoy" responding to. Is there a dance called the "sidestep"? You do it clumsily. You do _not_ leave the rest of humanity out of it when you tell everyone what "we" are capable of understanding and judging.
> 
> "What if I prefer Wagner to Meyerbeer?" is a meaningless question. There are undoubtedly people who prefer Meyerbeer to Wagner. A mere preference for his shallow stage spectacles over Wagner's multidimensional explorations of life and ideas doesn't lead intelligent, sensitive, perceptive people to the conclusion that Meyerbeer is superior to, or even equal to, Wagner as an artist. Most people who have more than a superficial interest in art are not confused in that way.


It's like the scene in Lawrence of Arabia where Lawrence says to the general, "It's my manner, Sir." I believe we are differing more and more in our Manners. I prefer straightforward and mercifully brief few paragraphs to put forward my views, views that some agree with. I try to keep the trash talking to a minimum, only unleashing it at repeated jibes from a cheerleader (not a player) on the sidelines. And what is it about "appears to enjoy" that so disturbs you? I do believe you appear to enjoy venting your righteous indignation. You don't enjoy it?


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Planets are not created and structured in specific ways by human minds in order to represent life, embody values, and communicate ideas and emotions. Those things, which are what art is all about, are not things that "just are." They have to be achieved, and artists have to think and work and refine their perceptions and their craft in order to do them and be recognized for having done them. The implication of your thinking is, at best, that human beings have no ability to perceive whether the artist has done these things well or poorly - and, at worst, that there's really no such thing as doing them well or poorly.


How or why is that the implication? At the center of my argument is that everyone, from Prince to Pauper, can have and choose to exercise the ability to perceive whether the artist has done things well or poorly. Is art for people or for a Babbitt Bund only? And is there no such thing as having an opinion that the artist has done things well or poorly? I think lots of things are done well, and lots poorly.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> ..I think lots of things are done well, and lots poorly.


How would what you think have any substance if you’re not basing it on, at least, some educated objective basis? In fact, how can there be any ‘done well’ at all in your subjective world? How would you know?


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> I really resist the view of art as completely explainable as symbols written by an artist for people to find


And no one is proposing that.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> You wouldn’t know it from most of your posts. Perhaps it would help if you revisited/mentioned that from time to time. Also, considering that this is a classical music forum and that the CP era music continues to be the life-blood of the genre and without it, this forum might not even exist, perhaps a term somewhat more _profound_ than ‘_a cluster’ _might be more appropriate.


I urge you to try to understand my espousal of the primacy of the individual perceiver and also that the results of polling are objective facts--who can deny it? If the poll shows that more people like X than like Y, that is about as objective a fact that can be found.


----------



## DaveM

Duplicate post.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> Well the ones who get hottest under the collar seem to be those who are most convinced of the subjectivity of responses to music. I can't figure out why that would be.


I don't get hot under the collar. I leave such heat to my friends on the other side of the discussion. I'll name no names....😇


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> How would what you think have any substance if you’re not basing it on, at least, some educated objective basis? In fact, how can there be any ‘done well’ at all in your subjective world? How would you know?


As an educated layman and listener to CM for about 75 years, I have a naive faith in my ability to tell music "done well" from music not well done. How about you?


----------



## EdwardBast

Strange Magic said:


> You are pulling my leg, certainly. Every aspect of reality and our notions of it are within the purview of scientific inquiry. *To deny this is to enter boldly into woo-woo country:* _"Here there are demons,"_


That explains so much! Sorry. You have a grievously misguided view of reality and the role of science in explaining it. 

No, to deny this is merely to recognize the existence of the humanities and the arts. This is something virtually everyone understands. How did you miss this?


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> How or why is that the implication? At the center of my argument is that everyone, from Prince to Pauper, can have and choose to exercise the ability to perceive whether the artist has done things well or poorly. Is art for people or for a Babbitt Bund only? And is there no such thing as having an opinion that the artist has done things well or poorly? I think lots of things are done well, and lots poorly.


The fact that everyone can have an opinion - and shout it from the rooftops if they wish - doesn't make all opinions equally good. The world is teeming with poorly composed, garishly colored, clumsily executed paintings that evidence not a hint of an original thought, even though Aunt Clara was doing her best in her art classes and her fellow students were encouraging her to imagine herself the next Mary Cassat. What difference does it make that Uncle George thinks her turkeys are the most beautiful things hee's ever seen?


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> It's like the scene in Lawrence of Arabia where Lawrence says to the general, "It's my manner, Sir." I believe we are differing more and more in our Manners. I prefer straightforward and mercifully brief few paragraphs to put forward my views, views that some agree with. I try to keep the trash talking to a minimum, only unleashing it at repeated jibes from a cheerleader (not a player) on the sidelines. And what is it about "appears to enjoy" that so disturbs you? I do believe you appear to enjoy venting your righteous indignation. You don't enjoy it?


Once again, a sidestep.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Everything about this is wrong. "We" are not "vesting" anything with anything. I'm pointing out what is actually given to us by artists, embodied in the works they produce, there for us to try to comprehend. You, apparently, see none of it - nothing you don't see in a chunk of rock floating in space.
> 
> Whether we can agree on everything an art work is trying to convey, or on what aspects of it are more important, or on whether we find the experience rewarding, doesn't remove the presence of a complex of signs and symbols, created intentionally by an artist, and capable of conveying meaning. Planets do not convey meaning.
> 
> I'm starting to feel like a preschool teacher.


You don't like planets? We'll switch back to ice cream and allegedly fine wines. Cigars too. We most assuredly are vesting inert art objects with our own personal hopes, dreams, values, valuations. We cast a net of such to haul in the neutral art close to us and make it our own.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> As an educated layman and listener to CM for about 75 years, I have a naive faith in my ability to tell music "done well" from music not well done. How about you?


So your ability to tell music ‘done well’ is based on being an educated layman and listener for ‘about 75’ years. Sounds like you are giving someone with experience an edge over someone without similar experience. Sounds like many people with experience declaring Beethoven to be a great composer is more profound than the result of simple polling of people with indeterminate experience. And sounds like someone with long experience has the ability to apply objectivity to various parameters that determine music ‘well done’.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> The fact that everyone can have an opinion - and shout it from the rooftops if they wish - doesn't make all opinions equally good. The world is teeming with poorly composed, garishly colored, clumsily executed paintings that evidence not a hint of an original thought, even though Aunt Clara was doing her best in her art classes and her fellow students were encouraging her to imagine herself the next Mary Cassat. What difference does it make that Uncle George thinks her turkeys are the most beautiful things hee's ever seen?


I am happy to grant to you the primacy of your opinions. I am not quite so indignant at the profound Errors of others--live and let live. _De gustibus......._


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> You don't like planets? We'll switch back to ice cream and allegedly fine wines. Cigars too. We most assuredly are vesting inert art objects with our own personal hopes, dreams, values, valuations. We cast a net of such to haul in the neutral art close to us and make it our own.


What a foolish response. It's as if you don't actually read - with interest or comprehension - what other people say, but merely use everything as an opportuniy to invent new similes, metaphors and verbal curlicues to restate what you've said a thousand times. I try to define a basic distinction between art and nature, and all you can do is ask whether I like planets and argue with a point I never made. NO ONE denies the subjective aspects of our response to art. Can you really do no better than this?


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> I don't disagree with anything here. Nothing you've said contradicts anything I said. People can imbue anything with any meaning that occurs to them. That doesn't invite us to impose bizarre interpretations on paintings or to worship rocks as deities. Besides, I wasn't responding to an attempt to read meaning into things that have none. I was answering the contention that works of art contain no more intrinsic meaning than rocks.
> 
> Art, unlike nature, is fundamentally representational - an embodiment and concretization of something, real, imaginary, concrete or abstract. We want to experience our values, our ideas about life and ourselves, in a form that gives them more vivid reality and permanence. Art has served this primary purpose from prehistory to the present. Nature may provoke ideas and feeelings - or rather, we may experience ideas and feelings in response to it - but it doesn't represent them.


There is a difference but I don't think it's quite as fundamental, or even as large as you make it out to be. 

Art is a text that a reader (I'm speaking generally for all media here, not just music) experiences. Depending on our level of education, approach to the text, which side of the bed we got up on, etc - we may take away different things from any given text. 

Now - any given author may certainly intend to provoke certain reactions from a given work, and in some cases, we may even be able to reasonably demonstrate this by formal analysis. I don't think, however, this is true in all cases, nor is it the case that anything we take from the text was an explicitly intended result of the Creator's Will, nor can we sometimes even know what the Creator's Will actually was. 

Historical events, nature, colors - these are things with no inherent meaning that humans like to ascribe meaning to. Art _may_ have an intended meaning but humans often ascribe meaning to it which is different, or beyond that which was intended, and we frequently don't know what the intended meaning actually was. I think the two phenomena are more similar than they are different.


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> So your ability to tell music ‘done well’ is based on being an educated layman and listener for ‘about 75’ years. Sounds like you are giving someone with experience an edge over someone without similar experience. Sounds like many people with experience declaring Beethoven to be a great composer is more profound than the result of simple polling of people with indeterminate experience. And sounds like someone with long experience has the ability to apply objectivity to various parameters that determine music ‘well done’.


I does sound a bit like that, but just wait for the next sidestep, pretending that he doesn't mean what his language plainly implies.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> So your ability to tell music ‘done well’ is based on being an educated layman and listener for ‘about 75’ years. Sounds like you are giving someone with experience an edge over someone without similar experience. Sounds like many people with experience declaring Beethoven to be a great composer is more profound than the result of simple polling of people with indeterminate experience. And sounds like someone with long experience has the ability to apply objectivity to various parameters that determine music ‘well done’.


You have a gift for misreading my posts.. I merely pointed out that I have been an attentive and happy auditor of CM for decades and do not require the tutelage or the approbation of others to validate my tastes. Your repeated "Sounds Like" sounds to me like someone on a fishing expedition. I am not responsible for what you think something I posted "sounds like".


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> So your ability to tell music ‘done well’ is based on being an educated layman and listener for ‘about 75’ years. Sounds like you are giving someone with experience an edge over someone without similar experience. Sounds like many people with experience declaring Beethoven to be a great composer is more profound than the result of simple polling of people with indeterminate experience. And sounds like someone with long experience has the ability to apply objectivity to various parameters that determine music ‘well done’.


As I recall, when a poll of professional composers voted Debussy as a top-ten composer you called it "historical revisionism".

I'm not saying this to be mean, more that we can pick and choose which experts we believe.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> I does sound a bit like that, but just wait for the next sidestep, pretending that he doesn't mean what his language plainly implies.


My posts imply exactly what they say. I think you read them; it's the understanding that some find difficult as my views shatter "profoundly" what years of grooved thinking have ingrained. Sorry (not sorry) but That's the Way it Is.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Eva Yojimbo: *"If everyone is on the same page that all value judgments are personal opinions then using the "garbage/great" language would be fine because the "to me" or "in my opinion" qualifiers would be implicitly understood by everyone, including the person making the statement; but not everyone is on that same page here or elsewhere."


There is also common courtesy and good manners. I try not to poke a stick in my neighbor's eye,


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> As I recall, when a poll of professional composers voted Debussy as a top-ten composer you called it "historical revisionism".
> 
> I'm not saying this to be mean, more that we can pick and choose which experts we believe.


You might want to revisit that poll and the flaws that went with it. They were contemporary composers and did not respond as one would expect from objective experts. I’m surprised you would even bring it up.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> You might want to revisit that poll and the flaws that went with it. They were contemporary composers and did not respond as one would expect from objective experts. I’m surprised you would even bring it up.


As I said, we can pick and choose which experts to believe, and when. Frequently depending on whether or not we personally agree with them or not.

Anyway, Alex Ross, who is about as educated on music as anyone - 



> Debussy accomplished something that happens very rarely, and not in every lifetime: he brought a new kind of beauty into the world. In 1894, when “Faun” was first performed, its language was startling but not shocking: it caused no scandal, and was accepted by the public almost at once. Debussy engineered a velvet revolution, overturning the extant order without upheaval. His influence proved to be vast, not only for successive waves of twentieth-century modernists but also in jazz, in popular song, and in Hollywood. When both the severe Boulez and the suave Duke Ellington cite you as a precursor, you have done something singular.


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> There is a difference but I don't think it's quite as fundamental, or even as large as you make it out to be.


I would say that products of the human mind which wouldn't exist but for man's need to give meaning to his existence by concretizing and making permanent things he otherwise experiences as abstract and transient is fundamentally unlike products of nonhuman nature to which man may attach significance and value.



> [Art is a text that a reader (I'm speaking generally for all media here, not just music) experiences. Depending on our level of education, approach to the text, which side of the bed we got up on, etc - we may take away different things from any given text.


Of course. But are you suggesting that any and all interpretations are compatible with the contents of the artwork? That some of the things people "take away" are not more perceptive responses to the work than others? If I got up on the wrong side of the bed today, I need to listen to that music again tomorrow. I might gain a better idea of what's actually in it.



> Now - any given author may certainly intend to provoke certain reactions from a given work, and in some cases, we may even be able to reasonably demonstrate this by formal analysis. I don't think, however, this is true in all cases, nor is it the case that anything we take from the text was an explicitly intended result of the Creator's Will, nor can we sometimes even know what the Creator's Will actually was.


I don't think we need to try too hard, in most cases, to look for meaning _behind _the work. Great art impresses us with a distinctive vision which justifies itself and doesn't need - though it may provoke - speculation on what the artist intended. If we're alive to what's actually there, we're less likely to concoct strange interpretations greatly at variance with, or at least incompatible with, the author's intent. But artists know, and need to accept, that people will find things in their work which they themselves never thought of. When i was exhibiting work and this happened to me, i was quite pleased that my subconscious had been fertile and had done what it should do in the act of creation.



> Historical events, nature, colors - these are things with no inherent meaning that humans like to ascribe meaning to. Art _may_ have an intended meaning but humans often ascribe meaning to it which is different, or beyond that which was intended, and we frequently don't know what the intended meaning actually was. I think the two phenomena are more similar than they are different.


Meanings ascribed by humans to things don't make them similar. If that were the case, everything would be similar. Understanding is better served by defining differences and keeping them in mind as we note similarities. In this case, I don't think degrees of similarity are critical.


----------



## Strange Magic

EdwardBast said:


> That explains so much! Sorry. You have a grievously misguided view of reality and the role of science in explaining it.
> 
> No, to deny this is merely to recognize the existence of the humanities and the arts. This is something virtually everyone understands. How did you miss this?


I repeat: You must be pulling my leg. Is there anyone who denies the existence of the humanities and the arts? I have yet to find one on TC. And your rhetoric about my misguided view of reality (of all things) and science (which my whole education was principally about) is tedious. There is a developing pattern in the remarks of my chief critics, and it smells of desperation and certainly ill-contained rancor. Very telling. And what about "inexorable logic:?


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> I does sound a bit like that, but just wait for the next sidestep, pretending that he doesn't mean what his language plainly implies.


Is "sidestep" the new thing?


----------



## fbjim

Strange Magic said:


> Is "sidestep" the new thing?


No, you're thinking of dubstep.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> You have a gift for misreading my posts.. I merely pointed out that I have been an attentive and happy auditor of CM for decades and do not require the tutelage or the approbation of others to validate my tastes. Your repeated "Sounds Like" sounds to me like someone on a fishing expedition. I am not responsible for what you think something I posted "sounds like".


You are responsible for what you post. You made a direct, unequivocal statement that you know music ‘done well’ based on long experience. My guess is that anybody reading that would assume from it that long experience implies an opinion with substance over and above an opinion without that experience. It is also assumed that someone crediting long experience for the ability to discern quality is applying some educated objective information.


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> Of course. But are you suggesting that any and all interpretations are compatible with the contents of the artwork? That some of the things people "take away" are not more perceptive responses to the work than others? If I got up on the wrong side of the bed today, I need to listen to that music again tomorrow. I might gain a better idea of what's actually in it.


No - readings of art should be justifiable by the text. When an interpretation of art is not compatible with the text, we tend to reject it. Now this might depend on your view of art, but the (post)modern trend has been to look dimly on readings that rely excessively on biographical detail, historical detail, or attributed statements by the author. I don't think this means we can't take these into account, but there's a reason someone saying like, "The Hammerklavier Fugue represents Beethoven's struggle with his own deafness" is more the kind of exegetic criticism people would write in the 19th century, rather than today. 




Woodduck said:


> I don't think we need to try too hard, in most cases, to look for meaning _behind _the work. Great art impresses us with a distinctive vision which justifies itself and doesn't need - though it may provoke - speculation on what the artist intended. If we're alive to what's actually there, we're less likely to concoct strange interpretations greatly at variance with, or at least incompatible with, the author's intent. But artists know, and need to accept, that people will find things in their work which they themselves never thought of. When i was exhibiting work and this happened to me, i was quite pleased that my subconscious had been fertile and had done what it should do in the act of creation.


See- I don't know if this is just a fundamental difference on how we see art, but ambiguity has always been one of the things I love about art, rather than explicit clarity. Not that there's anything wrong with clarity, but I love art that you can look at fifty different times and come away with something new every time. In fact I think this sort of thing - the idea that we can keep returning to the well and taking away something new - is what people frequently mean when they talk about "depth". 

also slightly besides the point but I don't think the author's intent actually matters here. Otherwise we need to reckon with the swaths of art where the author's intent can't be fully known. Now- we can always use formal analysis, but I don't think the actual goal of this is to "discern what the author's intent was" (in fact, I think artistic formalism explicitly rejects doing this), so much as discerning the contents of the text, and how it is communicated to the reader.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> As I said, we can pick and choose which experts to believe, and when. Frequently depending on whether or not we personally agree with them or not.
> 
> Anyway, Alex Ross, who is about as educated on music as anyone -


Hang your credibility on whatever so-called experts (and the polls they take part in) you want.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

One problem in this thread (and elsewhere) is that some don't (can't?) grasp the notion of different frames of reference. @fbjim mentioned this earlier, but the subjective/objective distinction is basically one about different frames of reference. The "objective" frame of reference (which none of us truly have access to fully; though we can approximate it to some extent) is basically a God's-eye view without the biases, prejudices, concerns, values, etc. of human subjectivity. The subjective frame of reference is, obviously, the opposite of that; it's the one that does consider human perspectives, values, etc. From an objective point of view we say that money has no value, it's just pieces of green paper with certain weight, dimension, designs, etc; from the perspective of humans (all humans) money has the value everyone agrees it has. If 50% of the population stopped valuing certain money, then to the frame of reference of that 50% of the population that money would be worthless, while to the other 50% it wouldn't be. Asking what the "objective" value of money is makes no sense as it as only has value to people who agree that it has value. 

The problem is that people slip between these frames of references implicitly without even recognizing it. When @Strange Magic says "As an educated layman and listener to CM for about 75 years, I have a naive faith in my ability to tell music "done well" from music not well done." he's talking about his own frame of reference; but when @DaveM responds with: "So your ability to tell music ‘done well’ is based on being an educated layman and listener for ‘about 75’ years. Sounds like you are giving someone with experience an edge over someone without similar experience. Sounds like many people with experience declaring Beethoven to be a great composer is more profound than the result of simple polling of people with indeterminate experience. And sounds like someone with long experience has the ability to apply objectivity to various parameters that determine music ‘well done’." he has slipped from the subjective frame of reference to trying to argue that one can turn SM's subjective frame of reference into an objective one. Well, no, SM didn't say nor imply that. The frame of reference of "experienced listeners" is just another frame of reference, one we may value or not from our own frame of reference. You value such experience? Good for you. This doesn't make it objective; it may make it many things, including more knowledgeable about many facts as it pertains to the objective features of music, but it does not make it more objective. You still haven't eliminated the values, biases, prejudices, etc. of the human mind; you've just chosen to value a certain subjectivity with certain values, biases, prejudices.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> Hang your credibility on whatever so-called experts (and the polls they take part in) you want.


So when does education, expertise and the like matter? The more qualifications and exceptions one provides as to which population of experts we should listen to, and which ones shouldn't be listened to, the more it seems like appeals to expertise and education just seem like ways to dress up personal tastes in the guise of objectivism.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> When @Strange Magic says "As an educated layman and listener to CM for about 75 years, I have a naive faith in my ability to tell music "done well" from music not well done." he's talking about his own frame of reference;


Well, so you say, but the reality is that you are qualifying something (his own frame of reference) not stated. What was stated, no matter how you spin it, was that long experience confers the ability to judge music well done versus music not well done.


----------



## fbjim

I've mentioned the metaphor with money before, and it's useful because there are frequently protests that to say that we view art subjectively is to reject that it is meaningful at all. The fact that money is a subjective social construct based on a shared cognition of its value does not mean that money is meaningless. In fact, it has enormous impact on our lives. We can even measure it! The metaphor is that the impact ajd meaning of art comes from human beings. Not that it is "fake", and that once we say art is subjective we live in a world of total anarchy, it will rain frogs, and cats and dogs will play together.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> ..The fact that money is a subjective social construct based on a shared cognition of its value does not mean that money is meaningless..


Did you come up with that on your own because it makes no sense. A shared cognition of value implies more than a subjective social construct.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> You are responsible for what you post. You made a direct, unequivocal statement that you know music ‘done well’ based on long experience. My guess is that anybody reading that would assume from it that long experience implies an opinion with substance over and above an opinion without that experience. It is also assumed that someone crediting long experience for the ability to discern quality is applying some educated objective information.


We'll both be happier if you stick to what I post and not guess anything or assume anything beyond what I post. I will adhere like a limpet to my assertion that I have sufficient experience listening to music and otherwise enjoying art so that i need not "defend" my tastes nor plead their case nor call upon outside authority or consensus groupings to judge whether something is well- or ill-done. What is CM for? Is it a cult thing? Does one pass (or fail) tests? Listen to some music that pleases you (I just finished hearing/seeing Brahms' 4th on YouTube).


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> Did you come up with that on your own because it makes no sense. A shared cognition of value implies more than a subjective social construct.


I am not an economist, so someone who is can chime in if I'm talking crap, but the question of where precisely the value of currency is derived from has been the subject of a lot of writing over the years. I think it's sufficient to simply say that money is valuable because a sufficient number of people believe it is valuable, and have faith that others will agree on its value.


----------



## Strange Magic

fbjim said:


> I am not an economist, so someone who is can chime in if I'm talking crap, but the question of where precisely the value of currency is derived from has been the subject of a lot of writing over the years. I think it's sufficient to simply say that money is valuable because a sufficient number of people believe it is valuable, and have faith that others will agree on its value.


The ultimate fate of cryptocurrency will be an interesting test. Can I interest anyone in my Bitcoin collection?


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> I think it's sufficient to simply say that money is valuable because a sufficient number of people believe it is valuable, and have faith that others will agree on its value.


I think you’re confusing money guaranteed by the full faith and credit of The United States with Bitcoin.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> ...so that i need not "defend" my tastes nor plead their case..


My we are getting sensitive. Who said anything about your tastes?


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

fbjim said:


> No, you're thinking of dubstep.


You're a few years off the mark. Trap music has taken dubstep's throne


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> See- I don't know if this is just a fundamental difference on how we see art, but ambiguity has always been one of the things I love about art, rather than explicit clarity. Not that there's anything wrong with clarity, but I love art that you can look at fifty different times and come away with something new every time. In fact I think this sort of thing - the idea that we can keep returning to the well and taking away something new - is what people frequently mean when they talk about "depth".'


I'm finding that we tend to agree while you think we're disagreeing. I can't explain it, but I can't but notice it. I think you have an idea about my views in your head and you're filtering what I say through it. I'm largely sympathetic to the statement, "I love art that you can look at fifty different times and come away with something new every time." There's no virtue in obviousness. I agree that "the idea that we can keep returning to the well and taking away something new is what people frequently mean when they talk about 'depth'." The ability to handle ambiguity and complexity of meaning convincingly is one of the things that tends to separate the men from the boys among artists.



> also slightly besides the point but I don't think the author's intent actually matters here. Otherwise we need to reckon with the swaths of art where the author's intent can't be fully known. Now- we can always use formal analysis, but I don't think the actual goal of this is to "discern what the author's intent was" (in fact, I think artistic formalism explicitly rejects doing this), so much as discerning the contents of the text, and how it is communicated to the reader.


An artist's intent matters only insofar as it's actually evident in the finished work. We can assume that Beethoven intended the first movement of his fifth symphony to be as terse as he could make it and still tell his "story" - create a complete dramatic action (taking sonata form as a kind of dramatic narrative). We can assume it because he succeeded brilliantly, and because such things don't happen accidentally. The sense of purpose - the sense that the artist is in control and is directing his material toward a striking and memorable end - is another mark of excellence in art.


----------



## Forster

Much as I like Beethoven's 5th, I sometimes 'sense' that I'm being beaten about the head with a rolled up newspaper. Was that part of his purpose? He succeeds brilliantly if it was, and if it wasn't, is that a failure on his part?


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> When @Strange Magic says "As an educated layman and listener to CM for about 75 years, I have a naive faith in my ability to tell music "done well" from music not well done." he's talking about his own frame of reference; but when @DaveM responds with: "So your ability to tell music ‘done well’ is based on being an educated layman and listener for ‘about 75’ years. Sounds like you are giving someone with experience an edge over someone without similar experience. Sounds like many people with experience declaring Beethoven to be a great composer is more profound than the result of simple polling of people with indeterminate experience. And sounds like someone with long experience has the ability to apply objectivity to various parameters that determine music ‘well done’." he has slipped from the subjective frame of reference to trying to argue that one can turn SM's subjective frame of reference into an objective one. Well, no, SM didn't say nor imply that. The frame of reference of "experienced listeners" is just another frame of reference, one we may value or not from our own frame of reference. You value such experience? Good for you. This doesn't make it objective; it may make it many things, including more knowledgeable about many facts as it pertains to the objective features of music, but it does not make it more objective. You still haven't eliminated the values, biases, prejudices, etc. of the human mind; you've just chosen to value a certain subjectivity with certain values, biases, prejudices.


DaveM was merely assuming that SM's words meant what they normally mean. If I say that "as an educated layman and listener to CM for about 75 years, I have a naive faith in my ability to tell music 'done well' from music not well done," I'm ordinarily saying that age and experience have enhanced my ability to tell good music from less good. If SM's quotes around "done well" and his use of the word "naive" are the clues that he intended to subvert the normal meaning of his statement, they do an ambiguous job of it, and DaveM was completely justified in not getting the sarcasm, if that's what it was. His comments were merely extrapolations from the apparent meaning of SM's statement. I understand your subjective desire to defend a fellow subjectivist, but in this case you're defending the wrong person.

As it happens, I too have had to question SM about a statement that gave exactly the same mistaken impression as the one above, if taken as worded. In discussions of this nature, we surely need to be preternaturally careful of how we say things, given that much of what we must say about art is difficult - in some cases maybe impossible - to put into words.


----------



## Woodduck

Forster said:


> Much as I like Beethovens 5th, I sometimes 'sense' that I'm being beaten about the head with a rolled up newspaper. Was that part of his purpose? He succeeds brilliantly if it was, and if it wasn't, is that a failure on his part?


I'm sorry to hear that you know what it feels like to be beaten with a rolled up newspaper. No one should have to endure such an indignity.

When it comes to Beethoven, I recommend for you the slow movement of the Archduke Trio. It can only make the bruises heal faster.


----------



## Forster

Woodduck said:


> I'm sorry to hear that you know what it feels like to be beaten with a rolled up newspaper. No one should have to endure such an indignity.
> 
> When it comes to Beethoven, I recommend for you the slow movement of the Archduke Trio. It can only make the bruises heal faster.


I somehow thought I might get a flippant response to what was a post with a serious point to make, if done with a little humour (seriously lacking in these pages).

I note you sidestepped my last post where I suggested that since no one here has presented the universally agreed criteria for what is 'good', it's doubtful that 'good' can be universally agreed upon.

Still, that's hardly surprising. Several pages of posts about politeness on Internet forums intervened, and who can be bothered to track back?

Think I'll go and get some more newspaper treatment.

Coming Ludwig!


----------



## Woodduck

Forster said:


> I somehow thought I might get a flippant response to what was a post with a serious point to make, if done with a little humour (seriously lacking in these pages).
> 
> I note you sidestepped my last post where I suggested that since no one here has presented the universally agreed criteria for what is 'good', it's doubtful that 'good' can be universally agreed upon.
> 
> Still, that's hardly surprising. Several pages of posts about politeness on Internet forums intervened, and who can be bothered to track back?
> 
> Think I'll go and get some more newspaper treatment.
> 
> Coming Ludwig!


Now, now! I thought you were trying to be funny. Trying or not, you made me laugh with the rolled up newspaper bit.

If you'd like a serious response, it can be arranged, but it's late at night here and I'm done with this heavy-duty stuff for the night.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> My we are getting sensitive. Who said anything about your tastes?


I did. Please attend.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Woodduck: "*The sense of purpose - the sense that the artist is in control and is directing his material toward a striking and memorable end - is another mark of excellence in art."


Ex post facto reasoning at its peak. In looking back over the music I love, I find--amazingly--that the artist was under control and directing her material toward a striking and memorable end.

Using a Woodduckian methodology, let's wonder why we felt we had to use striking and memorable together. Doesn't the one strongly imply the other? Let's pick apart everybody's language. And resurrect the idea of asking 16 questions of everyone's posts. We've explored purple prose and righteous anger.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> DaveM was merely assuming that SM's words meant what they normally mean. If I say that "as an educated layman and listener to CM for about 75 years, I have a naive faith in my ability to tell music 'done well' from music not well done," I'm ordinarily saying that age and experience have enhanced my ability to tell good music from less good. If SM's quotes around "done well" and his use of the word "naive" are the clues that he intended to subvert the normal meaning of his statement, they do an ambiguous job of it, and DaveM was completely justified in not getting the sarcasm, if that's what it was. His comments were merely extrapolations from the apparent meaning of SM's statement. I understand your subjective desire to defend a fellow subjectivist, but in this case you're defending the wrong person.
> 
> As it happens, I too have had to question SM about a statement that gave exactly the same mistaken impression as the one above, if taken as worded. In discussions of this nature, we surely need to be preternaturally careful of how we say things, given that much of what we must say about art is difficult - in some cases maybe impossible - to put into words.


The psychiatrist's couch awaits. I note that Woodduck himself has misconstrued the remarks of others. For that a good whacking with a rolled-up newspaper is in order. And why is naive now in quotes? I am naive in the sense that as an educated lay listener to CM for 75 years, I yet have no music PhD nor a history of musical criticism. I just listen to the music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Forster said:


> Much as I like Beethoven's 5th, I sometimes 'sense' that I'm being beaten about the head with a rolled up newspaper. Was that part of his purpose? He succeeds brilliantly if it was, and if it wasn't, is that a failure on his part?


You remind me of tdc's subjective views on Beethoven



KenOC said:


>





tdc said:


> Actually the cartoon in Ken's post illustrates something about Beethoven, it always seems as though he is in a musical sense throwing tantrums, shouting, and over stating things. Its like art for people who need to be beaten over the head with the message.
> I also agree with the verbose comment earlier in the thread. Beethoven's musical phrases seem very "wordy", like someone who rants and rants, and just when you think they are getting to the point they explode about another topic. It grates me.
> When Beethoven is being solemn and slow it is a grandiose and over the top way. Everything is always too much with him. Mahler and Bruckner may be longer time wise, but they aren't so 'chatty' like that. I agree with Chopin's comments on him, I think Beethoven turned his back on eternal principles, this is why I see him as actually a little bit outside of what I love about classical music. Beethoven is his own thing, and for me it is not related to what I enjoy about music. If his music never existed it wouldn't bother me.





tdc said:


> Beethoven's sense of vertical harmony leaves me underwhelmed, so his longer musical paragraphs, although groundbreaking in form, don't help in redeeming his music for me. They actually make it worse.
> For me it is like listening to someone who is chatty but doesn't have anything that meaningful to say. Or someone that is telling me a boring story, but they try to spice it up by being over dramatic.
> I acknowledge his greatness, virtuosity and genius in form but that is how his music subjectively impacts me.


----------



## Forster

hammeredklavier said:


> You remind me of tdc's subjective views on Beethoven


Well I didn't think I'd be in a minority of one. It's partly LvB's forceful style that makes him attractive, musically speaking of course.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> I find him a useful companion when I'm in the mood for skittles, but the scatology is wearing after a while.


Guy A: "With his mastery over Italian melody and German harmony, Mozart rose above both nations, just as Rossini said."
Guy B: "which makes him a useful companion when I'm in the mood for skittles."
Guy A: "Skittles?! Surely, his music has more nutrition than that! "The purity of his soul was absolute", just as Tchaikovsky said."
Guy B: "Isn't it more like, the scatology was absolute."
Guy A: ""The boy is moreover handsome, vivacious, graceful and full of good manners; and knowing him, it is difficult to avoid loving him." -Adolf Hasse, on the young Mozart."
Guy B: "Just like his music, which is full of unabashed politeness and inoffensiveness."
Guy A: "..." (* shocked *)
Guy B: "What's the matter? I like his music."


----------



## fbjim

Forster said:


> Well I didn't think I'd be in a minority of one. It's partly LvB's forceful style that makes him attractive, musically speaking of course.


What you describe in 5th/1 is either "being smacked with a newspaper" or "relentlessness" depending on which side of the bed you got up on. I don't think it's an _inaccurate_ way to describe what's happening, but it's a case where when you're objecting to the actual thing the music is trying to do, you're going to have a hard time trying to like it.


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> An artist's intent matters only insofar as it's actually evident in the finished work. We can assume that Beethoven intended the first movement of his fifth symphony to be as terse as he could make it and still tell his "story" - create a complete dramatic action (taking sonata form as a kind of dramatic narrative). We can assume it because he succeeded brilliantly, and because such things don't happen accidentally. The sense of purpose - the sense that the artist is in control and is directing his material toward a striking and memorable end - is another mark of excellence in art.


I don't know if this is even relevant, but a lot of the time I talk of art as an autonomous object. I say things like "what the music is trying to do", "what this symphony is saying", etc. This is either totally irrelevant or maybe a difference in how much we concentrate on artists. 

I think this just struck me as strange as it's just kind of a weird way to describe how the concept of artistic intent is usually used. We certainly can define it as the contents of the work itself but this just seems like bypassing the so-called intentional fallacy by defining the artist's intent as the contents of the art. I don't know if this is strictly wrong (someone who actually knows about art philosophy as more than a layman can chime in) but it seems a bit like trying to have it two ways at once.


----------



## fbjim

Once again, I'm not an art philosopher so I may be talking crap here.

I think the simplified romantic view of art is something like -

Artist -> Work -> (Audience)

An artist creates a work according to their will and imbues it with genius, which is then appreciated by a receptive audience. An _extreme_ version of this would state that the audience isn't actually necessary - the work is genius regardless of whether or not an audience exists or not. I think this is why the likes of Taruskin called the modernists hyper-romantics - the artist raised to such an individualist hero-figure that we need not care about the audience at all, cue Milton Babbitt.


After modernism, in the 20th century I think the more accepted view became something like this -

(Artist) -> Work <--> Audience

I might have said before that genius, profundity, etc are things humans ascribe to art but that's not complete, and does make it sound a bit arbitrary. To moderate it, it might be more precisely stated that it's a result of an interaction between the work and the audience. We respond to things in the art, but also, in the act of interacting with it (both individually, and as a population) can imbue it with meaning and context in a manner beyond the artist's control. Once again, an extreme view of this might state that the artist themselves is not necessary for this process, which explains the likes of John Cage (and why he makes so much sense and had such impact as a reaction to the modernists).


----------



## SanAntone

A few thoughts after reading through the lat few pages of posts:

1. Artists definitely have intent in their work. While they may not be consciously aware or involved in every nuance later audiences find in a work, I think they are certainly capable of using the materials in a work to communicate ideas and themes.

2. When the work is completed and enters the public realm, find an audience, it has a life of its own, divorced from the artist's intentions, except only what is obvious superficially. Without an accompanying essay explaining the work, the artist's intention can only be guessed at, or discovered through analysis - although it remains speculative. This is a dicey game, allowing opportunistic critics to find their own philosophy within just about any work. (Remember the essay by G.F. Haas regarding the Erlking?)

3. Does it ultimately matter if we know the artist's intention? Are we able to get something out of a work by perceiving our own meaning in it? The answer for me is most definitely.


----------



## fbjim

Speaking of bad criticism, this was one I remembered about Beethoven 7 - apparently a lot of critics decided it was an allegory for the French Revolution.



> The sign of revolt is given; there is a rushing and running about of the multitude; an innocent man, or party, is surrounded, overpowered after a struggle and haled before a legal tribunal. Innocency weeps; the judge pronounces a harsh sentence; sympathetic voices mingle in laments and denunciations. … The magistrates are now scarcely able to quiet the wild tumult. The uprising is suppressed, but the people are not quieted; hope smiles cheeringly and suddenly the voice of the people pronounces the decision in harmonious agreement.
Click to expand...

This kind of art criticism strikes us now as excessively extra-textual, and a big reach that- while vaguely justifiable by the form of the work, isn't a very productive way to view the music, but so does a lot of 19th century art criticism. This kind of thing apparently ticked even Beethoven himself off. I wonder how bad our criticism will look in 100 years?


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> Well Mozart or Beethoven didn’t write this either, so your point escapes me:


So who before Haydn utilized chromaticism in such a dramatic way? Please enlighten me.
Bach didn't have the sense for operatic drama. Handel and Gluck didn't have the sense for chromatic harmony. The sole reason why Haydn isn't called a "father" (to his junior colleague Mozart, his pupil Weber, his admirer Schubert, and from them, the subsequent composers) is because we weren't taught in school that he was. The dogma of the "establishment" dictated that, just like what I described in posts #442, #454. Why didn't Mozart flat out say, "Bach is the Best!". He saw things in Benda that Bach lacked.


hammeredklavier said:


> If an 18th century composer writes a diminished 7th chord over a pedal tone; let's say in the key of C, he initially sets up a tonic pedal, and then slams vii°7/iv, making up the sonority [C, E, G, Bb, Db]; could this be considered a 9th chord? [@] watch?v=Dzmj8lRLHh0&t=11m41s (bars 217~220; "i - vii°4/2 - V7/iv - iv - vii°4/3 - V7 - i"; makes up vertical sonorities containing [B, D, F, Ab, C]).


similarly, the harmonies in bar 226 (34:26) watch?v=Dzmj8lRLHh0&t=34m11s


hammeredklavier said:


> The way to reach the dominant from i64, with the chromatic ascent C -> C# -> D, with the major second [ G, A ] on the top (D -> C -> C# -> D | G -> F# | Bb -> A) Dzmj8lRLHh0&t=16m50s sounds so eerie











Quam olim Abrahae: watch?v=Dzmj8lRLHh0&t=16m6s


----------



## fbjim

Speaking of funny metaphors about Beethoven and slapstick violence, I once heard the bit in the finale of the 8th where the timpani "kick" the music back into the correct key described as like someone smacking a television to get it to display the picture properly.

(ok that was me that said that)


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> Remember the essay by G.F. Haas regarding the Erlking?











Georg Friedrich Haas argues Schubert's Erlkönig...


https://van-magazine.com/mag/schubert-erlkonig/




www.talkclassical.com


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

In case anyone wants to read the Haas article in the above post, the old link doesn't seem to work. A google search brings up a new link: Strange Dissonance


----------



## EdwardBast

Strange Magic said:


> I repeat: You must be pulling my leg. Is there anyone who denies the existence of the humanities and the arts? I have yet to find one on TC. And your rhetoric about my misguided view of reality (of all things) and science (which my whole education was principally about) is tedious. There is a developing pattern in the remarks of my chief critics, and it smells of desperation and certainly ill-contained rancor. Very telling. And what about "inexorable logic:?


Did you really misunderstand this simple point: Scientific methodology is pretty much useless in addressing any important question in philosophy, aesthetics, art criticism. literature, etc. Believing that science offers answers in these fields is just … weird — far too weird to get upset, desperate, or rancorous about. One has to be able to take an idea or point of view seriously or as in some way connected to a reality one recognizes to feel any of those things. Despite my vague curiosity about what you are trying to accomplish in this and other threads, I think I will bow out and leave you to … whatever that might be.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Much as I like Beethoven's 5th, I sometimes 'sense' that I'm being beaten about the head with a rolled up newspaper. Was that part of his purpose? He succeeds brilliantly if it was, and if it wasn't, is that a failure on his part?


Yes, I can agree at times about LvB. He surely wanted his works to be impactful. 
From what's been written, he was driven, he was put upon by the realities of the screwy culture, he was struggling to make a name and to get out the music that he knew was in him. The monumental task of getting it down on paper permanently (I mean to thank Woodduck for that phrase) revising and correcting the copy. 

Abuse as a kid, head of the household, the unfairness, the patronage system, the general ignorance as he saw it.

He went overboard occasionally, especially for that time. But not mistakes for our time, IMO.


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> I don't know if this is even relevant, but *a lot of the time I talk of art as an autonomous object.* I say things like *"what the music is trying to do"*, "what this symphony is saying", etc. This is either totally irrelevant or maybe a difference in how much we concentrate on artists.
> 
> I think this just struck me as strange as it's just kind of a weird way to describe *how the concept of artistic intent is usually used.* We certainly can define it as the contents of the work itself but this just seems like bypassing the so-called intentional fallacy by defining the artist's intent as the contents of the art. I don't know if this is strictly wrong (someone who actually knows about art philosophy as more than a layman can chime in) but *it seems a bit like trying to have it two ways at once.*


I really appreciate these observations. Speaking of tthe artist's intent as it's embodied in the work really isn't a sleight of hand or a case of having it both ways. Works of art, as they progress under the artist's hand, do become more and more "autonomous." They increasingly take on a life of their own and dictate to the artist what choices are possible or preferable. The further along a work progresses, the more definite its character becomes, and the more specific and well-defined the options for continuation. Some possibilities will open up, while others will be eliminated. Novelists say that as they develop a story their characters begin to dictate to them, and something analogous happens in developing the structure of even the most abstract arts such as music. I observe it happen as I improvise at the piano, when what I've already done both generates ideas for what comes later and restricts my reasonable choices. If I make a choice that injects an element of surprise and doesn't seem "logical" at first, I look for a way to continue from there that makes the surprise feel right in retrospect and so gives the work a coherent character when taken as a whole. The creative process consists of constantly weighing one thing against another, looking both back at what's already been done and forward to what might come, with the intention of creating a definite conception that will impress the listener, viewer or reader as making sense.

Given the evolution of an art work in its creation, the "artist's intent" is seen not to be a static thing. Works often turn out to be quite different from what the artist imagined or planned at the start. The work increasingly dictates its own progress; the work becomes the master, and the artist its servant. This can make our search for the "artist's intent" a rather speculaive venture, and in some cases entirely unproductive. What we have is the evidence of the work itself, and the question, always somewhere in our subconscious as we listen, of whether what we're hearing at the moment makes sense and suggests a meaningful intention on the artist's part, regardless of whether tthat intention was the one the artist initially set out to realize. A listener to a piece of music is exercising, at the receiving end of an artistic transaction, the same faculty of aesthetic perception that the artist exercised at the creating end (though of course his job is much easier!), and he, like the artist, will judge whether, in the end, the work succeeds in doing "what it's trying to do."

So what was Beethoven's "intent" when he began work on his Fifth? Who knows? But he's an interesting case in that we have many discarded sketches showing some of the ideas he considered and rejected in the course of composition. Leonard Bernstein gave an interesting talk on the first movement of the Fifth in which he speculated on how Beethoven might have used some of the sketches; he inserted them in parts of the movement where they might fit and had the NY Philharmonic play the result, and then discussed how they compared with Beethoven's final choices. The lecture turned on some light bulbs for me when I first heard it as a young artist, helping me to understand what it was I was doing as both a maker and a receiver of art.

I'm not sure how well this addresses your points, but it's where my mind went in reaction to them.


----------



## Strange Magic

EdwardBast said:


> Did you really misunderstand this simple point: Scientific methodology is pretty much useless in addressing any important question in philosophy, aesthetics, art criticism. literature, etc. Believing that science offers answers in these fields is just … weird — far too weird to get upset, desperate, or rancorous about. One has to be able to take an idea or point of view seriously or as in some way connected to a reality one recognizes to feel any of those things. Despite my vague curiosity about what you are trying to accomplish in this and other threads, I think I will bow out and leave you to … whatever that might be.


I think that everything is material or the space between material objects or the forces (usually particles) that interact with other particles. We have no evidence to the contrary. We also agree that the brain is the source and seat of all thought such as philosophy, esthetics, art criticism, literature, etc. and that the brain exists (sometimes questionable). Science therefore can sweep all of the above into its net for examination. To deny this is to resort to/retreat into mysticism, the R word, cultism, Deepack Chopra territory, woo-woo land, anywhere to escape the long reach of scientific inquiry. Won't work.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> The psychiatrist's couch awaits. I note that Woodduck himself has misconstrued the remarks of others. For that a good whacking with a rolled-up newspaper is in order. And why is naive now in quotes? I am naive in the sense that as an educated lay listener to CM for 75 years, I yet have no music PhD nor a history of musical criticism. I just listen to the music.


I don’t know why you would backtrack, as quickly as a politician after January 6 , the premise that 75 years of listening to CM confers an ability to recognize music ‘done well’. Or why you minimize the experience above. Personally, I think that experience gives one an edge in credibility on the subject over those with only a few years of experience. Would that those 75 years had enlightened you more on the subject of objectivity, though the fact that you accept some objectivity as applied to judgments within the CP era is a step in the right direction.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> A few thoughts after reading through the lat few pages of posts:
> 
> 1. Artists definitely have intent in their work. While they may not be consciously aware or involved in every nuance later audiences find in a work, I think they are certainly capable of using the materials in a work to communicate ideas and themes.
> 
> 2. When the work is completed and enters the public realm, find an audience, it has a life of its own, divorced from the artist's intentions, except only what is obvious superficially. Without an accompanying essay explaining the work, the artist's intention can only be guessed at, or discovered through analysis - although it remains speculative. This is a dicey game, allowing opportunistic critics to find their own philosophy within just about any work. (Remember the essay by G.F. Haas regarding the Erlking?)
> 
> 3. Does it ultimately matter if we know the artist's intention? Are we able to get something out of a work by perceiving our own meaning in it? The answer for me is most definitely.


Yes. I have great respect for the best art historians, and there have been some very good ones. But as centuries pass, however diligently we may study our cultural history, the artist and their particular time, circumstances and context unavoidably become more remote and alien to us. In the end, for a work of art to survive its own time, it must create a reaction, or interaction as fbjim calls it, with audiences that, if not entirely ignorant of the work's original context, are much less than thoroughly informed.
We can observe this interaction empirically. Some will try to analyze it, but this is always ex post facto analysis. There is no unified theory of art. Of course, a particular artistic method can be developed in great and elaborate detail, and a particular artist can display extraordinary skills in working according to that method, as J.S. Bach did with certain types of counterpoint. But there is no way to demonstrate any inherent artistic superiority of that artist, or their method, to another artist or another method. We only have empirical observations of the interaction of art and audience as a gauge of the significance or profundity of Bach's art.
After spending nearly a lifetime (I hope I have a few years left) listening to, playing and singing the works of J.S. Bach, I am genuinely mystified that anyone would less than entirely satisfied with this view, and persist in viewing art as a puzzle to be solved. There is nothing to prove and everything to love.


----------



## Strange Magic

SanAntone said:


> A few thoughts after reading through the lat few pages of posts:
> 
> 1. Artists definitely have intent in their work. While they may not be consciously aware or involved in every nuance later audiences find in a work, I think they are certainly capable of using the materials in a work to communicate ideas and themes.
> 
> 2. When the work is completed and enters the public realm, find an audience, it has a life of its own, divorced from the artist's intentions, except only what is obvious superficially. Without an accompanying essay explaining the work, the artist's intention can only be guessed at, or discovered through analysis - although it remains speculative. This is a dicey game, allowing opportunistic critics to find their own philosophy within just about any work. (Remember the essay by G.F. Haas regarding the Erlking?)
> 
> *3. Does it ultimately matter if we know the artist's intention? Are we able to get something out of a work by perceiving our own meaning in it? The answer for me is most definitely.*


An excellent post. I agree that as a work becomes further and further removed from our direct knowledge of the artist's intent, the piece develops a life of its own--it becomes a more and more neutral artifact with a metaphorically mirror-like surface in which each individual can read whatever mental image they find looking back at them in the reflective surface. As I have bolded your final paragraph, I certainly agree that we are able to see what we will, "perceiving our own meaning in it". This is in accord with my metaphor of each individual casting a net of hopes, fears, tastes, expectations over the art object and finding what they will "in" the piece as they reel the net in.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> In the end, for a work of art to survive its own time, it must create a reaction, or interaction as fbjim calls it, with audiences that, if not entirely ignorant of the work's original context, are much less than thoroughly informed.


With audiences like the kind tdc describes here?:


tdc said:


> I'm just pointing out that there can be other reasons for artists to become popular, and the mere fact some of his concerts have sold-out _in itself _does not mean there is anything superior about his music.
> I remember speaking with an acquaintance a while back who had recently gone to see a Beethoven Symphony and she did not know the difference between the Beethoven work and the Rachmaninov Piano Concerto that preceded it - she thought they were the same piece. This is the kind of person who is often filling those extra seats. There is nothing wrong with that - I'm just pointing out these kinds of concert sales are clearly not necessarily an indicator of anything inherent in the actual music.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> I don’t know why you would backtrack, as quickly as a politician after January 6 , the premise that 75 years of listening to CM confers an ability to recognize music ‘done well’. Or why you minimize the experience above. Personally, I think that experience gives one an edge in credibility on the subject over those with only a few years of experience. Would that those 75 years had enlightened you more on the subject of objectivity, though the fact that you accept some objectivity as applied to judgments within the CP era is a step in the right direction.


There is, to repeat myself, not a scintilla of evidence that notions about art are anything other than pure opinion and/or the assertions of authorities, and/or clusters of such. Criteria are promulgated (often after the fact, confirming and validating what we find we liked), and accepted by whomever, and, if met by an art object, are set forth as objective confirmation of the excellence of the criteria. This position is independent of anybody's experience, education, music degrees, whatever. In my naivete, this fact was easy to discern. Yet even the musically educated fail to grasp this simple truth.

You are grasping at straws if you equate the objective fact that a consensus agrees that criteria have been met, with some sort of objective excellence in the art object itself. BIG difference.


----------



## fbjim

Music degrees, experience, age, etc - I think these can certainly give authority in certain specialized fields which go beyond general layman's knowledge, such as musicology/music history, music theory, and more scholarly forms of aesthetic theory. But aesthetic evaluation? The context of musical performance is that the music is performed for laymen. There may be some assumptions that the listeners be familiar with certain conventions about classical music, but given that music is performed for a general audience, I think it's entirely fine to evaluate it on that level.

Not to mention that credentials very frequently get called into question if someone with credentials says something that one happens to disagree with. See- the BBC composer poll


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> I think that everything is material or the space between material objects or the forces (usually particles) that interact with other particles. We have no evidence to the contrary. We also agree that the brain is the source and seat of all thought such as philosophy, esthetics, art criticism, literature, etc. and that the brain exists (sometimes questionable). Science therefore can sweep all of the above into its net for examination. To deny this is to resort to/retreat into mysticism, the R word, cultism, Deepack Chopra territory, woo-woo land, anywhere to escape the long reach of scientific inquiry. Won't work.


It isn't a matter of "escaping" scientific inquiry. It's that scientific inquiry doesn't produce omniscience. It's probably comforting to some though to believe that it's at least _possible_ that every aspect of existence can be given a rational, scientific explanation. But I don't believe that's true. There's no evidence that it is true. I don't think even the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that's true.


----------



## SanAntone

In one of the previous threads that focused on the objective/subjective conundrum I put forward the idea of *informed subjectivity*. What I mean by IS is precisely what has been posted in the last few posts, i.e. musicians, composers, scholars and even professional critics, who possess a level of knowledge, training, and experience that informs their subjective response with a large dose of analytical expertise.

In one of my much earlier posts I theorized that the consensus about a work's greatness that has evolved over two-three centuries was made up of this kind of peer group, who handed down an informed assessment of the works and composers of their time who were better than others.

We have inherited this consensus judgment usually called the test of time.

However, no matter how informed a response may be, it is still a subjective response. Just one that includes a healthy amount of expertise, and knowledge, which allows that listener more of an ability to perceive a well-written composition as opposed to one that they simply enjoy.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> the idea of *informed subjectivity*. What I mean by IS is precisely what has been posted in the last few posts, i.e. musicians, composers, scholars and even professional critics, who possess a level of knowledge, training, and experience that informs their subjective response with a large dose of analytical expertise.


I think that also has serious limitations because, for instance:


hammeredklavier said:


> "It's simply impossible to listen to everything, since life is short. People tend to neglect composers neglected by others. "Experts" are no different."
> So even among "experts", there are ones who know his music, and ones who don't.
> "... Phrases tend to be short and contrasting, and the harmonic language is more chromatic and bold. Nevertheless, the high professionalism that is a hallmark of Michael Haydn’s compositions is evident throughout. ..." -*Benjamin Perl* (from the article "Mozartian Touches in Michael Haydn’s Dramatic Works" Mozartian_Touches77-88.pdf#page=5)
> "... It is fair to say that he surpassed by far such colleagues as Anton Cajetan Adlgasser and Leopold Mozart and that his was the only talent that seriously rivalled the genius of young Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. ..." -*Charles H. Sherman* (from the "foreward" from the Carusmedia score of 'Missa Tempore Quadragesimae MH 553 (1794) à 4 Voci in pieno, col’Organo' 50/5032700/5032700x.pdf#page=4)





hammeredklavier said:


> We can't be sure if the "experts" have listened to _everything_. For instance, Donald Tovey said of Beethoven's Missa solemnis: _"There is no earlier choral writing that comes so near to recovering some of the lost secrets of the style of Palestrina." _
> But look at "Missa in Dominica Palmarum" (1794) [...]
> The earliest generation of "experts" neglected X, then the next generation could also, then the pattern continues, until X falls more and more into obscurity. I'm just saying it's not an impossibility.
> What do you mean by "extensive knowledge of music", if a person calls himself an "expert" of C.P.E. Bach keyboard music, for example, but cannot pass tests like [50 Unidentified Excerpts from Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach Keyboard Sonatas]- would you still consider him an "expert" in matters regarding it? What you're suggesting might be _"blind submission to authority." _[...]
> It doesn't matter how many of these people there are, they still won't know. Isn't this _common sense? Y_ou know the Bible even without reading it? A person who has read the Bible 10 times carefully has greater chance of knowing what's inside than a person who only skimmed through it once.


----------



## Luchesi

fbjim said:


> Music degrees, experience, age, etc - I think these can certainly give authority in certain specialized fields which go beyond general layman's knowledge, such as musicology/music history, music theory, and more scholarly forms of aesthetic theory. But aesthetic evaluation? The context of musical performance is that the music is performed for laymen. There may be some assumptions that the listeners be familiar with certain conventions about classical music, but given that music is performed for a general audience, I think it's entirely fine to evaluate it on that level.
> 
> Not to mention that credentials very frequently get called into question if someone with credentials says something that one happens to disagree with. See- the BBC composer poll


I'm on the fence about this issue of aesthetic evaluation (not the joy and value of music analysis). I mean, why did Beethoven strive to continue to create better and better (more significant, more complex, more enduring, a teachable sequence) sonatas and quartets and symphonies? Maybe it was just some deep instinct.. Or just making a living.
Haydn sonatas, symphonies etc., Schubert sonatas, Mozart symphonies and especially his piano concertos. They were wrong to strive/struggle/aspire for some more impressiveness, effectiveness and excellence. LvB could have remained in his Middle Period, I guess. 
Or maybe they didn't succeed in getting better.. I only imagine it.

added;
I think it would have been easier to continue in his Middle Period. More income too, I suspect.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> It isn't a matter of "escaping" scientific inquiry. It's that scientific inquiry doesn't produce omniscience. It's probably comforting to some though to believe that it's at least _possible_ that every aspect of existence can be given a rational, scientific explanation. But I don't believe that's true. There's no evidence that it is true. I don't think even the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that's true.


There is no end point to scientific inquiry. That is at the very center of science. Not looking for omniscience, certainly not soon--only greater understanding. And no evidence that it is false and every expectation that it is true based on the past and current experience of science.


----------



## Strange Magic

SanAntone said:


> In one of the previous threads that focused on the objective/subjective conundrum I put forward the idea of *informed subjectivity*. What I mean by IS is precisely what has been posted in the last few posts, i.e. musicians, composers, scholars and even professional critics, who possess a level of knowledge, training, and experience that informs their subjective response with a large dose of analytical expertise.
> 
> In one of my much earlier posts I theorized that the consensus about a work's greatness that has evolved over two-three centuries was made up of this kind of peer group, who handed down an informed assessment of the works and composers of their time who were better than others.
> 
> We have inherited this consensus judgment usually called the test of time.
> 
> However, no matter how informed a response may be, it is still a subjective response. Just one that includes a healthy amount of expertise, and knowledge, which allows that listener more of an ability to perceive a well-written composition as opposed to one that they simply enjoy.


I largely agree but wonder what CM we like that we do not consider well-written. My problem is that certain pieces are too long and thus I do not like them as much and can complain that is was not well-written.


----------



## SanAntone

Strange Magic said:


> I largely agree but wonder what CM we like that we do not consider well-written. My problem is that certain pieces are too long and thus I do not like them as much and can complain that is was not well-written.


I usually don't think about the quality of a work as I listen to it; I am simply reacting intuitively to the music. I am a trained musician and have analyzed plenty of works and at one time could explain why a Beethoven sonata, or a Maher symphony, or a Berg opera is well-written. I haven't done that kind of thing in a long time and have no interest in it anymore.

I turn off that part of my brain while I am listening.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> There is no end point to scientific inquiry. That is at the very center of science. Not looking for omniscience, certainly not soon--only greater understanding. And no evidence that it is false and every expectation that it is true based on the past and current experience of science.


No end point. Do you mean limits or boundaries? There are. Scientific knowledge could develop the atomic bomb, but it couldn't tell if it was right to use it. Using physical, observable data, which is what science deals with, you couldn't either.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> There is no end point to scientific inquiry. That is at the very center of science. Not looking for omniscience, certainly not soon--only greater understanding. And no evidence that it is false and every expectation that it is true based on the past and current experience of science.


Yes, I welcome scientists to attempt to explain how we understand (and appreciate) art, at the level of brain electro-chemicals. They will start with the objective facts. Find reliable, repeatable evidence, analyze, reduce, predict, test, replicate, repeat.. (Will they start with subjective opinions?)


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> I largely agree but wonder what CM we like that we do not consider well-written. My problem is that certain pieces are too long and thus I do not like them as much and can complain that is was not well-written.


One reason you may find certain 19th century symphonies or operas too long is that you are not a 19th century person, but rather a late 20th / early 21st century person. The problem may not be that the 19th century work was not well-written but that it was written for a 19th century audience. And that may be a minor problem at most for some, but a very big problem for others.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> ..We have inherited this consensus judgment usually called the test of time.
> 
> However, no matter how informed a response may be, it is still a subjective response. Just one that includes a healthy amount of expertise, and knowledge, which allows that listener more of an ability to perceive a well-written composition as opposed to one that they simply enjoy.


The very mention of some level of the ability to perceive a well-written composition infers objective information being used to make the distinction.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> Well, so you say, but the reality is that you are qualifying something (his own frame of reference) not stated. What was stated, no matter how you spin it, was that long experience confers the ability to judge music well done versus music not well done.





Woodduck said:


> DaveM was merely assuming that SM's words meant what they normally mean. If I say that "as an educated layman and listener to CM for about 75 years, I have a naive faith in my ability to tell music 'done well' from music not well done," I'm ordinarily saying that age and experience have enhanced my ability to tell good music from less good. If SM's quotes around "done well" and his use of the word "naive" are the clues that he intended to subvert the normal meaning of his statement, they do an ambiguous job of it, and DaveM was completely justified in not getting the sarcasm, if that's what it was. His comments were merely extrapolations from the apparent meaning of SM's statement. I understand your subjective desire to defend a fellow subjectivist, but in this case you're defending the wrong person.
> 
> As it happens, I too have had to question SM about a statement that gave exactly the same mistaken impression as the one above, if taken as worded. In discussions of this nature, we surely need to be preternaturally careful of how we say things, given that much of what we must say about art is difficult - in some cases maybe impossible - to put into words.


I'll respond to both of these since they're responding to the same post. 

Another problem around here is that of language. Thinking of language in terms of "what words normally mean" is a useful heuristic without any other context to go on, but words are ambiguous things that can mean a dozen different things to different people depending on the context. At some point we have to move past "what words normally mean" (which is often nothing more than "what these words mean to me") to "what does this specific person mean specifically by these words?" SM has written enough about his views by this point that everyone should, if they actually care about what he's saying, know what he means and doesn't mean when he uses terms like he used in that post you both responded to. Responding to someone's post whom you know has a particular perspective and uses common words to express that perspective by interpreting those words by "what they usually mean" is rather disingenuous. I doubt either of you really think that SM has suddenly become an objectivist, so if you don't think that then why would you interpret his words as if they'd been uttered by an objectivist? Why is that even the default position of "what those words usually mean?" You can read what he said perfectly fine from the subjectivist viewpoint.


----------



## fbjim

It's interesting to ask, I think, what is going on in our minds when we say something like "I can tell this is well-written/well-made but I don't like it". It could be an example of empathy, where we have some ability to put ourselves in the shoes of someone with different tastes than ours, or it might be a more formal-analysis-esque ability to recognize the artistic goal of the work, recognize that the work achieves those goals, yet reject them because those goals are unappealing to us.


----------



## fbjim

Luchesi said:


> I'm on the fence about this issue of aesthetic evaluation (not the joy and value of music analysis). I mean, why did Beethoven strive to continue to create better and better (more significant, more complex, more enduring, a teachable sequence) sonatas and quartets and symphonies? Maybe it was just some deep instinct.. Or just making a living.
> Haydn sonatas, symphonies etc., Schubert sonatas, Mozart symphonies and especially his piano concertos. They were wrong to strive/struggle/aspire for some more impressiveness, effectiveness and excellence. LvB could have remained in his Middle Period, I guess.
> Or maybe they didn't succeed in getting better.. I only imagine it.
> 
> added;
> I think it would have been easier to continue in his Middle Period. More income too, I suspect.


I dunno! Even though Romanticism might be in the past, so much of it has survived our culture because it appeals to us on some deep level, and the idea of artists striving to perfect their craft, bare their souls, struggle against fate, etc - still appeals to us. In reality, some wonderful art has been created because the creator wanted some money, and sincerity is no guarantee of success in the arts. 

I think further inquiry here gets us more into a political/sociological realm where it's about how our society views individualism, but we love ourselves some heroic artist types. Doubly so the tragic ones- in fact it's even more romantic if they're destroyed by fate/society/the machine in the end.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

EdwardBast said:


> Did you really misunderstand this simple point: Scientific methodology is pretty much useless in addressing any important question in philosophy, aesthetics, art criticism. literature, etc.


While I would agree there are issues science can't address (I gave my own examples some pages back), I think this is taking it too far. I think there are plenty of important questions in all of these fields that not only can science address, science is the only thing fully capable of addressing. Hell, much of classic philosophy has been subsumed by science: concepts space and time, traditionally the purview of the philosophy, were both subsumed at one by Einstein's General Relativity. Science is largely responsible for the immense tectonic shifting in questions within the field of philosophy, while philosophy is useful (to the extent that it is) in attempting to clarify certain issues linguistically and by thinking about what kind of science COULD settle the questions (Turing did this with the philosophical question "can machines think?" by inventing the Turing Test, for one example). In aesthetics, understanding how and why we react to art as we do will, I dare say, be the final frontier of understanding much about how art functions, how particular objective aspects of art interacts with our psychology as individuals, groups, and as a species in general. There's already much work being done in the field of neuroaesthetics.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> The very mention of some level of the ability to perceive a week-written composition infers objective information being used to make the distinction.


Yes, there are certain objective stylistic traits in a work of the 18th century - but these traits were shared by all of the composers of time of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. The audience of that time was much more familiar with this style, and actually heard it differently than we can today since for them it was second nature. It wasn't until about 100 years (~ 1840) after the fact that the term "sonata-allegro form" was codified into music theory. 

When Haydn was writing what today we call a sonata form movement he did not think in those terms, nor did his audience. Haydn, and all of the composers of his day wrote movements which later came to be called sonata-allegro form and generally the Classical period style was recognized. But Haydn was simply writing in the style of his period - but perceived to have been doing it better than his peers. At least that is what is evidenced by contemporaneous accounts.

Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven were considered great during their lifetimes, for bringing the prevailing style of their time to its highest level, and that judgment has continued to this day. 

But this determination is somewhat soft in that there are still many variables and judgment calls which are subjective in nature. How much better was Beethoven than Hummel? This kind of question cannot be answered, or if so, differently depending upon which scholar you ask.

But the bottomline is that their music continues to be relevant and meaningful to us, and it is not simply because we have been repeatedly taught that their music is great.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

dissident said:


> It isn't a matter of "escaping" scientific inquiry. It's that scientific inquiry doesn't produce omniscience. It's probably comforting to some though to believe that it's at least _possible_ that every aspect of existence can be given a rational, scientific explanation. But I don't believe that's true. There's no evidence that it is true. I don't think even the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that's true.


Absolutely science doesn't produce omniscience, it just produces the most accurate, reliable, and useful models of reality by far compared to every other epistemic method. The fact that science is flawed, and that the history of science is a graveyard of discarded false hypotheses and theories, that science doesn't (perhaps can't) know everything... these aren't serious objections to science because the question would still remain: what do you have that's better? Further, if there are things that can't be explained by science I'm not convinced they can be explained by anything. Certainly human intuition and reason-sans-empricism are infinitely more flawed than even science is.


----------



## fbjim

I guess I didn't really answer that question - I do think that while a lot of artists will seek to improve their craft for a variety of reasons, it's not quite sure that things like late-period Beethoven or other original works were done out of a desire to make "better piano sonatas/symphonies/operas/etc". It may have been a desire to create _new_ music and push against accepted artistic norms (romanticism again!) - remember that in the classical period, there were "objective" ways to evaluate tonality, fugual form, counterpoint, etc - that we now laud the romantics for deliberately breaking- after all, there's nothing more romantic than an individual breaking the rules for the purposes of aesthetic beauty.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> Knowledge isn't first acquired by a "method," but by direct experience. Methods may be needed later, depending on the sort of knowledge we're talking about. My knowledge that I'm improving a piece of music I'm composing when I strike out my introductory bars and substitute something more in keeping with the overall point of the work doesn't rely on any "method." …Your assertion that an artist is just doing what feels good and that no result has any more real merit or value than any other - after all, someone might prefer chaos to order - is, excuse my French, grotesque, inhuman, and dumb.


Direct experience only gives you knowledge of an experience, it does not innately explain or suggest the cause of that experience. Thousands of people have had near-death experiences, or “alien abductions,” or “seen ghosts,” etc. With such things I do not deny the experience, I just say that there’s no evidence for the proposed cause. It’s no difference here. You interpret your feeling when composing as some objective sense of good and bad, right and wrong, when it’s not. I don’t deny your experience, I question the cause and how you know it.

The result has “real merit and value” to the people (including yourself) who think/feel it has merit and value, and it doesn’t to those who doesn’t think that. As always, your subjective judgments (“grotesque, inhuman, and dumb”) do not impress when you can’t rationally justify them. They’re just expressions of your feelings, just like your “knowledge” of a compositional choice being right/better/best/etc.



Woodduck said:


> So you really see no difference in truth value between the claim that Haydn was a better composer than Benjamin Franklin (he wrote string quartets too) and the claim that the world was created in six days and then drowned in a forty-day downpour, from which a pair of every single species on the planet was rescued in a wooden boat?
> 
> The problem with the latter belief is that it's obviously nonsensical. It contradicts our experience of the way the world works. Most religious ideas do. It's almost a requirement.


You’re now comparing different things. I was comparing your “sense/feeling/knowledge” (as above) with the kind of personal revelation/experience (ala Paul’s) that leads to religious belief; while you’re comparing the subjective opinion of Haydn being better than Franklin with a literalist interpretation of Biblical stories, a position that was rather unorthodox until about the last 150 years in America. Most people don’t come to believe in religion because of stories that were almost certainly meant to be allegories; most people come to believe in religion because they interpret their personal experiences as miracles/revelations from a deity. The point is that the kind of “personal experience” “knowledge” you’re talking about with composition is fundamentally no different (in fact is much less impressive) than what Paul described as his personal revelation/experience on the Road to Damascus.



Woodduck said:


> So that's what distinguishes Nora Roberts from Herman Melville and Feodor Dostoevsky? I guess I'll have to take your word for it. Maybe someone else here has spent enough time with romance novels to show me their unsuspected depths and extraordinary aesthetic qualities.


Style, subject matter, themes… but you’re also picking apples and oranges. It would make more sense to compare Nora Roberts to Jane Austen and the Bronte sisters, as at leas they’re in roughly the same tradition/genre. Ever read Fielding’s Tom Hardy? You could probably learn much from the opening essay, in which Fielding begins with a long simile relating his novel to food being served:


> The provision, then, which we have here made is no other than Human Nature…
> 
> An objection may perhaps be apprehended from the more delicate, that this dish is too common and vulgar; for what else is the subject of all the romances, novels, plays, and poems, with which the stalls abound? Many exquisite viands might be rejected by the epicure, if it was a sufficient cause for his contemning of them as common and vulgar, that something was to be found in the most paltry alleys under the same name. In reality, true nature is as difficult to be met with in authors, as the Bayonne ham, or Bologna sausage, is to be found in the shops.
> 
> But the whole, to continue the same metaphor, consists in the cookery of the author; for, as Mr Pope tells us—
> 
> “True wit is nature to advantage drest;
> What oft was thought, but ne'er so well exprest.”
> 
> The same animal which hath the honour to have some part of his flesh eaten at the table of a duke, may perhaps be degraded in another part, and some of his limbs gibbeted, as it were, in the vilest stall in town. Where, then, lies the difference between the food of the nobleman and the porter, if both are at dinner on the same ox or calf, but in the seasoning, the dressing, the garnishing, and the setting forth? Hence the one provokes and incites the most languid appetite, and the other turns and palls that which is the sharpest and keenest.
> 
> In like manner, the excellence of the mental entertainment consists less in the subject than in the author's skill in well dressing it up. How pleased, therefore, will the reader be to find that we have, in the following work, adhered closely to one of the highest principles of the best cook which the present age, or perhaps that of Heliogabalus, hath produced. This great man, as is well known to all lovers of polite eating, begins at first by setting plain things before his hungry guests, rising afterwards by degrees as their stomachs may be supposed to decrease, to the very quintessence of sauce and spices. In like manner, we shall represent human nature at first to the keen appetite of our reader, in that more plain and simple manner in which it is found in the country, and shall hereafter hash and ragoo it with all the high French and Italian seasoning of affectation and vice which courts and cities afford. By these means, we doubt not but our reader may be rendered desirous to read on for ever, as the great person just above-mentioned is supposed to have made some persons eat.


In short; the difference isn’t in what these works “have to tell us,” it’s almost entirely in HOW they tell it to us.



Woodduck said:


> I'd say that the most universal aspects of the human condition are the ones we share with worms, warblers and wombats, plus some minimal level of rationality that may or may not function well. Not a very inspiring collection of traits for art to speak "profoundly" to. It's what I meant when I said, in response to your elevation of the great unwashed, _"So the 'human condition' means whatever takes us along the path of least resistance for the least common denominator." _Who cares if more people have read books with Fabio on the cover than ones with a white whale? I don't know those people, and I don't need to know them and what aspects of the "human condition" their soft porn speaks to.


So now the universal aspects of the human condition isn’t “inspiring” because we share them with other creatures? I don’t understand where THAT value judgment comes from. I’m just as interested in the “human condition” as an animal (which we are), including all of our “basest” instincts and drives, than I am in the “human condition” as in the ways in which we are different from other animals. Plus, if we speak of profundity as being the parts of our human nature that are buried most deeply within ourselves, as opposed to those more readily apprehended by our consciousness, I dare say those animal aspects ARE those “most profound” qualities; the rest are on the surface, and don’t require unearthing.

I don’t know many people who’ve read the Fabio books either, but your disinterest in them, and in the aspects of the “human condition” that leads them to prefer such things, just speaks to your lack of intellectual curiosity and empathy/sympathy for those who are different than yourself. Personally I find such people much more interesting than the people who love the “white whale” book because I AM one of the people who love the “white whale” book and I already know myself better than I know anyone else. People who are completely different from me are, IMO, much more interesting precisely because they’re a mystery.



Woodduck said:


> I was drawn to classical music as a child because it appealed to the most exciting aspects of my own "human condition" - aspects like a growing aesthetic perception and an active imagination - that the stuff other kids were listening to seemed not to touch. I enjoyed silly popular songs too, like other kids, but I damn well knew the difference. I knew that some aspects of the "human condition" were universal, but as _potentialities_ in us, and that great art could be both an expression and embodiment of them and a challenge to develop them further.


It appealed to the aspects of the human condition that YOU found most exciting, sure, I can believe that. The only difference between you and I is that my attraction to classical music was similar to my attraction to other unpopular forms of music in that they were new, novel, different… they offered aesthetic experiences that popular music did not… but the reverse is true as well. I also saw no reason (and still don’t) to rank one against the other, understanding very early on that the purposes and potential of both was different, not in “better/worse” ways, but merely different ways, the same way that the potential for a novel is different from that of a lyric poem, or a video game Vs a film, or a comic book Vs a photograph.



Woodduck said:


> I still know the difference between Fabio and Moby Dick, and the difference between Meyerbeer and Wagner, and the difference between art that speaks profoundly and perceptively and art that tickles the surface of life or wallows in its refuse like a pig. There's room for art at all levels of depth - we need easy fun as well as spiritual enrichment - but we need to keep our perceptions and our values in order. Spare me your exaltation of the man in the street and his unassailable subjective values and exquisite artistic tastes. People are shooting each other in the street, waving QAnon placards, trying to overturn elections, and gunning for women who think they own their own bodies. Is there art that "speaks profoundly" to those aspects of the "human condition"? Roll over, Beethoven.


What you “know” is that some art speaks profoundly to your sensibilities, which you elevate to that of a God’s, and then enjoy looking down on all other art that’s different and the people who love that art. It’s the classical elitist attitude, which, in itself, is born out of the basest human desire to be better than others. Keeping “values in order” is a very good and useful thing when it comes to morality and politics; aesthetics are nowhere near as pressing a matter that can profoundly affect the lives of people depending on what art they love or detest. As to your bit about social ills, there’s also always been art that’s spoken to that, some of which happen to be unfortunate masterpieces, like Mozart’s Magic Flute, and Griffith’s Birth of a Nation. Roger Ebert wrote a phenomenal, thought-provoking piece on the latter that deals with the crossroads of “aesthetic excellence” and the themes in which that’s in the service of.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> One reason you may find certain 19th century symphonies or operas too long is that you are not a 19th century person, but rather a late 20th / early 21st century person. The problem may not be that the 19th century work was not well-written but that it was written for a 19th century audience.





hammeredklavier said:


> Which begs the question; do we really listen to a late 18th century work like actual people from the late 18th century Europe (who unquestioningly upheld the values of the Enlightenment in music) would have? If not, why should our "decisions" about its "greatness" be considered to have more "objective credibility" than theirs? (Are we not "cherry-picking" things, by any chance, due to our "limitations in capability to appreciate"?).
> And do our "decisions" about music popular in our own little nerdy circles (that comprise like less than 0.01% of the entire population today) even really have significant meaning outside them?





hammeredklavier said:


> "On the other hand, for the French, Mozart was certainly not 'one of us' from a national point of view. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, before Berlioz's time, some influential critics - for instance, Julien-Louis Geoffroy - rejected Mozart as a foreigner, considering his music 'scholastic', stressing his use of harmony over melody, and the dominance of the orchestra over singing in the operas - all these were considered negative features of 'Germanic' music."
> -Groups of people who did not think highly of Mozart's style have existed in the past. Just cause majority of them are dead now, it doesn't mean they were "objectively wrong". If "greatness" changes with time, how can be "absolute"? At certain points in history, they weren't just a "minority", but a dominant group, and it's probably how Una cosa rara eclipsed Le Nozze di Figaro in popularity back then.


There are people in the opera subforum who appreciate Salieri as much as Mozart, btw (underrated-or-little-know-operas-that-you-like.28522/page-8#post-2304129).


----------



## 59540

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Absolutely science doesn't produce omniscience.


Full stop.


> Certainly human intuition and reason-sans-empricism are infinitely more flawed than even science is.


So what did science have to say about the uses its creation Zyklon B was put to?


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'll respond to both of these since they're responding to the same post.
> 
> Another problem around here is that of language. Thinking of language in terms of "what words normally mean" is a useful heuristic without any other context to go on, but words are ambiguous things that can mean a dozen different things to different people depending on the context. At some point we have to move past "what words normally mean" (which is often nothing more than "what these words mean to me") to "what does this specific person mean specifically by these words?" SM has written enough about his views by this point that everyone should, if they actually care about what he's saying, know what he means and doesn't mean when he uses terms like he used in that post you both responded to. Responding to someone's post whom you know has a particular perspective and uses common words to express that perspective by interpreting those words by "what they usually mean" is rather disingenuous.


What on earth are you talking about? This is a forum whereby communication is by the written word alone. So interpreting the words written by ‘what they usually mean’ is disingenuous?



> I doubt either of you really think that SM has suddenly become an objectivist, so if you don't think that then why would you interpret his words as if they'd been uttered by an objectivist? Why is that even the default position of "what those words usually mean?" You can read what he said perfectly fine from the subjectivist viewpoint.


One does not have to believe SM has become an arch objectivist to believe that sometimes his words betray someone on the one hand holding to a pure subjectivist position while on the other hand occasionally straying into objectivist territory perhaps unknowingly or in some kind of naivety. And don’t tell me that I am supposed to read/interpret something from the subjectivist position when the words as they are on the written page read otherwise.

Perhaps if the response had been along the line of ‘I misspoke and created an impression I didn’t intend.’, I might see this differently, but the response having been that I was totally distorting what was said, just as you are doing, I see it as someone having exposed a weakness in their extreme position and trying to backtrack.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> Yes, there are certain objective stylistic traits in a work of the 18th century - but these traits were shared by all of the composers of time of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. The audience of that time was much more familiar with this style, and actually heard it differently than we can today since for them it was second nature. It wasn't until about 100 years (~ 1840) after the fact that the term "sonata-allegro form" was codified into music theory.
> 
> When Haydn was writing what today we call a sonata form movement he did not think in those terms, nor did his audience. Haydn, and all of the composers of his day wrote movements which later came to be called sonata-allegro form and generally the Classical period style was recognized. But Haydn was simply writing in the style of his period - but perceived to have been doing it better than his peers. At least that is what is evidenced by contemporaneous accounts.
> 
> Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven were considered great during their lifetimes, for bringing the prevailing style of their time to its highest level, and that judgment has continued to this day.
> 
> But this determination is somewhat soft in that there are still many variables and judgment calls which are subjective in nature. How much better was Beethoven than Hummel? This kind of question cannot be answered, or if so, differently depending upon which scholar you ask.
> 
> But the bottomline is that their music continues to be relevant and meaningful to us, and it is not simply because we have been repeatedly taught that their music is great.


I understand what you’re saying, but the judgment of well-written music of the period also involved not just music written in the style of the period, but also original orchestration and innovation that resulted in a particular quality of music never heard before.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> I understand what you’re saying, but the judgment of well-written music of the period also involved not just music written in the style of the period, but also original orchestration and innovation that resulted in a particular quality of music never heard before.


This is also true of all periods. But there are intangible variables which contribute to a composer's fame: personal charisma; luck of writing in a style which happens to be trending; being in the right place and before the right people at an opportune time; capturing the imagination of the period in one work. Also, not an intangible, but how prolific a composer is also factors into their fame.

These intangible variables are often what determine who is remembered and who is marginalized since often the skill of composers is comparable, or at least not so different as to explain why Beethoven is so much more revered than Hummel.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'll respond to both of these since they're responding to the same post.
> 
> Another problem around here is that of language. Thinking of language in terms of "what words normally mean" is a useful heuristic without any other context to go on, but words are ambiguous things that can mean a dozen different things to different people depending on the context. At some point we have to move past "what words normally mean" (which is often nothing more than "what these words mean to me") to "what does this specific person mean specifically by these words?" SM has written enough about his views by this point that everyone should, if they actually care about what he's saying, know what he means and doesn't mean when he uses terms like he used in that post you both responded to. Responding to someone's post whom you know has a particular perspective and uses common words to express that perspective by interpreting those words by "what they usually mean" is rather disingenuous. I doubt either of you really think that SM has suddenly become an objectivist, so if you don't think that then why would you interpret his words as if they'd been uttered by an objectivist? Why is that even the default position of "what those words usually mean?" You can read what he said perfectly fine from the subjectivist viewpoint.


Shall we strive for a little objectivity here (or at least pretend that it exists)? You chose to launch an unneeded, arrantly subjective criticism of another member, embedding it in philosophizing in order, perhaps, to make it seem - ummm - more objectively justified, I thought it was unfair and stated my reasons. Really, shouldn't that have been the end of it? Now we get a lecture on whose words we should interpret how, and how "at some point we have to move past what words normally mean." Please.

No, If SM had meant to say something other than what his words literally mean - I'm sure he, or any of us, could do that without breaking a sweat - it was his job to do it. It isn't your job to pompously level accusations of disingenuousness at anyone who misinterprets what he writes, and tell us what we "need to do at some point." At some point _you_ may subjectively feel that _you_ need to do whatever. But neither DaveM nor I want or need any righteously subjective lectures from you on our understanding and use of language, our interactions with other members, or on anything else.

I'd suggest that this bone's been picked and should be buried. As there was precious little meat on it, there was never a need to dig it up in the first place.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> These intangible variables are what determine who is remembered and who is not, since often the skill of composers is comparable, or at least not so different as to explain why Beethoven is so much more revered than Hummel.


Now that Hummel is mentioned, some things we should consider-


hammeredklavier said:


> "Chopin continued to express, in both words and deeds, his admiration for Hummel. For example, on December 10, 1842, five years after Hummel's death, Chopin would proclaim that Hummel was one of the "masters we all recognize." It is noteworthy that the only other names on Chopin's list were Mozart and Beethoven. Chopin also showed his high regard by using so many of Hummel's works to teach his students, as his pupil Adolf Gutmann recalled: "Chopin held that Clementi's Gradus ad Parnassum, Bach's pianoforte fugues, and Hummel's compositions were the key to pianoforte-playing, and he considered a training in these composers a fit preparation for his own works. The two great pianists were also in complete agreement on many aspects of playing the keyboard. One was fingering, a matter of great importance to Chopin, who wrote in his own unfinished piano method "everything is a matter of knowing good fingering."
> 
> "William Mason, one of Liszt's American pupils, tells us in his book Touch and Technic (1889) that Liszt considered a "two-finger exercise" by Hummel to be the source of his technique. The exercise consisted of playing a scale with two fingers, alternating accented and unaccented notes and using an elastic touch by pulling the fingers in towards the palm. Liszt's high opinion of Hummel as an artist and as a man never diminished. It is evident in a letter he wrote to Weimar's Grand Duke Carl Alexander in 1860, reminding his employer that "he should be proud to create works that resemble [Hummel's]."
> 
> "Schubert must have been delighted to finally have personal contact with the composer of music he had known and admired for more than a decade. One of the works that Schubert knew quite well was Hummel's Septet in D minor, op. 74, his most popular chamber music composition. Schubert, in fact, used the quintet version of this work as the model for his famous Trout Quintet. The solo piano music that Schubert composed between 1816 and his death in 1828 also reveals the strong influence of Hummel's brilliant, virtuosic style of piano writing, culminating in the last three piano sonatas (D. 958-60). Schubert intended to dedicate these works to Hummel but died before they were published."
> 
> "the young Schumann, the aspiring virtuoso pianist studying with Friedrich Wieck in Leipzig in 1829, desperately wanted to become Hummel's student. Despite repeated attempts, he never realized this goal, but Hummel would remain Schumann's idol through-out his student years. He was also his role model, as we read in Schumann's letter to his mother of 15 May 1831: "I can have only four goals: Kapellmeister, music teacher, virtuoso and composer. With Hummel, for example, all of these are combined." Schumann's diary also tells us that he practiced Hummel's Clavierschule with a devotion bordering on obsession, once even writing that he planned to play all the exercises in succession. He maintained a lasting admiration for a select group of Hummel's works, such as the piano concertos in A minor and B minor, the Septet in D minor, op. 74, and the Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor, op. 81. The F-sharp minor sonata had a particularly significant impact on Schumann's early piano compositions, as can be seen by the striking similarity of the examples below (Fig. 1). Schumann acknowledged his admiration for Hummel's F-sharp minor sonata in his Neue Zeitschrift für Musik of April 26, 1839, predicting, "this sonata will alone immortalize his name.""
> 
> "Schubert, Schumann, Liszt, and Chopin - these emblematic symbols of the Romantic era are indeed indebted to Hummel. The same can be said for many other 19th-century composers, including César Franck, who graduated as a prize-winning pianist from the Paris Conservatoire by playing Hummel's music. Some critics have even found similarities between Hummel's F-sharp minor sonata and the Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor, op. 2, of Brahms. Hummel the Classicist, Hummel the Romantic - both descriptions are correct. His life spanned two eras, and so did his music."
> 
> -excerpts from "Hummel and the Romantics" by Mark Kroll


----------



## fbjim

Going against artistic norms is also certainly not something which is necessarily rewarded. We may like to think that true genius always shines through, but that may simply be the survivorship fallacy talking. Certainly, even among the artists who we revere today, we have reams of anecdotes from critics who complained that e.g. Beethoven violated artistic norms, rejected Mozart's music for being overly intricate, or sidelined Berlioz for much of his career.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> Now that Hummel is mentioned, some things we should consider-


I agree that Hummel was a great composer. But he was surpassed by Beethoven in the judgment of history - most likely because of subjective criteria.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> the judgment of well-written music of the period also involved not just music written in the style of the period, but also original orchestration and innovation that resulted in a particular quality of music never heard before.


But again, it's not something "measurable". Is there anything from the early 1770s that reminds of the Rachmaninoff 2nd more than this does? Please enlighten me.


----------



## fbjim

I very much like exploring composers that other composers admired - one day I'll explore some Clementi. I only listened to the Cherubini SQs because Beethoven admired him and thought they were wonderful.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> ... I will adhere like a limpet to my assertion that I have sufficient experience listening to music and otherwise enjoying art so that i need not "defend" my tastes nor plead their case nor call upon outside authority or consensus groupings to judge whether something is well- or ill-done. ...


I don't think anyone's ever really demanded that you defend your tastes. What you spend entire threads doing is demanding that we defend ours.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Direct experience only gives you knowledge of an experience, it does not innately explain or suggest the cause of that experience. Thousands of people have had near-death experiences, or “alien abductions,” or “seen ghosts,” etc. With such things I do not deny the experience, I just say that there’s no evidence for the proposed cause. It’s no difference here. You interpret your feeling when composing as some objective sense of good and bad, right and wrong, when it’s not. I don’t deny your experience, I question the cause and how you know it.
> 
> The result has “real merit and value” to the people (including yourself) who think/feel it has merit and value, and it doesn’t to those who doesn’t think that. As always, your subjective judgments (“grotesque, inhuman, and dumb”) do not impress when you can’t rationally justify them. They’re *just expressions of your feelings, just like your “knowledge” of a compositional choice being right/better/best/etc.*
> 
> You’re now comparing different things. I was comparing your “sense/feeling/knowledge” (as above) with the kind of personal revelation/experience (ala Paul’s) that leads to religious belief; while you’re comparing the subjective opinion of Haydn being better than Franklin with a literalist interpretation of Biblical stories, a position that was rather unorthodox until about the last 150 years in America. Most people don’t come to believe in religion because of stories that were almost certainly meant to be allegories; most people come to believe in religion because they interpret their personal experiences as miracles/revelations from a deity. The point is that *the kind of “personal experience” “knowledge” you’re talking about with composition is fundamentally no different (in fact is much less impressive) than what Paul described as his personal revelation/experience on the Road to Damascus.*
> 
> Style, subject matter, themes… but you’re also picking apples and oranges. It would make more sense to compare Nora Roberts to Jane Austen and the Bronte sisters, as at leas they’re in roughly the same tradition/genre. Ever read Fielding’s Tom Hardy? You could probably learn much from the opening essay, in which Fielding begins with a long simile relating his novel to food being served: In short; the difference isn’t in what these works “have to tell us,” it’s almost entirely in HOW they tell it to us.
> 
> So now the universal aspects of the human condition isn’t “inspiring” because we share them with other creatures? I don’t understand where THAT value judgment comes from. I’m just as interested in the “human condition” as an animal (which we are), including all of our “basest” instincts and drives, than I am in the “human condition” as in the ways in which we are different from other animals. Plus, *if we speak of profundity as being the parts of our human nature that are buried most deeply within ourselves, as opposed to those more readily apprehended by our consciousness, I dare say those animal aspects ARE those “most profound” qualities; the rest are on the surface, and don’t require unearthing.*
> 
> I don’t know many people who’ve read the Fabio books either, but your disinterest in them, and in the aspects of the “human condition” that leads them to prefer such things, just speaks to *your lack of intellectual curiosity and empathy/sympathy for those who are different than yourself.* Personally I find such people much more interesting than the people who love the “white whale” book because I AM one of the people who love the “white whale” book and I already know myself better than I know anyone else. People who are completely different from me are, IMO, much more interesting precisely because they’re a mystery.
> 
> It appealed to the aspects of the human condition that YOU found most exciting, sure, I can believe that. The only difference between you and I is that my attraction to classical music was similar to my attraction to other unpopular forms of music in that they were new, novel, different… they offered aesthetic experiences that popular music did not… but the reverse is true as well. I also saw no reason (and still don’t) to rank one against the other, understanding very early on that the purposes and potential of both was different, not in “better/worse” ways, but merely different ways, the same way that the potential for a novel is different from that of a lyric poem, or a video game Vs a film, or a comic book Vs a photograph.
> 
> What you “know” is that some art speaks profoundly to your sensibilities, which *you elevate to that of a God’s, and then enjoy looking down on all other art* that’s different and the people who love that art. *It’s the classical elitist attitude, which, in itself, is born out of the basest human desire to be better than others.* Keeping “values in order” is a very good and useful thing when it comes to morality and politics; aesthetics are nowhere near as pressing a matter that can profoundly affect the lives of people depending on what art they love or detest. As to your bit about social ills, there’s also always been art that’s spoken to that, some of which happen to be unfortunate masterpieces, like Mozart’s Magic Flute, and Griffith’s Birth of a Nation. Roger Ebert wrote a phenomenal, thought-provoking piece on the latter that deals with the crossroads of “aesthetic excellence” and the themes in which that’s in the service of.


Oh my God, more self-righteous lectures. That makes two in one day. Is this virtue signaling typical of self-proclaimed subjectivists, this need to pronounce (subjective) judgment on what you think other people are like and how you think they should feel, think and act? Well, whatever. Your post does contain some fascinating ideas, though. I particularly enjoyed the one about the most profound parts of our humanity being the ones we share with head lice, tardigrades and boa constrictors.


----------



## fbjim

Also I'm not precisely sure what "objective territory" SM was getting into.

If the idea is that experienced, informed opinions on the aesthetics of music should be valued more than layman, or inexperienced opinions - well, first off, I don't necessarily agree with this, but even then I don't think this represents any sort of "objectivity" at all, because people consistently demonstrate an ability to ignore the credentials of expertise, formal education and experience when it suits their tastes.

The idea of "valuing expert opinion" isn't really offensive to me because it smacks of snobbery - it strikes me as wrong because- in practice, it ends up being an after-the-fact way to justify your own personal tastes under the guise of objectivism. It's a sin of disingenuity, not necessarily snobbery.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> But again, it's not something "measurable". Is there anything from the early 1770s that reminds of the Rachmaninoff 2nd more than this does? Please enlighten me.


Why would I? Raising Michael Haydn’s star is your objective, not mine.


----------



## 59540

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It’s the classical elitist attitude, which, in itself, is born out of the basest human desire to be better than others.


Leonardo, Michelangelo, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner, Mahler...every one of them wanted to produce the "best" art that they possibly could. Is that "elitist"? In that sense art is inescapably and almost by definition elitist.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> Leonardo, Michelangelo, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner, Mahler...every one of them wanted to produce the "best" art that they possibly could. Is that "elitist"? In that sense art is inescapably and almost by definition elitist.


The question of whether or not the archetype of the romantic heroic genius rewards "bad" behaviors actually has been discussed quite a bit, though I'm thinking of venues beyond this forum. Certainly a bit of arrogance that one knows better than the experts can be a personality trait that leads one to say, revolutionize art. 

In less romanticized terms, however, the question has been whether we allow this archetype to influence people to ignore behaviors we might otherwise find reprehensible- it got raised quite a bit in the aftermath of James Levine.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> No end point. Do you mean limits or boundaries? There are. Scientific knowledge could develop the atomic bomb, but it couldn't tell if it was right to use it. Using physical, observable data, which is what science deals with, you couldn't either.


Developing the bomb was a political decision. Scientists alerted the US and UK governments that a bomb could be developed and that Germany had the brainpower to develop it and maybe the will. Many of the scientists working on the bomb felt it should not be used or should not have been used. I have examined the Japanese plans to fight literally to the death of everyone in Japan. It makes for chilling reading. Death before dishonor (surrender). Science I believe either could or does study the neurology, brain chemistry, psychology of The True Believer, the fanatic, the zombies of total conviction.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> Developing the bomb was a political decision. Scientists alerted the US and UK governments that a bomb could be developed and the Germany had the brainpower to develop it and maybe the will. Many of the scientists working on the bomb felt it should not be used or should not have been used. I have examined the Japanese plans to fight literally to the death of everyone in Japan. It makes for chilling reading. Death before dishonor (surrender). Science I believe either could or does study the neurology, brain chemistry, psychology of The True Believer, the fanatic, the zombies of total conviction.


So no, science didn't have anything to say about it. The point still stands.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> The question of whether or not the archetype of the romantic heroic genius rewards "bad" behaviors ...


Yeah well this isn't really about "bad behaviors" or "romantic heroes" though.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> Also I'm not precisely sure what "objective territory" SM was getting into.
> 
> If the idea is that experienced, informed opinions on the aesthetics of music should be valued more than layman, or inexperienced opinions - well, first off, I don't necessarily agree with this, but even then I don't think this represents any sort of "objectivity" at all, because people consistently demonstrate an ability to ignore the credentials of expertise, formal education and experience when it suits their tastes.
> 
> The idea of "valuing expert opinion" isn't really offensive to me because it smacks of snobbery - it strikes me as wrong because- in practice, it ends up being an after-the-fact way to justify your own personal tastes under the guise of objectivism. It's a sin of disingenuity, not necessarily snobbery.


Translation: Expertise, formal education and experience count for nothing, inexperienced opinions on the aesthetics of music are on a par with experienced opinions and the accomplishments of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven have no objective basis. Got it.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> Translation: Expertise, formal education and experience count for nothing and the accomplishments of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven have no objective basis. Got it.


That poll thread was instructive, because when people disagreed with the results, the first instinct was not to ask why experienced composers apparently revere certain composers, it was to speculate on what ideological faults and biases the composers were suffering from. One common complaint is that they were inherently biased as "contemporary composers" - in other words, attacking their credentials in order to maintain a view that credentials matter, but not _these_ credentials.

And beyond that, I've seen people- for instance - have their formal education in music dismissed in discussions under the rationale that formal education in music now consists of modernist indoctrination.

I'm not saying that formal education, expertise and the like matter for nothing. I'm saying that when it comes down to it, few practice what they preach when they disagree with experts. Of course one can simultaneously value expertise while disagreeing with expert consensus in certain cases - there's absolutely nothing wrong with saying "everyone says this composer is great, but I've heard his music over and over again and I hate it". What I find disingenuous is the practice where when one disagrees with someone "credentialed", instead of just saying that their personal tastes prevent them from admiring music that the critical consensus values, all-too-often the instinct is instead to try to attack and dismiss credentials in order to maintain the fiction that the experts all agree with one's own tastes.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> Full stop.
> So what did science have to say about the uses its creation Zyklon B was put to?


I begin to wonder about your point here. The use of deadly gas was and is a political decision. Many other much more common gases could have been used for the purpose intended, like carbon monoxide or shutting off the air supply altogether. Science is not the Great Enemy. You are alive, likely, because of science. It's a tool to find out about the world around us, like a hammer that can help build or maim.


----------



## SanAntone

fbjim said:


> The idea of "valuing expert opinion" isn't really offensive to me because it smacks of snobbery - it strikes me as wrong because- in practice, it ends up being an after-the-fact way to justify your own personal tastes under the guise of objectivism. It's a sin of disingenuity, not necessarily snobbery.


I dunno; I enjoy reading books by scholars about a period or composer. Their expertise is enlightening. I am after the information, not validation of my own taste. Music history is a fact; certain composers have had more of an impact than other composers. 

Trying to say why is difficult. It is not simply that they wrote better music than their peers.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> I don't think anyone's ever really demanded that you defend your tastes. What you spend entire threads doing is demanding that we defend ours.


PLEASE someday post something fully thought out and perhaps original. The mynah bird of this thread.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> So no, science didn't have anything to say about it. The point still stands.


Scientists had much to say about it. You can read about them. Do you think hammers should be banned?


----------



## fbjim

SanAntone said:


> I dunno; I enjoy reading books by scholars about a period or composer. Their expertise is enlightening. I am after the information, not validation of my own taste. Music history is a fact; certain composers have had more of an impact than other composers.
> 
> Trying to say why is difficult. It is not simply that they wrote better music than their peers.


There are absolutely fields where expertise is valuable. Fields of formal study such as music theory, history, musicology, philosophy, etc. I'd certainly believe a credentialed biographer over a clickbait article when it comes to factual details on the life of Handel. Even some cases in terms of aesthetic evaluation - If someone who's listened to only four symphonies in their life says "Beethoven 9 has to be the best symphony ever", it'd be reasonable to politely suggest that they listen to more music to see if there's anything else that strikes them as being as good (more about not making hasty generalizations than any formal expertise, really). 

To an extent it does even influence the music I listen to- I'll admit to that. After all, I doubt many classical listeners, say, go to the Naxos database and pick a composer at random, rather than start with acclaimed works - at least until we've reached the stage of listening where we've more or less exhausted the standard rep and want to find unusual and overlooked works. If all sorts of experts tell me a composer I resist was important, revolutionary, impactful etc- I tend to give them more effort and more chances than, say, if I listen to an unknown work and find it repelling. Maybe this is a fault.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> That poll thread was instructive, because when people disagreed with the results, the first instinct was not to ask why experienced composers apparently revere certain composers, it was to speculate on what ideological faults and biases the composers were suffering from..


‘Experienced composers’ with what experience other than being contemporary composers? We see polls here all the time where those responding insist on replying with entries that are contrary to the purpose of the poll or whose responses wreak with subjective ‘I like’ when the poll was intended to represent something more objective.

Now if you think that objectivity in polls having to do with CP era CM is impossible and if you are enamored with the accuracy of that poll you keep to referring to then we occupy different universes.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Translation: Expertise, formal education and experience count for nothing, inexperienced opinions on the aesthetics of music are on a par with experienced opinions and the accomplishments of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven have no objective basis. Got it.


Everyone's opinion is valid and authentic. You are free as a bird to disagree with the choices of others and they are free to dismiss your choices I think I hear Milton Babbitt's footsteps approaching and perhaps the enjoyment of CM could become, not a cult because cults are always seeking new recruits, but rather a sect, which are generally closed to new members. I am not in the sect, and am glad of it.


----------



## fbjim

fbjim said:


> If all sorts of experts tell me a composer I resist was important, revolutionary, impactful etc- I tend to give them more effort and more chances than, say, if I listen to an unknown work and find it repelling. Maybe this is a fault.


I actually kind of remember a funny story- Morton Feldman, who taught composition, graded a student's work poorly - when the student protested that he should listen to the work a few times to "get" it, he said something like - "You're 19 years old and you want me to listen to your composition twice?"

Which is kind of a jerk thing to say, but it has a point. I think a lot of listeners give more latitude and "trust" to composers that they know are lauded, or at least ones they trust to make music that they find rewarding in the long term, and perhaps it can cause us to quickly dismiss obscurities when we'd otherwise stick with it and see if it strikes us later.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> ‘Experienced composers’ with what experience other than being contemporary composers? We see polls here all the time where those responding insist on replying with entries that are contrary to the purpose of the poll or whose responses wreak with subjective ‘I like’ when the poll was intended to represent something more objective.
> 
> Now if you think that objectivity in polls having to do with CP era CM is impossible and if you are enamored with the accuracy of that poll you keep to referring to then we occupy different universes.


You seem to be expecting a different response to polls, i.e. one based on objective criteria. But you admit that most polls exhibit an entirely subjective response. This might cause a different person to reflect on their original premise.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> ‘Experienced composers’ with what experience other than being contemporary composers? We see polls here all the time where those responding insist on replying with entries that are contrary to the purpose of the poll or whose responses wreak with subjective ‘I like’ when the poll was intended to represent something more objective.
> 
> Now if you think that objectivity in polls having to do with CP era CM is impossible and if you are enamored with the accuracy of that poll you keep to referring to then we occupy different universes.


Like I said - the first instinct for multiple people was to attack the credentials and speculate on bias. At almost no point did someone say "hmm, experienced composers clearly value the work of Varese and rate Ravel higher than most layman listeners might" and perhaps contemplate exploring a composer they might not be familiar with, or speculate on whether Ravel's style has a new relevance to contemporary composition. Closed-mindedness. 


And like I said, this is not an isolated case of credentials being attacked when the conclusion does not fit ones taste.


----------



## Strange Magic

fbjim said:


> *I'm not saying that formal education, expertise and the like matter for nothing. I'm saying that when it comes down to it, few practice what they preach when they disagree with experts. Of course one can simultaneously value expertise while disagreeing with expert consensus in certain cases - there's absolutely nothing wrong with saying "everyone says this composer is great, but I've heard his music over and over again and I hate it". What I find disingenuous is the practice where when one disagrees with someone "credentialed", instead of just saying that their personal tastes prevent them from admiring music that the critical consensus values, all-too-often the instinct is instead to try to attack and dismiss credentials in order to maintain the fiction that the experts all agree with one's own tastes.*


 

I hold that the best course of action--one which I strive always to follow--is to assert that one is not part of the intended audience for certain musics; it's a kind way of saying the music does not interest me. I also ignore critics as to instructing me what is good/bad but occasionally I do read them out of plain curiosity. It's when posters use critics and experts as a substitute for original thought and opinion and personal valuation in an effort to support often after the fact the pieces they like. I dismiss no one's credentials; I just don't pay any attention. The music is for me and what I choose to make of it.


----------



## fbjim

Strange Magic said:


> I hold that the best course of action--one which I strive always to follow--is to assert that one is not part of the intended audience for certain musics; it's a kind way of saying the music does not interest me. I also ignore critics as to instructing me what is good/bad but occasionally I do read them out of plain curiosity. It's when posters use critics and experts as a substitute for original thought and opinion and personal valuation in an effort to support often after the fact the pieces they like. I dismiss no one's credentials; I just don't pay any attention. The music is for me and what I choose to make of it.


I have a passing layman's interest in musicology so I'm drawn to music which was considered particularly impactful or groundbreaking, which is why I love both Beethoven and Steve Reich. I think a lot of people also take the view that - if a lot of people, including experts like a given work, it's probably worth listening to because it's likely to bring them enjoyment, under the rationale that their own tastes are likely to overlap with the listener consensus at least a good amount of the time.

As with so much, it really depends on what one hopes to get out of music, and what listening habits one finds enjoyable.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> You seem to be expecting a different response to polls, i.e. one based on objective criteria. But you admit that most polls exhibit an entirely subjective response. This might cause a different person to reflect on their original premise.


I didn’t admit ‘that most polls exhibit an entirely subjective response’. Don’t put words in my mouth. I referred to a number of polls _on this forum_ where in addition to the responses being unnecessarily subjective, they are not even responsive to the instructions in the OP.

The more I read the responses from the same few here, the more I am amazed that there are those who appear to be experienced in listening to CM, but can’t appreciate the objective significance in the accomplishments of the major composers. Well I can and I do. And when I respond to a poll, I’m capable of reading the instructions and putting aside my personal subjective preferences.


----------



## Strange Magic

fbjim said:


> I have a passing layman's interest in musicology so I'm drawn to music which was considered particularly impactful or groundbreaking, which is why I love both Beethoven and Steve Reich. I think a lot of people also take the view that - if a lot of people, including experts like a given work, it's probably worth listening to because it's likely to bring them enjoyment, under the rationale that their own tastes are likely to overlap with the listener consensus at least a good amount of the time.
> 
> As with so much, it really depends on what one hopes to get out of music, and what listening habits one finds enjoyable.


I have discovered some fine music here on TC from the references of others. I also have heard a lot more uninteresting music. For me, it's always been essentially a random process--but I often will listen to and watch something on YouTube that strikes my fancy, with often excellent results.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> And like I said, this is not an isolated case of credentials being attacked when the conclusion does not fit ones taste.


You‘re assuming that the people doing so in this case were wrong.


----------



## fbjim

When someone puts themselves into a position where they pick and choose which experts count, and when they count*, it is no longer the realm of objectivity, it is the realm of taste and subjective judgment.

This is not even a fault if done honestly. There are many critics I ignore because I think their tastes are diametrically opposed to mine. I've long accepted that I'm probably not going to particularly like Mozart, as revered as he was, because his music isn't to my tastes, and I'm not a big opera fan anyway. What is dishonest is using "expertise" to dress subjective opinion in the trappings of objective justification, but then reject it selectively in order to maintain this fiction. These guys don't count because contemporary composers are biased. These guys don't count because they're modernists. This poster's education doesn't count because music education has been taken over by modernist and post-modernist dogma. Keep doing this and you can pretend that all the experts which "count" happen to be the ones which agree with you.


*to be honest I'm not sure it's the case that even if one values expert consensus entirely, it's the "realm of objectivity". It positively is not the case when one selectively (emphasis: select) values expert opinion, however.


----------



## Forster

So, 32 pages on (ignoring the previous thread), there seems to be only one clearly stated opinion (though no agreement) on what 'profundity' is (wrt to CM) and, ironically, it is not in the field of classical music. Perhaps I should rephrase that and say that I think I know what SM's opinion is, and that some posters seem to agree with the implications (if not the 'fact' that profundity can only be found in the world of science). Oh, and I know that I reject the usefulness of the term 'profundity' wrt CM altogether.

Much of the rest of the debate has been enlightening to some extent (about related matters), but other than generalised assertions based on some unvoiced agreements that we know Beethoven wrote some 'profound' music, there has been little analysis of CM to exemplify and thereby help establish what 'profundity' in music actually sounds like. There's been reference to extra-musical content (the profundity of LvB's 9th, based on Schiller's ideas) and some suggestion that some abstract music contains Important Ideas (though no examples of this stick in my mind). There's been reference to degrees of intensity of emotional response, and also the spiritual/transcendent experience, but acknowledgement that since this is always a personal matter (no matter how many people claim that listening to LvB's 9th brings tears to the eyes or the listener nearer to something ineffable) it's not really a satisfactory universal for 'profundity'.

Is there an explanation/definition that has been set out in the thread that I've missed?

Would anyone care to continue by comparing, say, Mahler's 5th with Vaughan Williams 5th and determining which is the more profound? We might get closer to 'profundity' through such an analysis. If you don't like these two, by all means pick two others.


----------



## Woodduck

Forster said:


> There has been little analysis of CM to exemplify and thereby help establish what 'profundity' in music actually sounds like.


No definition of profundity in art has been, or will be, agreed on here. And even if it were, why would you expect profundity to have a particular sound? Or look, in the visual arts? Or subject matter, in any art? Art isn't that simple. Not remotely.


> Would anyone care to continue by comparing, say, Mahler's 5th with Vaughan Williams 5th and determining which is the more profound? We might get closer to 'profundity' through such an analysis. If you don't like these two, by all means pick two others.


That would be a fool's errand. I would hope no one would imagine that profundity is a quantifiable substance, and that we can weigh the relative qualities of superb works of art with precision. Art works are not even strictly comparable except in terms of very specific qualities - we might be comparing apples not only with oranges but with aardvarks - and profundity isn't even an aesthetic quality such as proportion, harmony, balance, etc., which can fairly easily be assessed by anyone with a good ear or eye. Honestly, I find your proposal rather startling.


----------



## Forster

Woodduck said:


> No definition of profundity in art has been, or will be, agreed on here. And even if it were, why would you expect profundity to have a particular sound? Or look, in the visual arts? Or subject matter, in any art? Art isn't that simple. Not remotely.


I'm not looking for agreement. I'm looking for someone to say what it is, to describe it, to illustrate it. The whole point of my summary is to check where we've got to (aside from up our own fundaments or each others' noses). I think we've got nowhere, but I think I'm right in saying that I'm the only other one (aside from SM) who's come out and said profundity is not a useful term wrt music, and I'm still not clear what others think it 'sounds' like. I say 'sounds' because it's music, of course; to talk about what profundity 'looks' like is just silly.

References to other arts are, IMO, irrelevant, since the thread is about profundity wrt music, not sculpture, literature, painting etc, where, it might be argued, it is easier to convey ideas (profound or not) than it is in music.



Woodduck said:


> That would be a fool's errand. I would hope no one would imagine that profundity is a quantifiable substance, and that we can weigh the relative qualities of superb works of art with precision. Art works are not even strictly comparable except in terms of very specific qualities - we might be comparing apples not only with oranges but with aardvarks - and profundity isn't even an aesthetic quality such as proportion, harmony, balance, etc., which can fairly easily be assessed by anyone with a good ear or eye. Honestly, I find your proposal rather startling.


Well, I've no problem being a fool - but if no-one takes up the idea, that's fine. As for the idea that profundity is a quantifiable, measurable substance, all I can say is that if no one is prepared to desribe it in some way, shape or form, I'm pretty clear that it is, indeed, a redundant term.

Previously, you've said:



> The profundity in art lies not in "how much it means to me" - i.e., how much I like it - but in the _range of meanings_, and in _what kinds of meanings_, it is seen to be capable of conveying and provoking.
> 
> This view does of course assume that art actually has the capacity to mean something, with the corollary that the range of meanings a given work will convey is determined to a major degree by the nature of the work - which is to say, that meaning is not merely something imposed by the audience.


I assume you were including music in 'art', and therefore, you could further illustrate your description of profundity with reference to some specific examples. I'm not sure why, if you think profundity does exist in music, you would find my suggestion that we look for it so startling.


----------



## Strange Magic

As an example of real profundity, in that it deals with the fate of humanity and quite probably that of Earth's biosphere, there is Garrett Hardin's shattering essay _The Tragedy of the Commons, _appearing like a bolt of lightning in 1968 as a lead article in Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It struck me at the time (and still does) with its resemblance to Greek tragedy: as Hardin writes: "The essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things." And Hardin wrote _The Tragedy,,, _years before global warming was even being seriously discussed, though a handful of scientists had worried about the consequences of putting vast quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. AGW has only increased the profundity of the issue and is now forcing Hardin's thesis ever more forward into the public's consciousness. Too late? We may be the generation or the parents or grandparents of those who will see, though the outlines are clear.

I offer this as an example of the profundity with which science and writings about science can be imbued and submit that art's profundities are of a different, lesser order, if profundity can be attributed to art at all. Sublimity, yes--we have all experienced it in art. I would be happy(!?) to be shown an example in art where the gravity of such issues is addressed with equal profundity, force, consciousness of consequence.


----------



## hammeredklavier

What would Beethoven's predecessors have thought of youtube.com/watch?v=FwZsDzGY1XA&t=44m44s (~45:06) in terms of profundity? (This is not a putdown of Beethoven). Are we indulging in the wishful thinking "they would also have seen Beethoven's genius just like we do today"? Are we trying to separate the artists from the sensibilities of their respective times and places?


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> What would Beethoven's predecessors have thought of youtube.com/watch?v=FwZsDzGY1XA&t=44m44s (~45:06) in terms of profundity? (This is not a putdown of Beethoven). Are we indulging in the wishful thinking "they would also have seen Beethoven's genius just like we do today"? Are we trying to separate the artists from the sensibilities of their times and places?


They'd be relieved that the painfully slow adagio is finally over

(just kidding, sorry Beethoven fans)


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> What would Beethoven's predecessors have thought of youtube.com/watch?v=FwZsDzGY1XA&t=44m44s (~45:06) in terms of profundity? (This is not a putdown of Beethoven). Are we indulging in the wishful thinking "they would also have seen Beethoven's genius just like we do today"? Are we trying to separate the artists from the sensibilities of their respective times and places?


You‘re coming at it from the wrong direction. What did the composers think who followed Beethoven? Why did Schumann tell Brahms that, in effect, he was the next Beethoven? Why did Brahms wait until his forties to write his first symphony partly because he felt obligated to live up to that expectation?


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> I'm not looking for agreement. I'm looking for someone to say what it is, to describe it, to illustrate it.


How about this? Profound or not?




Or this?


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> So, 32 pages on (ignoring the previous thread), there seems to be only one clearly stated opinion (though no agreement) on what 'profundity' is (wrt to CM) and, ironically, it is not in the field of classical music....


We could continue for another 1,000 pages, and that would not change.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> You‘re coming at it from the wrong direction. What did the composers think who followed Beethoven? Why did Schumann tell Brahms that, in effect, he was the next Beethoven? Why did Brahms wait until his forties to write his first symphony partly because he felt obligated to live up to that expectation?


Even though I generally believe that art/music is experienced subjectively I have no problem also accepting the judgment of history that some composers were greater than others. I also find the various attempts at undermining the validity of this judgment of history to be ridiculous. Beethoven and the other "greats" are held in high esteem for a reason. or reasons. I made a stab at explaining it, but I know what I wrote is far from enough or even close.

How to nail down exactly how that esteem materialized is probably impossible to objectively define and in any event all the attempts at explanation have not and will not satisfy everyone, or possibly anyone.

But while I accept the notion that Beethoven is among the greatest composers of the Western European Classical music tradition, his music is not the most important music in my life. Part of it is that the entirety of the Classical music canon is not the most important music in my life, but more importantly the idea of "great music" is not important to my appreciation of it nor a motivating factor for me to seek it out.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> How about this? Profound or not?


neither has moved as many people as


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> neither has moved as many people as


Well, there’s just no doubt that Pachelbel’s Canon is the pinnacle of accomplishment in CM. It’s all been downhill since.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *SanAntone: "*Even though I generally believe that art/music is experienced subjectively I have no problem also accepting the judgment of history that some composers were greater than others. I also find the various attempts at undermining the validity of this judgment of history to be ridiculous. Beethoven and the other "greats" are held in high esteem for a reason. or reasons. I made a stab at explaining it, but I know what I wrote is far from enough or even close."


No one disputes this. I certainly don't. No one is attempting to undermine the validity of the judgement of history. There are reasons why LVB is held in high esteem and they are all subjecrive. He crafted music that resonated with large numbers of CM enthusiasts because his music was wired into the neurochemical reaction circuits and life experiences of people in a position to ensure that his name and music would be passed on. The problem is that each individual's neurochemistry and life experiences are unique (we are not talking here about brain disease). This will guarantee that reactions to his music will vary, and not exhibit the uniform, universal response that one would expect from an objective, incontrovertible display of undeniable attributes that are obvious to all observers.


----------



## fbjim

I'm not sure such a literal definition of what happened to Beethoven's art helps us understand anything about Beethoven, aesthetics or music.


----------



## Woodduck

Forster said:


> I'm not looking for agreement. I'm looking for someone to say what it is, to describe it, to illustrate it. The whole point of my summary is to check where we've got to (aside from up our own fundaments or each others' noses). I think we've got nowhere, but I think I'm right in saying that I'm the only other one (aside from SM) who's come out and said profundity is not a useful term wrt music, and I'm still not clear what others think it 'sounds' like. I say 'sounds' because it's music, of course; to talk about what profundity 'looks' like is just silly.
> 
> References to other arts are, IMO, irrelevant, since the thread is about profundity wrt music, not sculpture, literature, painting etc, where, it might be argued, it is easier to convey ideas (profound or not) than it is in music.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've no problem being a fool - but if no-one takes up the idea, that's fine. As for the idea that profundity is a quantifiable, measurable substance, all I can say is that if no one is prepared to desribe it in some way, shape or form, I'm pretty clear that it is, indeed, a redundant term.
> 
> Previously, you've said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assume you were including music in 'art', and therefore, you could further illustrate your description of profundity with reference to some specific examples. I'm not sure why, if you think profundity does exist in music, you would find my suggestion that we look for it so startling.


Profundity isn't a property, strictly speaking, of art - or of anything in any field, including philosophy or science. Neither is it an all-or-nothing proposition. When we call art profound, we're referring to its capacity to generate and inspire ideas and feelings of certain kinds in people able to "read" the "language" of that art (for example, the tonal system of Western music, or the parallel musical systems of the music of other cultures). A work's capacity to do this exists objectively, in the work, and in highly variable degree; the ideas and feelings it inspires exist subjectively, in the listener, and are the result of both the stimulus of the work itself and any other factors the listener brings to the experience. The complexity of art, and the complexity of the interactions between the objective factors in the work and the subjective responses that constitute the aesthetic experience, just can't be pinned down and described in a way that I'm guessing would satisfy you, although we could discuss till the cows come home works listeners tend to think are worthy of being called "profound." Ambitious and knowledgeable people have done that; they've talked and written extensively about the works of Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, etc. What they've had to say may not make sense to anyone to whom the notion of profundity in art is alien. I can't speak for anyone else here, but I certainly haven't the fortitude to take a skeptical person on a tour of, say, Bach's _St. Matthew_, Wagner's _Parsifal,_ or Beethoven's quartet in c# minor, in the probably vain hope that a neon sign flashing "profundity" might turn on in his brain. I'd rather hang out someplace fun like the opera forum, where people are just listening to music and sharing their perceptions and aren't harrassing each other for demonstrations of what's better than what.

I understand and respect the choice not to apply the word "profound" to music. It's only a word, after all.


----------



## Strange Magic

fbjim said:


> I'm not sure such a literal definition of what happened to Beethoven's art helps us understand anything about Beethoven, aesthetics or music.


Exactly. You must look into your own reaction to and thoughts about Beethoven to sense what is in play when you listen to his music and read about his life and thought.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> As an example of real profundity, in that it deals with the fate of humanity and quite probably that of Earth's biosphere, there is Garrett Hardin's shattering essay _The Tragedy of the Commons, _appearing like a bolt of lightning in 1968 as a lead article in Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It struck me at the time (and still does) with its resemblance to Greek tragedy: as Hardin writes: "The essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things." And Hardin wrote _The Tragedy,,, _years before global warming was even being seriously discussed, though a handful of scientists had worried about the consequences of putting vast quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. AGW has only increased the profundity of the issue and is now forcing Hardin's thesis ever more forward into the public's consciousness. Too late? We may be the generation or the parents or grandparents of those who will see, though the outlines are clear.
> 
> I offer this as an example of the profundity with which science and writings about science can be imbued and submit that art's profundities are of a different, lesser order, if profundity can be attributed to art at all. Sublimity, yes--we have all experienced it in art. I would be happy(!?) to be shown an example in art where the gravity of such issues is addressed with equal profundity, force, consciousness of consequence.


Yes, art's profundities are definitely of a "different order." But because they are, because no exact comparison is possible, it makes no sense to call them "lesser." That is mere subjective bias. 

All your argument about profundity comes down to is that you choose to use a word in a certain way - to narrow the range of definition belonging quite properly to a word. Isn't it odd to expend all this effort to justify a semantic choice?


----------



## Strange Magic

The profound is that which causes one to ruminate upon and/or to ask questions about our very being in the universe, our future and that of the rest of Earth's creatures, the vast forces at work to shape life and even matter itself, and the final outcome of the Big Story. I have posted several times about the profundity of the now well-established stories that science tells us about some of these things--evolution by natural selection, the expanding universe, plate tectonics, ongoing research into the very large and the extremely small, string theory, so many more. Some ideas will be discarded, others modified or reinforced. I asked for an equivalent example in the arts, and, with a very few exceptions (such as certain poetry of Jeffers, Yeats, and a handful of others working in literature where thoughts can so much more clearly be expressed and developed than in music and the static visual arts, I find nothing comparable to the profundities of science. One can listen to LVB's 9th or whatever one chooses. Then it's over, and it's on to the next thing.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> No one disputes this. I certainly don't. _No one is attempting to undermine the validity of the judgement of history._ There are reasons why LVB is held in high esteem and they are all subjecrive. He crafted music that resonated with large numbers of CM enthusiasts because his music was wired into the neurochemical reaction circuits and life experiences of people in a position to ensure that his name and music would be passed on. The problem is that each individual's neurochemistry and life experiences are unique (we are not talking here about brain disease). This will guarantee that reactions to his music will vary, and not exhibit the uniform, universal response that one would expect from an objective, incontrovertible display of undeniable attributes that are obvious to all observers.


Why is it that you always revert to individual subjectivity while having just said something like, ‘_No one is attempting to undermine the validity of the judgement of history? _And as for _’There are reasons why LVB is held in high esteem and they are all subjective. _Well, no they’re not all subjective. These are yet more examples of an inability to recognize the objectivity elephant in the room.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Yes, art's profundities are definitely of a "different order." But because they are, because no exact comparison is possible, it makes no sense to call them "lesser." That is mere subjective bias.
> 
> All your argument about profundity comes down to is that you choose to use a word in a certain way - to narrow the range of definition belonging quite properly to a word. Isn't it odd to expend all this effort to justify a semantic choice?


Your candidate for a piece of music as profound as _The Tragedy of the Commons?_


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Why is it that you always revert to individual subjectivity while having just said something like, ‘_No one is attempting to undermine the validity of the judgement of history? _And as for _’There are reasons why LVB is held in high esteem and they are all subjective. _Well, no they’re not all subjective. These are, yet, more examples of an inability to recognize the objectivity elephant in the room.


As you wish. No real point in discussing it with you, is there? My case is clear, and, as some have pointed out, almost unique in its premises and its consistency. The inability to absorb it is due to the immense strain it would take to move the locomotive onto another track entirely.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> Your candidate for a piece of music as profound as _The Tragedy of the Commons?_


"Profundity" isn't a contest. It's there or it isn't. Anyway an environmental piece isn't really in the same category as a work of art. Is _The Tragedy of the Commons_ as profound as _The Wealth of Nations_?


hammeredklavier said:


> neither has moved as many people as
> ...


Maybe it's profound too.


----------



## SanAntone

Strange Magic said:


> As you wish. No real point in discussing it with you, is there? My case is clear, and, as some have pointed out, almost unique in its premises and its consistency. The inability to absorb it is due to the immense strain it would take to move the locomotive onto another track entirely.


In an earlier post you said you'd been listening to CM for 75 years. May I ask how old are you? Unless you started listening at a very young age you must be close to 90.


----------



## SanAntone

I admit that I have no idea what profundity in music would sound like. But I don't think I'd like it.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Your candidate for a piece of music as profound as _The Tragedy of the Commons?_


I just said "art's profundities are definitely of a 'different order.' But because they are, because no exact comparison is possible, it makes no sense to call them 'lesser.'"

Apples and aardvarks.


----------



## fbjim

SanAntone said:


> Even though I generally believe that art/music is experienced subjectively I have no problem also accepting the judgment of history that some composers were greater than others. I also find the various attempts at undermining the validity of this judgment of history to be ridiculous. Beethoven and the other "greats" are held in high esteem for a reason. or reasons. I made a stab at explaining it, but I know what I wrote is far from enough or even close.
> 
> How to nail down exactly how that esteem materialized is probably impossible to objectively define and in any event all the attempts at explanation have not and will not satisfy everyone, or possibly anyone.
> 
> But while I accept the notion that Beethoven is among the greatest composers of the Western European Classical music tradition, his music is not the most important music in my life. Part of it is that the entirety of the Classical music canon is not the most important music in my life, but more importantly the idea of "great music" is not important to my appreciation of it nor a motivating factor for me to seek it out.


Back when you asked posters to submit their five greatest composers, I chose the five composers I thought had the greatest influence on classical music, because historical influence was about as close as I could get to an objective list. 

The reason I find this unsatisfying as an explanation of whether or not things like beauty, profundity, quality etc are measurable qualities of music itself is that I think the interest lies in whether or not aesthetic evaluation is necessarily objective, and a musicological overview of which composers had the greatest impact doesn't constitute aesthetic evaluation.


----------



## SanAntone

Yes, how we decide which composers are great depends on what musical attributes contribute to greatness. And in order to do that the scope of what music is under analysis must be rather small since as soon as a new style becomes prevalent, many of what had been important attributes are no longer important. 

How can Debussy be compared to Beethoven using what has been called "objective musical information"? The only meaningful metric, IMO, remains relative historical impact. But as you say that does not constitute aesthetic value, which would seem to reside in the ears of the listener.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> "Profundity" isn't a contest. It's there or it isn't. Anyway an environmental piece isn't really in the same category as a work of art. Is _The Tragedy of the Commons_ as profound as _The Wealth of Nations_?
> Maybe it's profound too.


Are either of them art? _The Wealth of Nations_ is profound but of a lesser order of profundity, Many past cultures operated on different economic principles than Smith's suppositions, And, at the heart of Hardin's _Tragedy _is the work of Malthus. If you like, I can retrieve a long thread on Malthusianism and population growth in general.


----------



## Luchesi

Many folks don't care about dissecting music to try to see how it works, why it's effective as serious art. Nor follow the development in scores down through time.

I've never cared about people's vague subjective notions, in any technical field.

Are these similar? Are we both deluded according to the hard sciences? The soft sciences take a shot at it. We can Google the papers. I expect we won't 'know' until there's a complete theory, explaining everything, but I agree that in music there aren't harsh consequences for the individual (I think there are for musicians, but that's a personal opinion from out of my experience.) People like SM can enjoy music all their life, like he does favorite ice cream flavors, and spectator sports, without participating in them. It's enough for them. I shouldn't be concerned at all. We nurture interests which can grow with us, or we don't. I have friends in both categories.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> I just said "art's profundities are definitely of a 'different order.' But because they are, because no exact comparison is possible, it makes no sense to call them 'lesser.'"
> 
> Apples and aardvarks.


Needless to say, I disagree. Art's (music's) alleged profundities are of a different and lower order indeed.. Music is just not capable without lyrics of transmitting the data for full understanding of the enormities of the examples I raised. The Sublime, yes.


----------



## fbjim

I'm not even sure critics necessarily care about that. This is speaking in terms of film (the nature of classical music makes criticism a bit different - very few people will go out and rate Mahler 6 a 9.2/10 or something, unless they're talking about a performance), but only a small quantity of film or serious literature critics I've seen are really interested in formal analysis. Certainly I have some that I read that get into the gritty details of editing and cinematography- or really dissect a writer's prose, but that's not the only lens that critics look through, and that's generally accepted.


----------



## fbjim

SanAntone said:


> Yes, how we decide which composers are great depends on what musical attributes contribute to greatness. And in order to do that the scope of what music is under analysis must be rather small since as soon as a new style becomes prevalent, many of what had been important attributes are no longer important.
> 
> How can Debussy be compared to Beethoven using what has been called "objective musical information"? The only meaningful metric, IMO, remains relative historical impact. But as you say that does not constitute aesthetic value, which would seem to reside in the ears of the listener.



Also - I don't even think the "objectivists" are particularly satisfied to leave it at that either. After all, if all one wanted to say was that there existed _an_ objective way to evaluate music/composers/art, that's very obviously true (as has been said a few times - it's possible to, at least loosely - objectively sort composers by their historical importance in the development of music) - at least most of the "subjectivists" i've seen agree with this. However it's pretty rare that I see someone arguing on the "side of objectivity" to leave it at that - frequently it goes into questions of form, craftsmanship, and beauty that venture beyond the scope of historical/musicological analysis, because it's not satisfying to just say that there is _an_ objective way to evaluate music - especially when that way doesn't really have to do with aesthetics or musical form.


----------



## Strange Magic

SanAntone said:


> In an earlier post you said you'd been listening to CM for 75 years. May I ask how old are you? Unless you started listening at a very young age you must be close to 90.


82. I picked 75 years because I don't know when I first listened to CM. It was always in my home, along with other musics.

Edit: The first piece of CM that I very distinctly remember is _Traviata, Prelude, Act One. _I recall being glued to the speaker of our phonograph and imploring my mother to play the 78 yet again.


----------



## Strange Magic

*^^^^@Luchesi: *I agree. Music, including CM, is for people,


----------



## fbjim

I guess this has been raised before, but maybe I should lay it out - on either side of the debate, if it's posited that there exists _some_ objective ways to evaluate music, and _some_ subjective ways to evaluate music, is there a reason this isn't a satisfying compromise? Is it because many of the objective lenses don't really get into form, or is it because it still leaves us without an "answer" to these questions that's true in all frames-of-reference?


----------



## hammeredklavier

"Bach's St. Matthew, Wagner's Parsifal, or Beethoven's quartet in c# minor"-
So if you suggest any of these works as being


hammeredklavier said:


> Things can be and have qualities to be popular, but whether or not they're popular because they're superficially appealing, sentimental, or over the top, or have attractive concepts (eg. "avantgardists of their time", "tortured artists", "musical philosophers", "masters of universal laws of complexity/simplicity") etc, still depends on how each one of us perceives them.


, you risk yourself ending up in eternal hellfire.
Sorry, I'm only interested in music appreciation, not religious worship.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> As you wish. No real point in discussing it with you, is there? My case is clear, and, as some have pointed out, almost unique in its premises and its consistency. The inability to absorb it is due to the immense strain it would take to move the locomotive onto another track entirely.


I’d rather stay on a main line, not stuck on a siding.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> I guess this has been raised before, but maybe I should lay it out - on either side of the debate, if it's posited that there exists _some_ objective ways to evaluate music, and _some_ subjective ways to evaluate music, is there a reason this isn't a satisfying compromise? Is it because many of the objective lenses don't really get into form, or is it because it still leaves us without an "answer" to these questions that's true in all frames-of-reference?


You started out well, but as for the finale, have you not been paying attention? Why put the blame on the ‘objective lenses’ when there is virtually no one here saying that evaluations are entirely objective while there are, very conspicuously, 2 or 3 (maybe 4) who only see subjectivity and nothing else.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> Are either of them art?


No, so there's no point in bringing either up on a classical music forum.


> The_ Wealth of Nations_ is profound but of a lesser order of profundity....


I would imagine most economists would disagree.


----------



## fluteman

[Q


Strange Magic said:


> Needless to say, I disagree. Art's (music's) alleged profundities are of a different and lower order indeed.. Music is just not capable without lyrics of transmitting the data for full understanding of the enormities of the examples I raised. The Sublime, yes.


Yes, if by "lower order" you mean "not universal". And in fact, the same applies to music with lyrics, literary art, and all art. "Hard" art principles do exist as Luchesi says, but they simply are not universal the way scientific principals are. There is a famous quote by the great German philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein about this that I have dug out before. But I've noticed most of you are profoundly bored by things like that, so I won't do it again.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> I’d rather stay on a main line, not stuck on a siding.


Yes. There is comfort in numbers.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> As you wish. No real point in discussing it with you, is there? My case is clear, and, as some have pointed out, almost unique in its premises and its consistency. The inability to absorb it is due to the immense strain it would take to move the locomotive onto another track entirely.


How do you know that objectively?


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> .
> I would imagine most economists would disagree.


I think you are entirely correct. Economists as a class are notoriously ignorant of the physical and biological world around them. Julian Simon was a favorite whipping boy of mine--one of the school of cornucopian economists who foresee a Golden Age of ever-increasing material well-being and happiness beyond the Panglossian times we live in now.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> You started out well, but as for the finale, have you not been paying attention? Why put the blame on the ‘objective lenses’ when there is virtually no one here saying that evaluations are entirely objective while there are, very conspicuously, 2 or 3 (maybe 4) who only see subjectivity and nothing else.


I guess the question is where the disagreement specifically lies. 

I think most agree that there are frames of reference which objectively evaluate music, from the irrelevant (how many A-flat notes does this piece have), to the trivial (how long is the piece), to the interesting (what impact did this piece have on future composers). I don't know if anyone would actually deny that. 

Is the disagreement that (at least what I believe) the subjectivists don't see this as sufficient explanation to prove that qualities of musical form like beauty, expressiveness, and - yes- profundity - necessarily are concrete things that objectively exist in musical form?


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> Well, there’s just no doubt that Pachelbel’s Canon is the pinnacle of accomplishment in CM. It’s all been downhill since.


It's all abstract progressions of sound. Let's not be pretentious about it. The purpose of counterpoint on the fundamental level is to please the listener by placing notes against notes. (The Latin term "Contra punctus" = "point against point"). How you interpret the reasons for the greater popularity of Pachelbel's canon compared to those of Bach's musical offering, and
how much you indulge in double standards in matters such as this is up to you.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> How do you know that objectively?


(Snore)


----------



## fbjim

I actually do think the Canon is an interesting case where arbitrary, or chance circumstances can result in popularity (Would that piece be in the public mind at all without the Paillard recording?), though I find it hard use it to make any kind of judgement on musical popularity in general except that we don't know precisely how it works.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> I think you are entirely correct. Economists as a class are notoriously ignorant of the physical and biological world around them. Julian Simon was a favorite whipping boy of mine--one of the school of cornucopian economists who foresee a Golden Age of ever-increasing material well-being and happiness beyond the Panglossian times we live in now.


Hardin's article is hardly beyond criticism either. Not is Malthus for that matter. _Quotations from Chairman Mao_ has probably had far more impact.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> (Snore)


Snore? You state all this as if you have confidence in some objective "truth" (a term you actually used to describe your unique insights in an earlier comment). I'm wondering what the basis of that confidence is other than online braggadocio.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> Hardin's article is hardly beyond criticism either. Not is Malthus for that matter. _Quotations from Chairman Mao_ has probably had far more impact.


I have dealt extensively and exhaustively with the criticism and critics of _The Tragedy_ in the long thread on Malthusianism, which we can resurrect in an instant. I take it you are familiar with the essay, yes?


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> Snore? You state all this as if you have confidence in some objective "truth" (a term you actually used to describe your unique insights in an earlier comment). I'm wondering what the basis of that confidence is other than online braggadocio.


(Still snoring)


----------



## fbjim

I suppose the Canon is interesting because it's one of the few cases I know of where a classical work became popular in the same way a pop song does - it's hard for me to think of another piece where a _very specific_ recording is the "popular" one except cases where a certain soloist became a media figure, like Pavarotti or Van Cliburn.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> I actually do think the Canon is an interesting case where arbitrary, or chance circumstances can result in popularity (Would that piece be in the public mind at all without the Paillard recording?), though I find it hard use it to make any kind of judgement on musical popularity in general except that we don't know precisely how it works.


It's really not arbitrary or mysterious. It's fairly easily grasped and initially attractive, but doesn't really reward repeated listenings or in-depth study from what I can tell. It's become sort of musical wallpaper. It's unfortunate that that's the only piece that an interesting composer like Pachelbel is known for.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> I have dealt extensively and exhaustively with the criticism and critics of _The Tragedy_ in the long thread on Malthusianism, which we can resurrect in an instant. I take it you are familiar with the essay, yes?


(snore)


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> It's really not arbitrary or mysterious. It's fairly easily grasped and initially attractive, but doesn't really reward repeated listenings or in-depth study from what I can tell. It's become sort of musical wallpaper. It's unfortunate that that's the only piece that an interesting composer like Pachelbel is known for.


It certainly has an immediate appeal, but I certainly don't think that piece becomes the record sale and pop-culture sensation that it did without that specific Paillard recording.

I remember a story where when a HIP period-instruments recording (at an appropriately quick tempo) was released, it was constantly returned to stores because it "wasn't the one on the radio". Like I said, I don't think this is really something where one can generalize about popularity except that it sometimes really does happen for weird reasons. I wonder how long that piece paid for Erato's bills?

as an aside i remember some HIP conductor saying something to the effect that Paillard should be hanged for his crimes against baroque music - hah


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> (snore)


I'll take that as a resounding *NO*, you haven't read it.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> as an aside i remember some HIP conductor saying something to the effect that Paillard should be hanged for his crimes against baroque music - hah


Typical HIP. 


> I remember a story where when a HIP period-instruments recording (at an appropriately quick tempo) was released, it was constantly returned to stores because it "wasn't the one on the radio".


I'd prefer Paillard to most HIP recordings too, so that's understandable.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> I'll take that as a resounding *NO*, you haven't read it.


(still snoring)


----------



## Luchesi

dissident said:


> It's really not arbitrary or mysterious. It's fairly easily grasped and initially attractive, but doesn't really reward repeated listenings or in-depth study from what I can tell. It's become sort of musical wallpaper. It's unfortunate that that's the only piece that an interesting composer like Pachelbel is known for.


It might actually be wedding music for JC Bach, according to wiki.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> Yes, how we decide which composers are great depends on what musical attributes contribute to greatness. And in order to do that the scope of what music is under analysis must be rather small since as soon as a new style becomes prevalent, many of what had been important attributes are no longer important.
> 
> How can Debussy be compared to Beethoven using what has been called "objective musical information"? The only meaningful metric, IMO, remains relative historical impact. But as you say that does not constitute aesthetic value, which would seem to reside in the ears of the listener.


IMO, it is better to compare the composers and their works of the CP era separate from era(s) that followed. Debussy is a case-in-point as representing the latter far more than the former. While he was born in 1862, the works he is mainly known for did not appear until starting in the very late 19th century and he apparently didn’t start to feel secure in his composing until his forties. Not to mention that he has been called one of the first CM impressionists, he rejected traditional symphonies for symphonic sketches and his works emphasized solo piano preludes, exudes and the like. Most of his works were, in fact, not particularly long.

Of course Debussy was influential, but on a par with Beethoven (if one chooses to cross the line into CP era territory)? One of the areas that seems to be surprisingly less mentioned, is the measure of the greatness of a composer based on successful versatility. It would seem that a composer that influences music that follows on the basis of symphonies, concertos, sonatas, trios, quartets etc. and wherein, there are works in each of these categories that have been judged among the best ever composed, must be in a tier above a composer whose output is relatively restricted. After all, the more one attempts to diversify in various directions in the arts, the more the risk of getting something wrong. Beethoven got very little wrong.


----------



## fbjim

I don't know how much versatility in form matters beyond personal preference. I can certainly name a few composers who many would name as all-time greats based on a relatively small body of work in relatively limited genres - Mahler, Bruckner, and the Teutonic elephant in the room, Wagner, for starters.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> It certainly has an immediate appeal, but I certainly don't think that piece becomes the record sale and pop-culture sensation that it did without that specific Paillard recording.
> ...


I'll have to take back what I said though, which probably comes from hearing the piece so often. In its canonic technique it probably does reward study.


----------



## 59540

DaveM said:


> Of course Debussy was influential, but on a par with Beethoven (if one chooses to cross the line into CP era territory)?


I don't know, but I seem to recall that Debussy ranks pretty highly in "greatest composer" rankings by composers. Actually I like a lot of Debussy, in small doses.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> It's all abstract progressions of sound. We shouldn't be pretentious about it. The purpose of counterpoint on the fundamental level is to please the listener by placing notes against notes. (The Latin term "Contra punctus" = "point against point"). How you interpret the reasons for the greater popularity of Pachelbel's canon compared to those of Bach's musical offering, and
> how much you indulge in double standards in matters such as this is up to you.


And how much you perseverate on the fact that a CM work has more hits on YouTube than others as if it has profound significance is up to you.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> ..Is the disagreement that (at least what I believe) the subjectivists don't see this as sufficient explanation to prove that qualities of musical form like _beauty_, expressiveness, and - yes- profundity - necessarily are concrete things that objectively exist in musical form?


Let‘s take a look at the subject of ‘beauty’ for the moment. It would appear that composers of the CP era often set out to compose something that would appear ‘beautiful’ to listeners. How does one set out to do that? There must be some formula in the composers mind that fits what enough people (to be significant) will be attracted to. If the composer is successful, as a fair number were during that period, even though individuals are subjectively finding the work beautiful, has not something objectively significant been accomplished by that composer having impacted so many listeners, particularly if the impact continues over decades and even centuries?


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> It's really not arbitrary or mysterious. It's fairly easily grasped and initially attractive,


Whatabout




Is it more profound than the Pachelbel?


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> (still snoring)


Ignorance is Strength! Keep snoring, please--you don't want to know what Hardin's essay says.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> Let‘s take a look at the subject of ‘beauty’ for the moment. It would appear that composers of the CP era often set out to compose something that would appear ‘beautiful’ to listeners. How does one set out to do that? There must be some formula in the composers mind that fits what enough people (to be significant) will be attracted to. If the composer is successful, as a fair number were during that period, even though individuals are subjectively finding the work beautiful, has not something objectively significant been accomplished by that composer having impacted so many listeners, particularly if the impact continues over decades and even centuries?


For a while, you had rules of classical tonality. Music was made for a relatively small audience who knew what they liked, and had agreed-upon rules of tonality and counterpoint to express what "proper music" should sound like. These changed over time, though, because the cultural standing of the artist changed with the advent of romanticism. _Breaking_ these rules, in fact, is one of the things that was celebrated about romanticism, because it ties into the archetype of the hero-artist who has a genius that should not be constrained by "rules".

To put it another way - yes, there was a specific "formula" that artists followed once to produce music that would be accepted, but I don't think this was true by the time we reach Beethoven, and even then, Beethoven is celebrated because he ventured outside this formula. An anecdote I read is typical of the cultural view of Beethoven - one of his composer friends said "This is a mistake, it isn't permitted" - Beethoven asked who didn't permit it, and the composer responded with the names of some prominent music theorists, to which he replied "I permit it!" So once we get past the capital-C Classical era, the "formula" in the composer's mind is more or less what the composer thought for themselves, because that's what Romantic artists were expected to do. This doesn't mean artists in the Romantic era are atonal, but I don't think one can say that artists past then were following any kind of "formula" except the ones they decided themselves.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> IMO, it is better to compare the composers and their works of the CP era separate from era(s) that followed.


Or before.

Well, that was my point, which is why I said "Yes, how we decide which composers are great depends on what musical attributes contribute to greatness. And in order to do that the scope of what music is under analysis must be rather small since as soon as a new style becomes prevalent, many of what had been important attributes are no longer important."

Which is precisely why I used the example of Beethoven and Debussy. 

The only real objective basis that works across styles and periods is one of historical impact. Both Beethoven and Debussy had huge impacts.

But that doesn't tell us anything about the aesthetic value of their music. Which is the point, right - the experience of listening to the music, i.e. how it sounds - not reading about the impact of the composer.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *DaveM: *' has not something objectively significant been accomplished by that composer having impacted so many listeners, particularly if the impact continues over decades and even centuries?"


Absolutely! It is an objective, provable fact that certain composers have impacted many listeners. No one denies this. And it continues over decades and centuries. I hope that clears that issue up.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> Whatabout
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it more profound than the Pachelbel?


No, I don't think so. As with the Michael Haydn example from earlier, it doesn't seem to go anywhere. What's your point?


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> Ignorance is Strength! Keep snoring, please--you don't want to know what Hardin's essay says.


I know what it says. I don't see what it has to do with classical music though.

Is "ignorance is strength" an objective or subjective statement?


----------



## fbjim

Strange Magic said:


> Absolutely! It is an objective, provable fact that certain composers have impacted many listeners. No one denies this. And it continues over decades and centuries. I hope that clears that issue up.


I happen to agree entirely. I simply don't think we can turn this objective fact into an objective way to "value" composers without necessarily making some subjective assumptions.

Even when I submitted who I thought the "objectively best 5 composers" were, the premise I used of "the greatest composers are the ones which had the most impact on the development of classical music" is only as true as one believes it is. (This is a big reason an "objective poll" is not possible). If someone else argued that skill of craftsmanship, rather than historical influence should determine the best composers, is there an objective answer to who's criterion is correct? The same is true of saying "The most profound music is that which has resonated with the most listeners over time". The fact that we can perhaps objectively measure what music has resonated with the most listeners over time does not mean the assumption itself is objective.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> Absolutely! It is an objective, provable fact that certain composers have impacted many listeners. ...


How and why? And it's interesting that you stated the situation as emanating from the composer -- the composer's impact -- and not as "many individual listeners have gravitated to *__*". Why so composer-centric and not listener-centric?


fbjim said:


> "the greatest composers are the ones which had the most impact on the development of classical music" is only as true as one believes it is.


Has Beethoven had objectively more of an impact than Joachim Raff? Why?


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> Has Beethoven had objectively more of an impact than Joachim Raff? Why?


Pretty clearly yes, though that wasn't really my point. "Historical influence" is - at least loosely, measurable, but it does not follow that the premise "Historical influence = greatness" is objectively true.

Just to break it down;
A) Historical influence is measurable in objective terms - I think we can loosely accept this as true, even if it may be difficult to quantify.
B) We can define the greatest composers as the ones with the most historical influence - Not necessarily true, depending on what one values in art.
C) Therefore greatness is an objective fact. - Only follows if one accepts the premise in B

"Music which has been popular through the ages" is potentially measurable - "Popular through the ages = profundity" is not necessarily true to everyone.


As to why? Jeez I dunno. I think a lot of people would like to know why some art is fascinating and some isn't. It'd clear up a lot of questions in aesthetic theory.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fbjim said:


> , Beethoven is celebrated because he ventured outside this formula. An anecdote I read is typical of the cultural view of Beethoven - one of his composer friends said "This is a mistake, it isn't permitted" - Beethoven asked who didn't permit it, and the composer responded with the names of some prominent music theorists, to which he replied "I permit it!"


Not always though
the-vocal-music-of-ludwig-van-beethoven "Beethoven was uncharacteristically unsure of his talents as a composer of vocal music: “When sound stirs within me I always hear the full orchestra; I know what to expect of instrumentalists, who are capable of almost everything, but with vocal composition I must always be asking myself: can this be sung?”


----------



## fbjim

hammeredklavier said:


> Not always though
> the-vocal-music-of-ludwig-van-beethoven "Beethoven was uncharacteristically unsure of his talents as a composer of vocal music: “When sound stirs within me I always hear the full orchestra; I know what to expect of instrumentalists, who are capable of almost everything, but with vocal composition I must always be asking myself: can this be sung?”


Maybe he should have asked "can this be sung?" more when writing the finale of the Ninth Symphony!

There's also the story, of which I'm not sure about the accuracy, that when Ignaz Schuppanzigh, a virtuoso violinist complained that one of his quartets was unplayable, he responded “Do you think I worry about your wretched fiddle when the spirit speaks to me?”. Now that's pure capital-R Romanticism!

(to that point, while some people put the difficulty of the solo parts of the 9th finale down to his relative inexperience as a vocal writer, or more dubiously, his deafness, I suspect he really just didn't care if the music was incredibly difficult to actually perform)


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> ...
> As to why? Jeez I dunno. I think a lot of people would like to know why some art is fascinating and some isn't. It'd clear up a lot of questions in aesthetic theory.


Oh, c'mon. Take a stab at it.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> ..Even when I submitted who I thought the "objectively best 5 composers" were, the premise I used of "the greatest composers are the ones which had the most impact on the development of classical music" is only as true as one believes it is.


One would hope that what one believes in the process has some substance.


> ..The fact that we can perhaps objectively measure what music has resonated with the most listeners over time does not mean the assumption itself is objective.


Why would one bother to objectively measure anything to do with an assumption that itself is unlikely to have any objective value?


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> Pretty clearly yes, though that wasn't really my point. "Historical influence" is - at least loosely, measurable, but it does not follow that the premise "Historical influence = greatness" is objectively true.
> 
> Just to break it down;
> A) Historical influence is measurable in objective terms - I think we can loosely accept this as true, even if it may be difficult to quantify.
> B) We can define the greatest composers as the ones with the most historical influence - Not necessarily true, depending on what one values in art.
> C) Therefore greatness is an objective fact. - Only follows if one accepts the premise in B
> 
> "Music which has been popular through the ages" is potentially measurable - "Popular through the ages = profundity" is not necessarily true to everyone.
> 
> 
> As to why? Jeez I dunno. I think a lot of people would like to know why some art is fascinating and some isn't. It'd clear up a lot of questions in aesthetic theory.


Somebody’s been drinking EY’s kool-aid.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fbjim said:


> Now that's pure capital-R Romanticism!


Sure, but all kinds of things can be argued to be.




"Haydn completed the Requiem before the year was over, signing it "S[oli] D[eo] H[onor] et G[loria.] Salisburgi 31 Dicembre 1771." At the beginning of that year, his daughter (only child) Aloisia Josefa died. Historians believe "his own personal bereavement" motivated the composition."


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

dissident said:


> Full stop.


Then what's the point? "Science is not omniscient, therefore..." what? 



dissident said:


> So what did science have to say about the uses its creation Zyklon B was put to?


I mentioned several pages back that science can't speak on normative ethics, so you're giving an example I already gave. Again, I don't see the point. How do you think anyone or anything else addresses such an issue?


----------



## Strange Magic

*



dissident:

Click to expand...

*


> "I know what it says. I don't see what it has to do with classical music though.
> 
> Is "ignorance is strength" an objective or subjective statement?"


You have not been attending. I offered (as you and actually know) the Hardin essay as an example of true profundity as contrasted with CM. Why do you so love this charade? And Ignorance is Strength in your case is inappropriate as you are clearly neither ignorant or strong.  Now, back to sleep!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

dissident said:


> Leonardo, Michelangelo, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner, Mahler...every one of them wanted to produce the "best" art that they possibly could. Is that "elitist"? In that sense art is inescapably and almost by definition elitist.


Who here is any of these artists? I'm not referring to the competitive nature of artists to be "better" than others by whatever subjective standards them or their audiences judged "better" by; I'm talking about music listeners wanting to feel superior to others merely because of what music they like and looking down on other music and the people who like it. Even with artists I think that competitive instinct is better suited for sports or games than art, but that's a different discussion.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> And it's interesting that you stated the situation as emanating from the composer -- the composer's impact -- and not as "many individual listeners have gravitated to *__*". Why so composer-centric and not listener-centric?


[
I'll go with either formulation, if it will make you happy. Let's concentrate on the exact wording--the shiny object--and forget the point made.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Forster said:


> So, 32 pages on (ignoring the previous thread), there seems to be only one clearly stated opinion (though no agreement) on what 'profundity' is (wrt to CM) and, ironically, it is not in the field of classical music.


I gave my opinion several pages back in, I think, a reply to Strange Magic's own stated opinion. We had some minor disagreements but were close to being on the same page.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> Why would one bother to objectively measure anything to do with an assumption that itself is unlikely to have any objective value?


The question of which composers had the greatest historical impact has objective value. The proposition that the greatest composers are the ones with the greatest historical impact is a subjective value statement. That is the difference.

We can relatively easily map this to "some music has retained acclaim and popularity over a long period of time" and "the music which has retained popularity over a long period of time is the most profound".




E) to put it another way, you have it backwards. What is being done is making a subjective value statement about objective data, which people do all the time. Not measuring something which holds no objective value.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

SanAntone said:


> Even though I generally believe that art/music is experienced subjectively I have no problem also accepting the judgment of history that some composers were greater than others. I also find the various attempts at undermining the validity of this judgment of history to be ridiculous. Beethoven and the other "greats" are held in high esteem for a reason. or reasons. I made a stab at explaining it, but I know what I wrote is far from enough or even close.


Personally, I'm not trying to "undermine the validity of this judgment of history," and I'm not even sure what that that means. The history that we're talking about is simply about what music appealed most to the most subjectivities of audiences, composers, critics, etc. The only point that the "subjectivists" make is that this judgment of many subjectivities doesn't amount to anything objective. People are free to care about such things or not.


----------



## SanAntone

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Personally, I'm not trying to "undermine the validity of this judgment of history," and I'm not even sure what that that means. The history that we're talking about is simply about what music appealed most to the most subjectivities of audiences, composers, critics, etc. The only point that the "subjectivists" make is that this judgment of many subjectivities doesn't amount to anything objective. People are free to care about such things or not.


I wasn't thinking of you or SM with that comment, however, there has been a claim made that "received wisdom" has played a huge role in why the great composers have retained that status. 

In the context of this thread I am a subjectivist myself, although I don't identify with that term since the issue is not black/white.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

fbjim said:


> I guess this has been raised before, but maybe I should lay it out - on either side of the debate, if it's posited that there exists _some_ objective ways to evaluate music, and _some_ subjective ways to evaluate music, is there a reason this isn't a satisfying compromise? Is it because many of the objective lenses don't really get into form, or is it because it still leaves us without an "answer" to these questions that's true in all frames-of-reference?


What I would say is that there are many ways to objectively look at music (historical influence/importance being one of these); and if we subjectively agree to use these objective elements as the standard for evaluation then we can make a judgment founded upon that subjective agreement of using objective elements. Whether one wants to call that an "objective evaluation" is really semantics, because on one level it is and on another level it isn't.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

SanAntone said:


> ...there has been a claim made that "received wisdom" has played a huge role in why the great composers have retained that status.


I do think it plays a role, but how big of a role is hard to determine. It would be an interesting experiment to have people who've never listened to classical music before be told that X-obscure composer is considered great and that Y-relatively-famous composer is considered inferior, have them listen and then see what the results of their subjective evaluations are. My feeling is that people will vary tremendously in how influenced they are by such "received wisdom." Some are more biased towards following such things, and some others are biased towards going against it. I think that's part of the general push-pull of conservative/progressive tendencies we see in many fields, including the arts.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

fluteman said:


> There is a famous quote by the great German philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein about this that I have dug out before. But I've noticed most of you are profoundly bored by things like that, so I won't do it again.


Just speaking for myself I'm never bored of such things.


----------



## fbjim

SanAntone said:


> I wasn't thinking of you or SM with that comment, however, there has been a claim made that "received wisdom" has played a huge role in why the great composers have retained that status.
> 
> In the context of this thread I am a subjectivist myself, although I don't identify with that term since the issue is not black/white.


I've said things of this nature but I actually think it's a concept in favor of the famous composers, not against them. When art becomes acclaimed enough, it can become a part of our culture. We don't just grow up in a world where the idea of "the great composers" is part of our culture, we grow up in a world where their music was so influential that their work has impacted a great deal of the work produced in their wake. Except in very specific edge cases, it's impossible to listen to Beethoven now in a world that hasn't been impacted by Beethoven, because some art is so impactful that cultural concepts of what art "should" be has been influenced by their work.

I don't mean to imply that art gains this status for random or arbitrary reasons (even if luck can sometimes play a role in fame). It's more an extension on the concept of historical influence than anything.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> IMO, it is better to compare the composers and their works of the CP era separate from era(s) that followed. Debussy is a case-in-point as representing the latter far more than the former. While he was born in 1862, the works he is mainly known for did not appear until starting in the very late 19th century and he apparently didn’t start to feel secure in his composing until his forties. Not to mention that he has been called one of the first CM impressionists, he rejected traditional symphonies for symphonic sketches and his works emphasized solo piano preludes, exudes and the like. Most of his works were, in fact, not particularly long.
> 
> Of course Debussy was influential, but on a par with Beethoven (if one chooses to cross the line into CP era territory)? One of the areas that seems to be surprisingly less mentioned, is the measure of the greatness of a composer based on successful versatility. It would seem that a composer that influences music that follows on the basis of symphonies, concertos, sonatas, trios, quartets etc. and wherein, there are works in each of these categories that have been judged among the best ever composed, must be in a tier above a composer whose output is relatively restricted. After all, the more one attempts to diversify in various directions in the arts, the more the risk of getting something wrong. Beethoven got very little wrong.


Somewhat tangential, but your post here reminds me of WH Auden's classification of "major" and "minor" artists, with the former being those who tried to speak to the largest swath of humanity through the most diversified means, while the latter are those who just spoke to a much more restricted audience through much more limited means. He went on to say that the latter were often personal favorites because, in refusing to be so "universal," they could often appeal more profoundly to the particularities of individuals. I also think this concept relates to the famous "fox/hedgehog" distinction among artists.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fbjim said:


> The question of which composers had the greatest historical impact has objective value. The proposition that the greatest composers are the ones with the greatest historical impact is a subjective value statement. That is the difference.


The interpretation of each composer's impact can be subjective. For example, the idea to use voices in symphonies (not that it's a bad thing objectively)- if you don't think the subsequent composers' decision to use voices in symphonies was a very good idea, you'll not value the influence of the pioneer highly. Every innovation was a Pandora's box that eventually led to modernism, which some people on the forum always express disapproval for.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> Shall we strive for a little objectivity here (or at least pretend that it exists)? You chose to launch an unneeded, arrantly subjective criticism of another member, embedding it in philosophizing in order, perhaps, to make it seem - ummm - more objectively justified, I thought it was unfair and stated my reasons. Really, shouldn't that have been the end of it? Now we get a lecture on whose words we should interpret how, and how "at some point we have to move past what words normally mean." Please.
> 
> No, If SM had meant to say something other than what his words literally mean - I'm sure he, or any of us, could do that without breaking a sweat - it was his job to do it. It isn't your job to pompously level accusations of disingenuousness at anyone who misinterprets what he writes, and tell us what we "need to do at some point." At some point _you_ may subjectively feel that _you_ need to do whatever. But neither DaveM nor I want or need any righteously subjective lectures from you on our understanding and use of language, our interactions with other members, or on anything else.
> 
> I'd suggest that this bone's been picked and should be buried. As there was precious little meat on it, there was never a need to dig it up in the first place.


I don't think it was "unneeded" because it demonstrates how some people in this thread continually misread other people by reading everything within the context of their own understanding of these issues and the language being used to discuss it. I'm sure we're all guilty of this to some extent, but when a poster has repeated their position hundreds of times, and then makes a post with language that is perfectly compatible with that position, why in the world would anyone choose to interpret that post as being incompatible with that position merely because those words could also be compatible with the opposing position? There is no rational justification for that. 

You and DaveM are harping on about what his words "literally mean," but you are not arbiters of what those words literally mean. I can say that SM's words do not "literally mean" anything that is only relevant or applicable to the objectivist position. Sure, if you want to keep misreading and misinterpreting people then, by all means, continue on this path of just reading posters not in a manner according to the Principle of Charity, not according to what THEY mean by the words they use, but only according to what YOU would mean by using those words. That's certainly the fair way to engage in discussion. 



Woodduck said:


> Oh my God, more self-righteous lectures. That makes two in one day. Is this virtue signaling typical of self-proclaimed subjectivists, this need to pronounce (subjective) judgment on what you think other people are like and how you think they should feel, think and act? Well, whatever. Your post does contain some fascinating ideas, though. I particularly enjoyed the one about the most profound parts of our humanity being the ones we share with head lice, tardigrades and boa constrictors.


Come now, Woodduck, I typed most of that reply a few days ago and just finished it yesterday, and nothing there is a "self-righteous lecture." If you want to discontinue our discussion then say so without the pretense of being offended by a self-righteous lecture when that post is in the exact same tenor that all of my replies to you are in. Plus, how many self-righteous lectures do we get from you about the Noble Artist? Not that I mind them, but people in glass houses and all that. 

Also, since it's the only part you even sort-of deigned to respond to; our "human nature" is made up of the millions of years of evolution we share with our ancestors (both homo-sapiens and other pre-homo-sapien species) as well the origins we share with literally every living being on the planet. THIS is a truly profound idea, one which Darwin helped discover that saved us from the "evil mythologies" of religion that you so vehemently reject. I assume you accept evolution, but you want to simultaneously accept it while seemingly holding onto the profoundly religious myth that humanity is of some objectively higher level of species that's above and beyond our cousins (other living creatures). It's a classic case of wanting to have one's cake and eat it too, but it's certainly a fact that our humanity isn't limited by the few ways in which we are different from other animals.


----------



## fbjim

The concept of how received wisdom can affect our view of composers has been contentious so I try to avoid it these days - but let me try here. 

Beethoven's work was played and studied by a certain number of peers who appreciated music - a good number of whom deemed it genius. Try as we might, though, we can never put ourselves in the shoes of these people. They grew up with completely different conceptions, cultural knowledge, and historical knowledge of classical music from us. The context of those people deeming Beethoven a genius is not going to be the same as the context of a modern-day listener deeming Beethoven a genius. 

I don't mean to imply "Oh, you only like Beethoven because you were told to", or "You only like him because he's popular". Nor do I mean to imply that the opinion of a modern listener of Beethoven is less valid than that of a contemporary of Beethoven's. Everyone almost certainly has at least one capital-G Great Work or Great Composer that they don't care for - people do have a good ability to reject conventional wisdom in favor of what they find remarkable. However, we can never listen to Beethoven in the same way as his peers did (or - at least it is incredibly difficult to do so. Can _you_ put yourself in the shoes of an average, well-educated composer in Beethoven's era, with the amount of musical knowledge and the conventional wisdom of their day?), We can certainly detach ourselves from preconceptions to a large extent and try to view a work "objectively" but this is different than experiencing a work in the same way as a contemporary of Beethoven's might have. Our cultural views on music, and our general knowledge of musical history have changed over time, and in the case of some artists, their contribution to musical history was so great that their influence on us - even if we don't actually listen to their music - is difficult to escape.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> What on earth are you talking about? This is a forum whereby communication is by the written word alone. So interpreting the words written by ‘what they usually mean’ is disingenuous?


First, I'm not convinced that what those words "usually mean" are stating an objectivist position. Second, yes, when a poster has made their position clear hundreds of times, and they type something that is interpretable in a way that's perfectly consistent with that position, it is absolutely disingenuous to interpret it as meaning something incompatible with that position. It violates the Principle of Charity as well as the rational principle of Occam's Razor. The only other possibility, which is arguably less flattering to you, is that you are still so completely ignorant of SM's position that you automatically default to your own position when interpreting what he's writing. 



DaveM said:


> One does not have to believe SM has become an arch objectivist to believe that sometimes his words betray someone on the one hand holding to a pure subjectivist position while on the other hand occasionally straying into objectivist territory perhaps unknowingly or in some kind of naivety. And don’t tell me that I am supposed to read/interpret something from the subjectivist position when the words as they are on the written page read otherwise.


This is just demonstrating the violation of both the Principle of Charity and of Occam's Razor. I could explain how, but then I just get accused of being wordy and self-righteous; though I hardly see why it's my fault that some here don't understand these things.


----------



## 59540

Anyway ...

After putting it off for a long time I'm getting into listening to that famous Solti Ring cycle. Four minutes into _Das Rheingold_ and I'm already floored. That could've been written last year. That's profound. Great, great. Crazy imaginative.


----------



## fbjim

After that infamous poll of contemporary composers, I started listening to more Ravel, and good lord - I kinda knew this already, but Ravel really was so much more than a superficial composer of orchestral special effects and light melodies. 

He was the most interesting response in that top ten because it does make me wonder if Ravel has some kind of new relevance to current composers and listeners, but I dunno enough about post-1970s stuff outside minimalism to really know that.


----------



## 59540

Eva Yojimbo said:


> ...
> I mentioned several pages back that science can't speak on normative ethics, so you're giving an example I already gave. ...


That _is_ the point.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> The concept of how received wisdom can affect our view of composers has been contentious so I try to avoid it these days - but let me try here.
> 
> Beethoven's work was played and studied by a certain number of peers who appreciated music - a good number of whom deemed it genius. Try as we might, though, we can never put ourselves in the shoes of these people. They grew up with completely different conceptions, cultural knowledge, and historical knowledge of classical music from us. The context of those people deeming Beethoven a genius is not going to be the same as the context of a modern-day listener deeming Beethoven a genius.
> 
> I don't mean to imply "Oh, you only like Beethoven because you were told to", or "You only like him because he's popular". Nor do I mean to imply that the opinion of a modern listener of Beethoven is less valid than that of a contemporary of Beethoven's. Everyone almost certainly has at least one capital-G Great Work or Great Composer that they don't care for - people do have a good ability to reject conventional wisdom in favor of what they find remarkable. However, we can never listen to Beethoven in the same way as his peers did (or - at least it is incredibly difficult to do so. Can _you_ put yourself in the shoes of an average, well-educated composer in Beethoven's era, with the amount of musical knowledge and the conventional wisdom of their day?), We can certainly detach ourselves from preconceptions to a large extent and try to view a work "objectively" but this is different than experiencing a work in the same way as a contemporary of Beethoven's might have. Our cultural views on music, and our general knowledge of musical history have changed over time, and in the case of some artists, their contribution to musical history was so great that their influence on us - even if we don't actually listen to their music - is difficult to escape.


The only problem with all of that is that when I first heard Beethoven and Bach waaaaaay back yonder when I was waaaaaay younger, I had zero knowledge of this received wisdom. I mean, it's a neat little psychosocial sort of theory and it would probably please some uni faculty, but in my personal experience it doesn't resonate. This and a lot of Eva Yojimbo's contributions are things which sound textbook-impressive but in some ways don't pass the test of practical experience.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

dissident said:


> That _is_ the point.


I get that's your point, but then what other conclusions should we draw from that?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

dissident said:


> The only problem with all of that is that when I first heard Beethoven and Bach waaaaaay back yonder when I was waaaaaay younger, I had zero knowledge of this received wisdom. I mean, it's a neat little psychosocial sort of theory and it would probably please some uni faculty, but in my personal experience it doesn't resonate. This and a lot of Eva Yojimbo's contributions are things which sound textbook-impressive but in some ways don't pass the test of practical experience.


You can't generalize from your personal experience. If that was how knowledge worked then everyone who lived to a ripe old age while smoking could conclude smoking wasn't bad for your health. It's a trivially true point that people are influenced by their society and culture in a billion different ways, large and small. The notion that this happens in music therefore shouldn't be unbelievable. The extent to which it happens with any individual or generally within groups is all that's really debatable.


----------



## fluteman

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Just speaking for myself I'm never bored of such things.


"You might think Aesthetics is a science telling us what's 
beautiful - almost too ridiculous for words. I suppose it ought to 
include also what sort of coffee tastes well."
Wittgenstein, Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Belief


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Absolutely! It is an objective, provable fact that certain composers have impacted many listeners. No one denies this. And it continues over decades and centuries. I hope that clears that issue up.


The problem is the failure to recognize the extent to which important objective qualities that some composers were blessed with, such as compositional skill and innovation, are at play that resulted in the impact on listeners.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> For a while, you had rules of classical tonality. Music was made for a relatively small audience who knew what they liked, and had agreed-upon rules of tonality and counterpoint to express what "proper music" should sound like. These changed over time, though, because the cultural standing of the artist changed with the advent of romanticism. _Breaking_ these rules, in fact, is one of the things that was celebrated about romanticism, because it ties into the archetype of the hero-artist who has a genius that should not be constrained by "rules".
> 
> To put it another way - yes, there was a specific "formula" that artists followed once to produce music that would be accepted, but I don't think this was true by the time we reach Beethoven, and even then, Beethoven is celebrated because he ventured outside this formula. An anecdote I read is typical of the cultural view of Beethoven - one of his composer friends said "This is a mistake, it isn't permitted" - Beethoven asked who didn't permit it, and the composer responded with the names of some prominent music theorists, to which he replied "I permit it!" So once we get past the capital-C Classical era, the "formula" in the composer's mind is more or less what the composer thought for themselves, because that's what Romantic artists were expected to do. This doesn't mean artists in the Romantic era are atonal, but I don't think one can say that artists past then were following any kind of "formula" except the ones they decided themselves.


Thee is a reason for the term: Common Practice era and it didn’t stop with the entry of Beethoven. Where did you get this idea?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> The problem is the failure to recognize the extent to which important objective qualities that some composers were blessed with, such as compositional skill and innovation, are at play that resulted in the impact on listeners.


I don't think anyone here has failed to recognize this either. That some composers compose in such a way that has created a positive reaction in many listeners over time is a fact as well. You can't have one without the other. The issue, as always, is that this is fundamentally a poll involving us counting how many subjectivities have reacted positively to certain music. We can speculate on the reasons why they reacted positively, including notions of "compositional skill and innovation," but those will ultimately just be speculation without rigorous scientific testing, and without the latter you're just getting into post-hoc and just-so fallacies.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> The question of which composers had the greatest historical impact has objective value. The proposition that the greatest composers are the ones with the greatest historical impact is a subjective value statement.


It is not a subjective value statement; it is a poorly worded overly-broad statement. The correct proposition is that there is a correlation between the greatest composers and the ones with the greatest historical impact.


----------



## 59540

Eva Yojimbo said:


> You can't generalize from your personal experience. If that was how knowledge worked then everyone who lived to a ripe old age while smoking could conclude smoking wasn't bad for your health. It's a trivially true point that people are influenced by their society and culture in a billion different ways, large and small. The notion that this happens in music therefore shouldn't be unbelievable. The extent to which it happens with any individual or generally within groups is all that's really debatable.


And you can't generalize _period_. You go on about "subjectivity" and then go around pushing yet another form of objectivity. The extent to which "it" happens is what your whole thesis hangs on. Otherwise it's pure speculation with no ground in reality except your say-so and philosophical terminology. It's nothing. All you can really say is "I. Don't. Know." But that requires a little humility, and you don't seem to have very much of that particular quality.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't think anyone here has failed to recognize this either. That some composers compose in such a way that has created a positive reaction in many listeners over time is a fact as well. You can't have one without the other. The issue, as always, is that this is fundamentally a poll involving us counting how many subjectivities have reacted positively to certain music. We can speculate on the reasons why they reacted positively, including notions of "compositional skill and innovation," but those will ultimately just be speculation without rigorous scientific testing, and without the latter you're just getting into post-hoc and just-so fallacies.


There appear to be some things that you need rigorous scientific testing in order to believe whereas I (and I believe some others here) only need some common sense and a couple of eyes and ears to believe.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't think it was "unneeded" because it demonstrates how some people in this thread continually misread other people by reading everything within the context of their own understanding of these issues and the language being used to discuss it. I'm sure we're all guilty of this to some extent, but when a poster has repeated their position hundreds of times, and then makes a post with language that is perfectly compatible with that position, why in the world would anyone choose to interpret that post as being incompatible with that position merely because those words could also be compatible with the opposing position? There is no rational justification for that.
> 
> You and DaveM are harping on about what his words "literally mean," but you are not arbiters of what those words literally mean. I can say that SM's words do not "literally mean" anything that is only relevant or applicable to the objectivist position.
> 
> Sure, if you want to keep misreading and misinterpreting people then, by all means, continue on this path of just reading posters not in a manner according to the Principle of Charity, not according to what THEY mean by the words they use, but only according to what YOU would mean by using those words. That's certainly the fair way to engage in discussion.



Yaddayaddayadda. SM complains constantly that others don't understand his "position." I've found a number of instances of ambiguous or misleading wording in his posts over the years I've been reading them. I've sometimes wondered if it's not others, but SM himself, who doesn't understand his position, or at least doesn't hold a consistent position. SM is exceptionally good with words, and it's his responsibility, and no one else's, to choose the words that will make his views unambiguously clear. DaveM and I both read SM's words to mean, "I have 75 years of experience listening to music and I think I'm capable of judging what's good." If you think his words mean something else, goody goody for you. Don't tell other people how to read, or lecture us on "The Principle of Charity," or whatever other deep wisdom you think you're qualified to impart to a deluded humanity. It's astoundingly arrogant and presumptuous, and would be hilarious if it weren't so bloody irritating.



> Also, since it's the only part you even sort-of deigned to respond to;


Responding to you has nothing to do with "deigning." It's mostly a question of deciding what's worth one's time and effort. I've often found it worthwhile, but not always. Once more you're implying some deficiency in others, because they happen not to find your every word fascinating and profound. So sorry.



> our "human nature" is made up of the millions of years of evolution we share with our ancestors (both *-sapiens and other pre-*-sapien species) as well the origins we share with literally every living being on the planet. THIS is a truly profound idea, one which Darwin helped discover that saved us from the "evil mythologies" of religion that you so vehemently reject.


It was an important discovery for science. So...



> I assume you accept evolution, but *you want to simultaneously accept it while seemingly holding onto the profoundly religious myth that humanity is of some objectively higher level of species* that's above and beyond our cousins (other living creatures). *It's a classic case of wanting to have one's cake and eat it too,* but it's certainly a fact that *our humanity isn't limited by the few ways in which we are different from other animals.*


This is horse pucky where it doesn't state the obvious, and yet another attempt to tell other people what they think and mean, or ought to. The fact that man evolved from other life forms says nothing about what is "higher" or "lower" in his nature, or about what these words even mean. I use them - when I do, which is not often - in a simple, very traditional way. The "few ways" in which we are "different" from other species involve everything in human life that's rooted in our ability to think conceptually: art, science, ethics, engineering, religion, politics, etc. It's only our rational faculty that makes most of a distinctively human existence, along with anything anyone calls "profundity," possible. "Few ways" doesn't approach the immensity of it. If you'd rather not refer to man's faculties as "higher" than the nerve impulses of an earthworm, suit yourself. Just quit trying to be the arbiter of meaning for others.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> It is not a subjective value statement; it is a poorly worded overly-broad statement. The correct proposition is that there is a correlation between the greatest composers and the ones with the greatest historical impact.


Unfortunately that kicks it back to square zero. "the greatest composers are the ones with the greatest historical impact" at least attempts to define what "the greatest composers" is. "There is a correlation between the greatest composers and the ones with the greatest historical impact" does not.

Also if you find it overly broad, that's kind of an illustration of my point-that the statement is not necessarily objective despite being based on objective data.


----------



## 59540

DaveM said:


> There appear to be some things that you need rigorous scientific testing in order to believe whereas I (and I believe some others here) only need some common sense and a couple of eyes and ears to believe.


No, some things require rigorous scientific testing while others are conveniently "self-evident".


----------



## 59540

Woodduck said:


> Don't tell other people how to read, or lecture us on "The Principle of Charity," or whatever other deep wisdom you think you're qualified to impart to a deluded humanity. It's astoundingly arrogant and presumptuous, and would be hilarious if it weren't so bloody irritating.


Hear, hear. Our preachers of subjectivity have such an impressive corner on the objective truth market somehow.


----------



## 59540

Eva Yojimbo said:


> ... I'm talking about music listeners wanting to feel superior to others merely because of what music they like and looking down on other music and the people who like it. ...


Which ones would those be in particular? Who on this board has said that he/she is personally superior because of the music he/she likes? Strawman.


----------



## SanAntone

fbjim said:


> After that infamous poll of contemporary composers, I started listening to more Ravel, and good lord - I kinda knew this already, but Ravel really was so much more than a superficial composer of orchestral special effects and light melodies.
> 
> He was the most interesting response in that top ten because it does make me wonder if Ravel has some kind of new relevance to current composers and listeners, but I dunno enough about post-1970s stuff outside minimalism to really know that.


I consider Ravel one of the most influential composers of the 20th century. Bill Evans, Stephen Sondheim, and countless other pianists and composers have cited Ravel's harmonic sense as very influential.

I also think that his best work is not found in the orchestral pieces, but his piano trio, string quartet and of course the solo piano works.


----------



## Woodduck

dissident said:


> Which ones would those be in particular? Who on this board has said that he/she is personally superior because of the music he/she likes? Strawman.


I've been wondering the same thing. If the one thing really implied the other, I would have to despise quite a few of my friends and family.

I'd rather use their politics as an excuse for that. 

(OOPS! I see the ominous shadow of a subjectivist moral sermon creeping toward me...)


----------



## SanAntone

fbjim said:


> Unfortunately that kicks it back to square zero. "the greatest composers are the ones with the greatest historical impact" at least attempts to define what "the greatest composers" is. "There is a correlation between the greatest composers and the ones with the greatest historical impact" does not.
> 
> Also if you find it overly broad, that's kind of an illustration of my point-that the statement is not necessarily objective despite being based on objective data.


What I find odd about the "objectivist" argument is that they put forward a claim that great composers are those with the greatest historical impact. But people respond to music according to *how it sounds*, the experience of *listening to it*. Only a fool would like something because the composer had historical impact.

Throughout these debates I've asked why is "greatness" important. I have yet to receive an answer.


----------



## fluteman

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't think anyone here has failed to recognize this either. That some composers compose in such a way that has created a positive reaction in many listeners over time is a fact as well. You can't have one without the other. The issue, as always, is that this is fundamentally a poll involving us counting how many subjectivities have reacted positively to certain music. We can speculate on the reasons why they reacted positively, including notions of "compositional skill and innovation," but those will ultimately just be speculation without rigorous scientific testing, and without the latter you're just getting into post-hoc and just-so fallacies.


Right. And of course, this doesn't mean that the enduring 'popularity' and / or critical acclaim enjoyed by the music of Beethoven and Chopin has nothing to do with their immense talents and skills. But music is like organ meat. An expert chef might do a superb job of preparing liver or kidneys. But if you find liver or kidneys revolting, it isn't going to help much. And if you're British, perhaps you are more likely to appreciate a well-made kidney pie. But not always. Even if all that could be reduced to an exact science, it's a safe bet that the success of Beethoven's and Chopin's music will always be highly dependent on the environment, background and physical and mental makeup of each individual listener as well as the general social and cultural context.
What we are left with is empirical observation. You can call it polling if you like, but that's a somewhat inaccurate use of that term. I prefer "cultural anthropology".


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> What I find odd about the "objectivist" argument is that they put forward a claim that great composers are those with the greatest historical impact. But people respond to music according to *how it sounds*, the experience of *listening to it*. Only a fool would like something because the composer had historical impact.
> ...


Ah. But they had "historical impact" due to the responses of listeners and players in the first place.


----------



## fbjim

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It's a trivially true point that people are influenced by their society and culture in a billion different ways, large and small.


I kind of want to emphasize "trivially true" because one reason I didn't really want this to be a point of contention is that I frankly don't think it matters all that much, to the point that I kind of feel bad if it's an idea that offended people, or seemed belittling to their musical taste. 

What I mean to say is that musical popularity and renown is not the result of a lot of people happening to the same independent choice in a total contextual vacuum, as if in some kind of massive double-blind test - music is a part of our culture. The fact that Beethoven's music has been renowned through so many different cultural contexts doesn't imply that people are sheep following what books say - in fact it implies that Beethoven's art has shown the ability to endure, and be a part of later romantic culture, modernist culture, post-modern culture, and whatever other cultures you can think of. 

As to why it has this ability - hell if I know.


----------



## fbjim

SanAntone said:


> What I find odd about the "objectivist" argument is that they put forward a claim that great composers are those with the greatest historical impact. But people respond to music according to *how it sounds*, the experience of *listening to it*. Only a fool would like something because the composer had historical impact.
> 
> Throughout these debates I've asked why is "greatness" important. I have yet to receive an answer.


This has actually been a point I've made - that though I think historical importance is a reasonable way to classify composers according to objective data (if - y'know, that's a desirable thing to do), it doesn't constitute an aesthetic evaluation. One reason I think it's useful, though, is that it models well to reactions I've had to certain composers, and things I've heard a few people state - that one can simultaneously think a composer is important, and not like their music very much at all. Or the not-uncommon practice of distinguishing between "greatest" and "favorite".


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> Unfortunately that kicks it back to square zero.


No it doesn’t.



> "the greatest composers are the ones with the greatest historical impact" at least attempts to define what "the greatest composers" is.


No it doesn’t



> "There is a correlation between the greatest composers and the ones with the greatest historical impact" does not.


Yes it does.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> Ah. But they had "historical impact" due to the responses of listeners and players in the first place.


Yes, I've said this same thing. But what those attributes were in their music which attracted a wide and enthusiastic audience still cannot be objectively quantified. And it changes over time.

What I think is that Beethoven is considered a great composer because 1) his contemporaneous peers thought he was based on his music; 2) later generations thought so because they inherited that original judgment.

All we have for an objective basis of saying a composer is great is the cumulative amount of subjective responses.

But the bottomline is people listen to the music which beings them joy, or engages their mind, or provides something to them which they crave. Or they may listen to Beethoven in order to access something they've been taught to believe was great. But if it leaves them cold they will drop Beethoven.


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> This has actually been a point I've made - that though I think historical importance is a reasonable way to classify composers according to objective data (if - y'know, that's a desirable thing to do), it doesn't constitute an aesthetic evaluation. One reason I think it's useful, though, is that it models well to reactions I've had to certain composers, and things I've heard a few people state - that one can simultaneously think a composer is important, and not like their music very much at all. Or the not-uncommon practice of distinguishing between "greatest" and "favorite".


Why is this such an endless point of confusion and acrimony here? A music listener does not have to be a cultural anthropologist. A music listener need not be concerned one iota with whether a composer is 'great', however one defines that term. Most composers and performers I enjoy exhibit some sort of skill in their approach to their musical genre, and also some individuality that sets them apart from the ordinary. More than that I wouldn't say.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> ...
> What I think is that Beethoven is considered a great composer because 1) his contemporaneous peers thought he was based on his music; 2) later generations thought so because they inherited that original judgment.
> ...


Or 3) they love his music. I didn't have to know what earlier generations thought to love the "Emperor" concerto or the sixth symphony.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> Or 3) they love his music. I didn't have to know what earlier generations thought to love the "Emperor" concerto or the sixth symphony.


Loving the "Emperor" concerto or the sixth symphony is different than articulating the idea that Beethoven is a great composer. This is the basis of my question "why is greatness important?" We love the music we love no matter what the judgment of history has been.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> Ah. But they had "historical impact" due to the responses of listeners and players in the first place.


Sure. But if we're judging historical impact, or reputation, then the responses may as well be the result of a black-box process. It isn't necessary to know what's going on in the heads of listeners, contemporary peers or critics - that may be the _cause_ of historical impact, but what we're measuring is the effect of it.

This is why "who were the most historically influential composers of all time" is a much easier question to answer than "what was it about their music that made it have such influence?"


----------



## fbjim

fluteman said:


> Why is this such an endless point of confusion and acrimony here? A music listener does not have to be a cultural anthropologist. A music listener need not be concerned one iota with whether a composer is 'great', however one defines that term. Most composers and performers I enjoy exhibit some sort of skill in their approach to their musical genre, and also some individuality that sets them apart from the ordinary. More than that I wouldn't say.


Personally speaking I love musicology, even as a layman. I'd never suggest myself an expert, or even an amateur in it, but it does give me some enjoyment to try to listen to music via certain lines of influence and draw connections that way.

All sorts of ways to listen to music, like has been said.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> What I find odd about the "objectivist" argument is that they put forward a claim that great composers are those with the greatest historical impact. But people respond to music according to *how it sounds*, the experience of *listening to it*. Only a fool would like something because the composer had historical impact.


Those who believe objectivity is operative on some level such as myself believe that there is a correlation between great composers and the fact that they have historical impact because of, generation after generation, the ongoing positive response to the music because of ‘how it sounds’ and the positive experience of ‘listening to it’.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> Sure. But if we're judging historical impact, or reputation, then the responses may as well be black-boxed. It isn't necessary to know what's going on in the heads of listeners, contemporary peers or critics - that may be the _cause_ of historical impact, but what we're measuring is the effect of it.
> ...


I don't quite get it. That effect is the thing itself. It _is_ the historical impact. Without that effect on listeners and players from Beethoven's time until this moment, there wouldn't have been any "historical impact". It's the chicken-and-egg problem that hammeredklavier keeps bumping into.


----------



## Woodduck

SanAntone said:


> What I find odd about the "objectivist" argument is that they put forward a claim that great composers are those with the greatest historical impact. But people respond to music according to *how it sounds*, the experience of *listening to it*. Only a fool would like something because the composer had historical impact.
> 
> Throughout these debates I've asked why is "greatness" important. I have yet to receive an answer.


No one _does_ like music because of its historical impact, and I haven't seen anyone arguing that anyone does. Where have you seen that?

Historical impact is only one possible (not inevitable) aspect of greatness.

"Greatness" isn't important, except to pollsters. Greatness, without the quotes, is unavoidable for people who know what goes into a work and can tell what they're hearing, but it isn't anything one needs to worry about. It seems most important to people who know little about music and want to know what they should listen to, and to radical subjectivists, for whom greatness, with or without quotes, is intolerably "elitist" and must be drained of its toxicity by being equated to taste.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> No it doesn’t.
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t
> 
> 
> Yes it does.


I don't know if you're just upset at me, but "The greatest composers are the ones with the greatest historical impact" is a definition of "The greatest composers". "There is a correlation between the greatest composers and ones with great historical impact" is not a definition of who the greatest composers are, and isn't a very useful statement unless "the greatest composers" has already been defined.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Loving the "Emperor" concerto or the sixth symphony is different than articulating the idea that Beethoven is a great composer. ...


Not really, not when you consider entire bodies of work. If it were _only_ those two works, they'd be merely a couple of great works. But there's more. And I don't really see anything wrong or elitist in saying so. Hendrix was a great guitarist. Milstein was a great violinist. Mozart was a great composer. I don't quite understand the allergy to the concept of "greatness" except as a symptom of an overall allergy to any concept of artistic hierarchies in general. I don't have any trouble admitting that George Gershwin was a better composer than I am, so I likewise don't have any trouble believing that Gershwin was better -- more indispensable, in a way -- than George M. Cohan or Irving Berlin.


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> *one can simultaneously think a composer is important, and not like their music very much at all.* Or the not-uncommon practice of distinguishing between "greatest" and "favorite".


Indeed one can. Those who "personalize" greatness and equate it with taste have to rationalize away the ability of musicians and other musically perceptive people to know that a work has exceptional quality even when it isn't to their taste.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> I don't quite get it. That effect is the thing itself. It _is_ the historical impact. Without that effect on listeners and players from Beethoven's time until this moment, there wouldn't have been any "historical impact". It's the chicken-and-egg problem that hammeredklavier keeps bumping into.


You're kind of stating it. "Without that effect on listeners and players from Beethoven's time until this moment, there wouldn't have been any "historical impact"." Yeah! You're stating a cause and an effect, I certainly don't think it's circular.


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> "Greatness" isn't important, except to pollsters. Greatness, without the quotes, is unavoidable for people who know what goes into a work and can tell what they're hearing, but it isn't anything one needs to worry about. It seems most important to people who know little about music and want to know what they should listen to, and to radical subjectivists, for whom greatness, with or without quotes, is intolerably "elitist" and must be drained of its toxicity by being equated to taste.


At this point I feel like the objectivists and subjectivists have switched sides, where I'm providing a specific definition, based on objective data, which I like to use for 'greatness' and the objectivists are speaking of it in vague terms. Except that I don't believe my definition need hold true for everyone, but the "objectivists" think their vague terms do.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> You're kind of stating it. "Without that effect on listeners and players from Beethoven's time until this moment, there wouldn't have been any "historical impact"." Yeah! You're stating a cause and an effect, I certainly don't think it's circular.


But the _cause_ was Beethoven's music. The _effect_ was loads of historical impact. Without that music, there would have obviously been nothing stimulating a reaction.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> But the _cause_ was Beethoven's music. The _effect_ was loads of historical impact. Without that music, there would have obviously been nothing stimulating a reaction.


I feel like we're saying the same thing to each other here. I'd prefer to say that the response of Beethoven's peers and listeners is a cause of historical impact, but yeah, you can also call it a three step process where Beethoven's music caused great response which caused historical impact.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> Not really, not when you consider entire bodies of work. If it were _only_ those two works, they'd be merely a couple of great works. But there's more. And I don't really see anything wrong or elitist in saying so. Hendrix was a great guitarist. Milstein was a great violinist. Mozart was a great composer. I don't quite understand the allergy to the concept of "greatness" except as a symptom of an overall allergy to any concept of artistic hierarchies in general. I don't have any trouble admitting that George Gershwin was a better composer than I am, so I likewise don't have any trouble believing that Gershwin was better -- more indispensable, in a way -- than George M. Cohan or Irving Berlin.


My "allergy" to the idea of greatness is because I see it as superfluous to the experience of music. My primary concern is the listening experience: what music engages our mind and heart; what music brings us joy; what music ennobles our human spirit.

Now, it may be argued that the music that does this is "great." But speaking for myself the works that cause those responses in me are not found among any list of "great works."


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> Beethoven's genius was recognized by his contemporaries.





hammeredklavier said:


> I don't mean to discredit Beethoven, I believe Weber and Spohr had reservations about his music. Hummel laughed when Beethoven failed to satisfy the Esterhazy prince with Mass Op.86, (although this may have been due to the professional rivalry between the two composers).


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> At this point I feel like the objectivists and subjectivists have switched sides, where I'm providing a specific definition, based on objective data, which I like to use for 'greatness' and the objectivists are speaking of it in vague terms. Except that I don't believe my definition need hold true for everyone, but the "objectivists" think their vague terms do.


Speaking of vague terms...


----------



## Strange Magic

I prefer brevity in my statements about art, because there really isn't much to say about it outside of things dear to those preferring the jargon of esthetics. I prefer to listen to the music and to ruminate on the larger issue of the claims that art and music make for themselves. I find claims of profundity there threadbare at best. Art is entertainment or is regarded as such by the vast majority of its consumers, the tortured artist saga notwithstanding. Nothing wrong with that. Sublimity, yes. Power, yes. Emotional wrenching, big time--I probably cry more than at least half of the TC membership: tears of joy and sadness (usually joy). But then I feel normal again and move on. Do we listen to music with the purpose of having our very lives and minds transformed (I exclude here those inspired to become composers themselves)? No we don't.

It is clear to me and to several others posting here that many of my critics after hundreds of posts still do not comprehend my position, don't understand it, haven't absorbed it, and continue to advance strange versions of parts of it that betray their lack of comprehension. That's the way it is. As I posted not long ago, it is very difficult to break longtime patterns of thinking about art--impossible for many. I stand by my convictions about this subject, with every indication from my experience, common sense, and the long-held clarity that individual tastes trump everything for the individual, despite all efforts to rationalize backwards why we like or dislike something in art or music in order to promote the inevitability of our preferences.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr in another thread had a good point:
"It depends how generic and superficial the similarity is.
One can claim almost anything, as it frequently seen on this and other fora with dozens or hundreds of the most bizarre or random/superficial similarities claimed as "quotes".
Especially in the case here, people tend to confuse ANY fugal or baroque style with Bachian influence, which is wrong because musicians of Beethoven's generation were all trained in counterpoint, often without knowing (much) Bach. Now Beethoven certainly did know more Bach than most others of his time but I still think that to be plausible or interesting a point of influence has to be as specific as possible.
And this seems to be recognized. E.g. I don't recall that the "counterpoint exercises" of the introduction of the variations op.35 (or the canon or the fugue later in that piece) are usually claimed as Bach influence, but some other things are."


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> But the _cause_ was Beethoven's music. The _effect_ was loads of historical impact. Without that music, there would have obviously been nothing stimulating a reaction.


But what does this obvious truism lead us to? Nobody is denying that Beethoven's music has had historical impact. That's an objective fact. It should therefor lead inexorably to the premise that everybody loves and must love LVB equally, no exceptions except brain disease. This is clearly not the case. Another example, among many, of the failure to grasp the subjectivist position. It's difficult.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Do we listen to music with the purpose of having our very lives and minds transformed (I exclude here those inspired to become composers themselves)? No we don't.


How much one's life and mind are transformed by art (why confine it to music?) is surely a highly individual matter, and I'm not thinking only of artists. As with your wish to deny art a claim to profundity, you're speaking here from a strong personal bias. I can say that from my very early years - somewhere within my first decade of life, up to the present - my life would have borne no resemblance to what it is but for art. I know that many other people, not only artists, would say the same.

Many of us could answer your statement by saying that they have never inquired into science with the purpose of having their very lives and minds transformed. I myself took quite a bit of interest in biology in earlier years. I learned a good deal about the world, but I found it more entertaining than transformational.

We need to be careful with the word "we." I've noted before that you use it a great deal when you think you're speaking universal truths.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Woodduck; *"radical subjectivists, for whom greatness, with or without quotes, is intolerably "elitist" and must be drained of its toxicity by being equated to taste."


Not true. I think all sorts of music are great. I can supply you with a list. Elitism or lack of it has nothing to do with it. The point is that such descriptors are only within the province of individuals as a subjective assessment, or of a group of like-minded individuals sharing that assessment: "We all say so, so it must be true."


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> But what does this obvious truism lead us to? Nobody is denying that Beethoven's music has had historical impact. That's an objective fact. It should therefor lead inexorably to the premise that everybody loves and must love LVB equally, no exceptions except brain disease.


This is a complete, gobsmacking non sequitur.



> Another example, among many, of the failure to grasp the subjectivist position. It's difficult.


It's not difficult at all. But if you actually believe what you said above, it's not aesthetic subjectivism but you that others find inconsistent and confusing. It'll be interesting to see whether Eva Yojimbo comes to the defense of this howler, and chews me out for insisting that words should mean what they appear to mean.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Not true. I think all sorts of music are great. I can supply you with a list. Elitism or lack of it has nothing to do with it. The point is that such descriptors are only within the province of individuals as a subjective assessment, or of a group of like-minded individuals sharing that assessment: "We all say so, so it must be true."


If anybody's idea of what is "great" is as meaningful and legitimate as anyone else's - which must be true if "all aesthetic judgments are subjective" - then greatness has no real meaning and can be dispensed with. Talk of bringing greatness within the "province of individuals" is doubletalk.


----------



## Strange Magic

*^^^^@Woodduck: *For you I make an exception as you clearly fall into my exempted category of those moved to become artists. I use "we" in a perfectly appropriate fashion. If I want to indicate everyone without exception, I will say so (but usually exclude those with a brain disease). Your observation that few exposed to science, just like those exposed to art, do not enter those professions is perfectly true.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> If anybody's idea of what is "great" is as meaningful and legitimate as anyone else's - which must be true if "all aesthetic judgments are subjective" - then greatness has no real meaning and can be dispensed with. Talk of bringing greatness within the "province of individuals" is doubletalk.


I'll go along with that. Let"s stop talking about greatness entirely. You've got a deal.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> I'll go along with that. Let"s stop talking about greatness entirely. You've got a deal.


Don't be cute. I didn't ask for a deal. But given that the preoccupation with greatness (and profundity, and other recognized virtues) is mainly on the part of people who want to deny that it exists - or try to make its attribution "the province of the individual" - less talk of it might be salutary.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> This is a complete, gobsmacking non sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not difficult at all. But if you actually believe what you said above, it's not aesthetic subjectivism but you that others find inconsistent and confusing. It'll be interesting to see whether Eva Yojimbo comes to the defense of this howler, and chews me out for insisting that words should mean what they appear to mean.


No, not really a complete, gobsmacking howler. Gobsmacking maybe. The thesis is put forward that certain works and composers are great, the greatest due to inherent, almost compulsory objective wonderfulness in the created art. If it were true, then the only possible response must be that all experience this greatness in equal measure. Or if not in equal measure, then that it is still greatness (quibble over language here). I show people the color blue and all but the colorblind see blue.

And get a grip.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Don't be cute. I didn't ask for a deal. But given that the preoccupation with greatness (and profundity, and other recognized virtues) is mainly on the part of people who want to deny that it exists - or try to make its attribution "the province of the individual" - less talk of it might be salutary.


So we have a deal.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> *^^^^@Woodduck: *For you I make an exception as you clearly fall into my exempted category of those moved to become artists. I use "we" in a perfectly appropriate fashion. If I want to indicate everyone without exception, I will say so (but usually exclude those with a brain disease). Your observation that few exposed to science, just like those exposed to art, do not enter those professions is perfectly true.


You and I have obviously traveled in different circles. Legions of people who are not artists nonetheless virtually live for the experience of art. Again, "we" isn't necessarily who you think it is.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> You and I have obviously traveled in different circles. Legions of people who are not artists nonetheless virtually live for the experience of art. Again, "we" isn't necessarily who you think it is.


As you wish. How many are "legions"? You can say ditto for followers of science


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> No, not really a complete, gobsmacking howler. Gobsmacking maybe. The thesis is put forward that certain works and composers are great, the greatest due to inherent, almost compulsory objective wonderfulness in the created art. If it were true, then the only possible response must be that all experience this greatness in equal measure. Or if not in equal measure, then that it is still greatness (quibble over language here). I show people the color blue and all but the colorblind see blue.
> 
> And get a grip.


Repeating a fallacy, only with more words as if they explained or excused it, doesn't make it true. Even when challenged you offer nothing whatever to justify your claim. The claim assumes that artistic qualities are simple and easy to perceive, and/or that everyone is equally equipped to perceive them, and/or that artistic judgments are not generally a complex mix of objective perception and subjective preconceptions and preferences. It's a claim that's essentially blind to what art is.

My impression is that you are so constrained in your thinking by your panmaterialist world view that phenomena of consciousness, such as those responsible for the creation and experience of art, are largely _terra icognita_ to you. You're forced to try to describe art in terms that apply to physical reality, and you can only speak of the perception and evaluation of art in terms of opposites. _Either_ art's qualities must be as measurable and obvious to everyone as temperature or distance, or they have no reality beyond someone's opinion, and anyone's claim that they do - that art can have actual qualities that not everyone can perceive - is the equivalent of a belief in ghosts.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> As you wish. How many are "legions"? You can say ditto for followers of science


It isn't what I "wish." How many are "legions," you ask? What a smart*** question. Figure it out for yourself. It shouldn't be hard.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

Correct me if I am wrong, but my impression is that the objectivist side appears to think the other side wants says all art is of equal value, while the subjectivist side thinks that the other side believes that value in art is an intrinsic, inherent property of art that exists even without a human perceiving it. Both don't seem like the strongest interpretation of either side's point. Why not argue their best case?


----------



## Forster

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I gave my opinion several pages back in, I think, a reply to Strange Magic's own stated opinion. We had some minor disagreements but were close to being on the same page.


"Several pages back" says it all. If neither of us can find it, it's hardly surprising that I overlooked it. There's an awful lot of off-topic hot air (some of it mine, doubtless) which obscures posts - or, more often, a sequence of posts in an exchange - that actually respond plainly to the OP's question. Nevertheless, my apologies.


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> If anybody's idea of what is "great" is as meaningful and legitimate as anyone else's - which must be true if "all aesthetic judgments are subjective" - then greatness has no real meaning and can be dispensed with. Talk of bringing greatness within the "province of individuals" is doubletalk.


Dunno if that's true.

First, though I think all honest responses to art are valid, it doesn't follow that they're all meaningful. The response to Beethoven by someone who hates all music generally is not going to be meaningful, as a trivial example. This has been brought up with the concept of genre- art comes with a context with which the reader, and other members of the audience, are reasonably expected to engage within. For a silly example, one couldn't "engage" with a film by using the DVD as a doorstop, and attempt to objectively rate movies by which DVD case acts as a doorstop most effectively, because this sort of "engagement" falls outside the accepted context of film viewing. For the same reason, I think most people would have a hard time accepting an argument and objective rating which stated that the best music is the longest music, and therefore Sorabji, John Cage and late period Morton Feldman are the three greatest composers of all time.

For a more serious example, I think even the subjectivists wouldn't take my non-response to Wagner as a particularly meaningful statement if I said that operatic singing generally repels me. The response is valid, but if my response to almost all opera would be the same (because I don't like operatic singing), it's not going to tell us much about Wagner. Some might actually disagree with this, but I think it's generally best to evaluate art on the terms of a reasonably receptive audience. This doesn't necessarily mean an educated, credentialed, nor even an intelligent audience - despite its reputation as a "high" art, classical music was written predominantly for laymen, after all (if anything here is snobbery, it's the idea that the intended audience of a work lacks the ability to evaluate the work for themselves, though many an artist has probably thought something along these lines when criticized).


----------



## Forster

fbjim said:


> Dunno if that's true.


It's not true.


----------



## fbjim

Forster said:


> It's not true.


I mean there's all sorts of concepts without strict consensus definitions. The fact that there are all sorts of scholarly definitions for "intelligence" doesn't make it meaningless nor nonexistent - some people just have different ideas on how it should be modeled. That, or the term could encompass a variety of possible interpretations/models.


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> Dunno if that's true.
> 
> First, though I think all honest responses to art are valid, it doesn't follow that they're all meaningful. The response to Beethoven by someone who hates all music generally is not going to be meaningful, as a trivial example. This has been brought up with the concept of genre- art comes with a context with which the reader, and other members of the audience, are reasonably expected to engage within. For a silly example, one couldn't "engage" with a film by using the DVD as a doorstop, and attempt to objectively rate movies by which DVD case acts as a doorstop most effectively, because this sort of "engagement" falls outside the accepted context of film viewing. For the same reason, I think most people would have a hard time accepting an argument and objective rating which stated that the best music is the longest music, and therefore Sorabji, John Cage and late period Morton Feldman are the three greatest composers of all time.
> 
> For a more serious example, I think even the subjectivists wouldn't take my non-response to Wagner as a particularly meaningful statement if I said that operatic singing generally repels me. The response is valid, but if my response to almost all opera would be the same (because I don't like operatic singing), it's not going to tell us much about Wagner. Some might actually disagree with this, but I think it's generally best to evaluate art on the terms of a reasonably receptive audience. This doesn't necessarily mean an educated, credentialed, nor even an intelligent audience - despite its reputation as a "high" art, classical music was written predominantly for laymen, after all (if anything here is snobbery, it's the idea that the intended audience of a work lacks the ability to evaluate the work for themselves, though many an artist has probably thought something along these lines when criticized).


I never said that all honest responses to art were meaningful. I can't see in what way your post is a response to mine. Could you say what in particular you're responding to?


----------



## Forster

fbjim said:


> I mean there's all sorts of concepts without strict consensus definitions. The fact that there are all sorts of scholarly definitions for "intelligence" doesn't make it meaningless nor nonexistent - some people just have different ideas on how it should be modeled. That, or the term could encompass a variety of possible interpretations/models.


I'm quite sure that if we were to try and debate "what is intelligence" there would be much more common ground than there is in our debate about 'profundity' (which keeps morphing into 'greatness' as if that is the only thing that really matters). We might easily be able to point to examples of intelligent people and offer reasonable evidence to support our assertion, and we'd refer to well known models of intelligence, and ways of testing for it.

Obviously, my suggestion that we try a worked example has not been taken up 😭, but neither has anyone taken the opportunity to restate their position in plain language and short posts...well, one perhaps, by referring to their position in relation to someone else's. That leaves us in the position of trying to restate what we think other people are saying...and look where that gets us! 😠

I guess it shows that 'profundity' wrt music is simply an impossible concept to define - at least by the people who think it is a worthwhile term.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> It isn't what I "wish." How many are "legions," you ask? What a smart*** question. Figure it out for yourself. It shouldn't be hard.


Fabulous! You quibble with my language, and I'll quibble with yours. How many is a "legion"? Is it like a Roman legion? Even that varied in size over the centuries. Instead of petty, we're now getting into tiny.


----------



## Strange Magic

4chamberedklavier said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but my impression is that the objectivist side appears to think the other side wants says all art is of equal value, while the subjectivist side thinks that the other side believes that value in art is an intrinsic, inherent property of art that exists even without a human perceiving it. Both don't seem like the strongest interpretation of either side's point. Why not argue their best case?


You are partly correct. As a subjectivist, I do NOT take the position that all art is equal because at the heart of my position is the integrity and uniqueness of the individual. The individual is free to establish any sort of personal grading system he/she chooses. We all do it. The grading of art is by individuals and sometimes then by groups of individuals of like mind using shared subjective criteria. I happen to think that the Violin Concerto No.2 by Hovhaness is the equal of many others and far better than many. My personal, subjective opinion, shared likely only by me, Anahid Ajemian, and Alan Hovhaness. 

The second point is well taken. Objectivists--though many deny it--believe that greatness, excellence is an inherent integral internal property of art, and said art would have it such that Martians would immediately recognize it as Great Art. I'll stick with those properties of art that can be accurately and repeatably measured by all unbiased observers. Under STP, pure water boils at 100 degrees celsius.


----------



## Forster

Strange Magic said:


> As a subjectivist, I do NOT take the position that all art is equal


Ah, but that wasn't the question. The question is, is that what the objectivists claim the subjectivists believe, or is it only what the subjectivists think the objectivists think the subjectivists believe? 🤯


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Woodduck: *"You're forced to try to describe art in terms that apply to physical reality, and you can only speak of the perception and evaluation of art in terms of opposites. _Either_ art's qualities must be as measurable and obvious to everyone as temperature or distance, or they have no reality beyond someone's opinion, and anyone's claim that they do - that art can have actual qualities that not everyone can perceive - is the equivalent of a belief in ghosts."


A near-perfect presentation of my position. Art has two quality states or properties and you have named them both--those that can be measured and those that indeed have no reality beyond someone's opinion. We are getting to the heart of understanding my position.


----------



## Strange Magic

Forster said:


> Ah, but that wasn't the question. The question is, is that what the objectivists claim the subjectivists believe, os is it only what the subjectivists think the objectivists think the subjectivists believe? 🤯


I'll take both propositions simultaneously. We have read many posts where objectivists claim that subjectivists say all art is equal. That is both true that they post such and they also believe that is true. It reminds me of a recent government official who says things that are clearly not true but believes them to be true. Or does he?


----------



## Forster

^ With the caveat that not all objectivists think the same and not all subjectivists do either. As Woodduck is at pains to point out:



> "Greatness" isn't important, except to pollsters. Greatness, without the quotes, is unavoidable for people who know what goes into a work and can tell what they're hearing, but it isn't anything one needs to worry about. It seems most important to people who know little about music and want to know what they should listen to


Setting aside that he seems to want to have his cake and eat it, there are posters here to whom greatness and polling is important and which is part of the basis of their objective position.


----------



## Strange Magic

Forster said:


> Setting aside that he seems to want to have his cake and eat it, there are posters here to whom greatness and polling is important and which is part of the basis of their objective position.


I agree completely. My best guide to what is great is me. The best I can do with others is to recommend a piece of music by telling them I liked it and hope that they like it also. We however all have a tendency to equate our likes with "try it; it's great!" like Tony the Tiger. Force of habit and the suspicion that our tastes are inherently superb so everybody else will think so too.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> You are partly correct. As a subjectivist, I do NOT take the position that all art is equal because at the heart of my position is the integrity and uniqueness of the individual.


Doublespeak worthy of Russian media. 

The much-debated question - in case you've forgotten it - is whether there are qualities of excellence in art which ought to be recognized as such regardless of whether agreement on them is universal. You claim there are not, because, in your immortal words, "all aesthetic judgments are subjective." This means that, according to you, there are no intrinsic differences in artistic quality, since all differences in quality are assigned to works of art by separate individuals who may agree on nothing. Your position is, therefore, that all art is _objectively equal_ - that, for example, a Brahms symphony has the same intrinsic musical value as a walk down the keyboard by Nora the cat: namely, _none._ Your attempt here to say that not all art is equal because individuals like some art better, besides addressing no question that anyone has ever asked, is a non sequitur, a semantic sleight of hand, and either an inept deception or a failure to understand your own position. 



> Objectivists--though many deny it--believe that greatness, excellence is an inherent integral internal property of art, and said art would have it such that Martians would immediately recognize it as Great Art.


I'm not sure what "objectivists" you're referring to, but your characterization doesn't describe the beliefs of anyone I've encountered. Excellence in art, like excellence in any human endeavor, is something we properly attribute to things done well. In every field, there are recognized criteria, as well as recognizable signs, of excellence. Excellence in a thing is not an "inherent integral internal property" like size or color which some theoretical "Martian" - or anything nonhuman - might recognize. Art is a human product which embodies human values, not Martian values, whatever those might be. All aesthetic values are human values, some of which are universal and some of which are personal. It isn't necessary for there to be universal agreement on any single aspect of a work of art in order for a judgment that the artist has done fine - or poor - work to be justifiable. 

That is only a beginning, and, I would have thought, rather elementary. 



> I'll stick with those properties of art that can be accurately and repeatably measured by all unbiased observers. Under STP, pure water boils at 100 degrees celsius.


Great. That summarizes your theory neatly. Let it be your aesthetic last will and testament. Now bury the dead.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Don't you know the "Butterfly Effect"? If Haydn never existed, how would that have affected Mozart, Weber, Schubert? And how would they in turn have affected the rest of history? In terms of non-Bachian counterpoint alone, I could talk about the supposed "influences" of his MH155, MH254 on Mozart K.339, K.543, K.546, K.626 endlessly. Too many variables, unknowns, uncertainties, aren't there? Let's not make assumptions about things we don't know.


fbjim said:


> What I do find interesting is when the veneration of classical music started, especially secular classical music. I've read contemporary reviews from the time, and from the Romantic period where people have no qualms saying they think Beethoven op. 111 is garbage. Somewhere along the line, however, select works became almost above criticism.


Now, they (the "objectivists", who are always so concerned about things like "proper ways of writing a fugue" (whatever they mean by that)) are lying to us, "everyone from Beethoven's time appreciated his music". I wonder what dissident, who is so judgmental about Haydn's contrapuntal writing


hammeredklavier said:


> youtube.com/watch?v=FIkkAF9ir2M&t=2m40s
> youtube.com/watch?v=z6H_0Etotfc&t=1m
> *Missa sti. Hieronymi** (1777)*
> "Leopold Mozart had attended the first performance and wrote a glowing report to his son: "I enjoyed it immensely; the grouping of six oboes, two bassoons, three double basses and organ was so evocative of the human voice (...). It all seemed too short, although the work was superbly written. Everything flowed, and the fugues are the work of a master.""


, thinks about youtube.com/watch?v=FwZsDzGY1XA&t=44m44s









(I don't mean to discredit Beethoven in any way, but) this shows just how subjective music appreciation is.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Wooduck: *"This means that, according to you, there are no intrinsic differences in artistic quality, since all differences in quality are assigned to works of art by separate individuals who may agree on nothing. Your position is, therefore, that all art is _objectively equal_ - that, for example, a Brahms symphony has the same intrinsic musical value as a walk down the keyboard by Nora the cat: namely, _none._ Your attempt here to say that not all art is equal because individuals like some art better, besides addressing no question that anyone has ever asked, is a non sequitur, a semantic sleight of hand, and either an inept deception or a failure to understand your own position."


Oh I understand my position quite well, though I grant it may be too nuanced for some. Objectively all art is equal in that it is inert, neutral, reflective with no power of generating light from within that all--*all*--would see. To this all-reflecting ball we bring our own individual personalities, neurochemistries, histories--our very uniqueness, and endow the neutral ball with its meaning, status, rank, stature, value, etc. Canals on Mars. Faces on the moon, or images of rabbits? Some have observed that you want to have your cake and eat it too. Well, so do I.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> What's your point?


O you RLY don't know what I'm talkin' about?
_"Pachelbel's canon has moved so many people in the world, but that says nothing about its profundity."
"Certain pieces of Bach is almost as popular as Pachelbel's canon because they're profound."
"The music of Strauss is popular because it's kitschy."
"Many people haven't grasped the true meaning of Wagner operas in their full length, hence they're not as much appreciated as the favorite excerpts."_
etc, etc.
They're all rules _you_ made up yourselves, just like


hammeredklavier said:


> _Who_ made up the rules that Bach, Mozart, Beethoven must be considered as "musical equivalents" of the David, the Mona Lisa, and the Sistine Chapel, and not just some popular "music-makers" (popular today for a variety of reasons described in #383). _You.
> Who_ made up the rules that people must still respect Bach for his counterpoint even if they aren't "moved" by his music, whereas Zelenka with his double counterpoint in the Crucfixus of his ZWV21 TQ1BFI1Tahg&t=32m32s doesn't need to be treated with the same level of respect. _You.
> Who_ made up the rules that the things Bach did were aesthetically "correct" objectively in all times and places (even with, for example, all the length, or the prominent brass in the Quoniam, Gloria, Sanctus, etc, and all the dance movements in BWV232, which would have been considered "undesirable" by, not only his predecessors such as Kuhnau, but also some of his contemporaries such as Fux). _You._


----------



## hammeredklavier

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


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> Do we listen to music with the purpose of having our very lives and minds transformed (I exclude here those inspired to become composers themselves)? No we don't.


Rilke would disagree, for one.

...denn da ist keine Stelle,
die dich nicht sieht. Du musst dein Leben ändern.


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> I never said that all honest responses to art were meaningful. I can't see in what way your post is a response to mine. Could you say what in particular you're responding to?


I mean your idea that the "subjectivist" position means that all responses must necessarily be equally meaningful. It's that at least for me, the "subjectivist" position does not necessarily mean all possible frames of view of art are meaningful (not sure what "valid" really means except "genuine). There may be edge cases (there are _always_ edge cases) but there are constraints based on shared cultural knowledge of how art should be engaged with, and based on the aesthetic terms set by the art itself. 

It's not really that profound of a statement, just that art has an audience and it's usually within this audience where we find the most meaningful responses - at least if we want to learn anything about the work itself.


----------



## fbjim

As to whether it implies that whether all art necessarily has the same "intrinsic musical value", well, I'm not sure "intrinsic musical value" is a concept that makes a whole lot of sense.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> Oh I understand my position quite well, though I grant it may be too nuanced for some. Objectively all art is equal in that it is inert, neutral, reflective with no power of generating light from within that all--*all*--would see. To this all-reflecting ball we bring our own individual personalities, neurochemistries, histories--our very uniqueness, and endow the neutral ball with its meaning, status, rank, stature, value, etc. Canals on Mars. Faces on the moon, or images of rabbits? Some have observed that you want to have your cake and eat it too. Well, so do I.


I am genuinely mystified that this is such a point of contention. And as I've said, this reality is entirely consistent with the fact that Beethoven and Chopin each had prodigious musical skills. To use Wittgenstein's term, each of these composers played a "language game". If that particular game (and Beethoven and Chopin played different games, similar in many ways but distinct in many as well) is not to your individual subjective taste, then all of the composer's skill in execution is for naught. So, the artist has the challenge, not only to play his game with great skill, but to choose a game that will appeal to many audiences.

As audiences begin to view art further in time (and place) from its creation, even centuries removed, the challenge for that art to remain relevant and compelling ever increases. Yet, some works are up to that challenge. Not that they remain foremost in the minds of millions centuries later, but they persist somewhere in the framework of a culture, and their echo often can be detected, sometimes obviously, sometimes subtly. Finding and analyzing these echos is the job of the cultural anthropologist. They collect their data and try to describe the common cultural values of a society. 

When large numbers of subjective individual tastes happen to coincide in a society, those areas of coincidence (which may be approximate, of course) are what I am calling "values". Man is a social animal, and people living together in a society actively seek out common cultural values. This phenomenon can be objectively, empirically observed and measured. This is entirely consistent with the fact that our individual tastes are entirely unique and subjective.

That is why we can appreciate, respect and celebrate the greatness of certain composers and their music while acknowledging the uniqueness and complete subjectivity of our individual tastes. Not everyone will like the music of Beethoven and Chopin, and of those who do like it, some will like it more than others, or prefer the music of Beethoven to that of Chopin, and so forth. No matter. Their art, and that of Debussy and Stravinsky, and Shakespeare and Flaubert, Joyce and Proust, Rembrandt and Titian, Picasso and Kandinsky, Cage and Stockhausen, George Gershwin and Irving Berlin, Charlie Parker and Miles Davis, Jack Kerouac and Alan Ginsberg, all contribute to our cultural values in empirically observable ways. India and China, both with sophisticated, highly developed cultures reaching back centuries if not millennia, have their own cultural polestars.

So I say, like what you want to like. Become an amateur cultural anthropologist if you want. A connoisseur of cultural nuances. Or not. That's all there is to it.


----------



## Nate Miller

there's something to that idea that art has an audience. The aesthetic experience occurs in the audience's response, not in the work of art itself, and so it would seem to me that it would be unreasonable to expect everyone to have a similar response. 

Wittgenstein also said that when we use words like "beauty" we are really just grabbing a tool out of our tool box of language to describe a feeling we have, but that word may not be the best tool for the job. So even in how we describe our reactions, we may say the same thing but still have very different reactions

Now music having a value in and of itself...that's a difficult point to make, I think.

I believe that within a group of people who have similar tastes you can say that Beethoven and Chopin were great and profound, but if you were to travel to someplace where the people listened to something else, who knows what you might get.

an "amateur cultural anthropologist" is a pretty good description of the endeavor, actually


----------



## fbjim

fluteman said:


> I am genuinely mystified that this is such a point of contention. And as I've said, this reality is entirely consistent with the fact that Beethoven and Chopin each had prodigious musical skills. To use Wittgenstein's term, each of these composers played a "language game". If that particular game (and Beethoven and Chopin played different games, similar in many ways but distinct in many as well) is not to your individual subjective taste, then all of the composer's skill in execution is for naught. So, the artist has the challenge, not only to play his game with great skill, but to choose a game that will appeal to many audiences.


One odd thing is that a lot of the arguing for an inherent musical value comes from (not to imply anyone here) people who were seeking to somehow "prove" the badness of serial music while still maintaining the idea that this was an objective fact. This usually involved a) reduction to polling, b) special pleading that the opinions of composers and theorists, so often cited in justifications of popular classical music, don't count in the cases of modernists because of ideological bias, or c) things which were just blatantly subjective ("yes, it had influence but it had _bad_ influence"). The reality is that the serialists made a new musical language that a lot of people didn't share, and as such, it wasn't particularly popular among most audiences. 

Whether or not the music is good is obviously up to you, but whether or not you think it's a bad thing to write music with limited audience appeal depends a lot on your conception on the purpose of art, which I certainly don't think is any sort of objectively known concept.


----------



## fbjim

Nate Miller said:


> there's something to that idea that art has an audience. The aesthetic experience occurs in the audience's response, not in the work of art itself, and so it would seem to me that it would be unreasonable to expect everyone to have a similar response.


Someone here said that when they didn't care for a work, they liked to think "I guess this isn't for me", or "I'm not in the audience for this" rather than "This is bad". I wouldn't say this in all cases, but the idea of an audience is important, I think. "This isn't for me" and "This is bad" is, to me, two separate responses depending on whether I judge myself to have affinity for what the work is trying to do. My response to most opera is "This isn't for me", but I'd rarely have that response to a genre that I have affinity for.


----------



## SanAntone

> If that particular game (and Beethoven and Chopin played different games, similar in many ways but distinct in many as well) is not to your individual subjective taste, then all of the composer's skill in execution is for naught. So, the artist has the challenge, not only to play his game with great skill, but to choose a game that will appeal to many audiences.


While I agree with your post, in it's large point - I take issue with your description of the artistic process. For sure all composers hope to find an audience and acknowledgement of their work. But they also have an internal artistic drive that dictates their style and manner of composing. History is filled with artists who have been said to have been ahead of their time. Beethoven's late works fell into this category to some degree. Van Gogh certainly experienced this phenomenon. 

The primary quality all artists have, along with talent is an individual voice and artistic integrity. The best artists find an audience, if not in their lifetimes, then at some later date when the culture catches up to them. I don't buy into the overlooked genius theory.

The big question is what is it about the great artists' work that resonates with audiences across periods?


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Ah, but that wasn't the question. The question is, is that what the objectivists claim the subjectivists believe, os is it only what the subjectivists think the objectivists think the subjectivists believe? 🤯


Yes, it's the same in any technical subject in which, by definition, an educated, experienced person can be objective.


----------



## fluteman

[QUOTE="SanAntone, post: 2312588, member: 56608"
The primary quality all artists have, along with talent is an individual voice and artistic integrity. 
[/QUOTE]
Yes, indeed. But choosing that individual voice is a major challenge, often involving much formal study, soul-searching and changes of direction, especially early on. Miles Davis studied at Juilliard for a year, but then got his father's permission to drop out. Look at Picasso's earliest paintings or Schoenberg's early string quartet in D, or Stravinsky's early symphony, Op. 1. Starting out, all of these artists got thorough training and experience in well-established traditions. When they struck out in new directions, they were experienced and educated, both culturally and technically. Beethoven was already 34 by the time he composed his revolutionary Eroica Symphony. All that is no accident.


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> Yes, indeed. But choosing that individual voice is a major challenge, often involving much formal study, soul-searching and changes of direction, especially early on. Miles Davis studied at Juilliard for a year, but then got his father's permission to drop out. Look at Picasso's earliest paintings or Schoenberg's early string quartet in D, or Stravinsky's early symphony, Op. 1. Starting out, all of these artists got thorough training and experience in well-established traditions. When they struck out in new directions, they were experienced and educated, both culturally and technically. Beethoven was already 34 by the time he composed his revolutionary Eroica Symphony. All that is no accident.


Yeah I wasn't implying that artists are born with a voice, nor that their style doesn't move in a variety of directions over the course of their career. And of course all artists, composers, musicians go through a lengthy period of training either formally at school or orally in an apprentice/master relationship. 

I was responding to your comment about an artist trying to appeal to an audience. While an artist hopes to find an audience, his internal drive to actualize his artistic vision dictates his style and finding his unique voice more so than chasing what he may see as a stylistic trend that currently enjoys a large audience. I am speaking here of true artists with a long view, not commercial songwriters/performers writing music designed to sell quickly.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> The primary quality all artists have, along with talent is an individual voice and artistic integrity. The best artists find an audience, if not in their lifetimes, then at some later date when the culture catches up to them. I don't buy into the overlooked genius theory.
> The big question is what is it about the great artists' work that resonates with audiences across periods?






"One critic shaped how we look at a half-century of painting. If Pollock was overrated, Clement Greenberg was the one doing it. We just followed his lead. So what is the correction here? It's not to discount Jackson Pollock. It's to give more attention to those other abstract expressionists as well. And to know the critic who decided which names we'd learn."

I'm necessarily saying the same thing happened in classical music, but the power of "influencers" (critics such as Donald Tovey, Charlatan Rosen, Landon) shouldn't be underestimated.

If Leonardo Bernstein wasn't a star, would Mahler's music have become as popular as it is today?


----------



## SanAntone

Jackson Pollock is one of my favorite artists. I don't think he is overrated at all. 

And It would be untrue to say that Bernstein put Mahler on the map, though his words sometimes gave that impression. Leopold Stokowski, Bruno Walter and Dimitri Mitropoulos had long championed Mahler in New York, and a parallel Mahler revival was in progress in Europe, spearheaded by John Barbirolli. (New York Times)


----------



## fbjim

I don't know that it matters to second guess history in that way. Fame and renown is the product of many things, not just genius - while I applaud innovators I don't necessarily subscribe to the "great man" view of it as a product of a single genius mind. So many innovations in music and art which have been attributed to one person have, upon historical view, been the results of trends that more than one artist was exploring at the time, but one artist was in the right place at the right time to "expose" it.


Like the quote you posted said, despite the clickbait title of that video, it's not to denigrate famous artists but to point out artists who were innovating in similar ways but didn't have the right combination of exposure to perhaps get the credit for innovating along the same lines of the capital-G Greats. Certainly I think it's a shame that the only classical period composers that get played by most listeners are Mozart and Haydn .


----------



## fbjim

To put it another way, it may be healthy to subscribe to the view that all the Greats are perhaps just a bit overrated - not in their status as composers who made wonderful art, but their status as the sole, singular creative minds that drove art forward. Progress in art, history, and the sciences are generally more complex than this simple view of artistic innovation.

Not just for the reason of giving other artists credit (though that can be nice) but to keep our ears open to great music outside what always gets played.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> "One critic shaped how we look at a half-century of painting. If Pollock was overrated, Clement Greenberg was the one doing it. We just followed his lead. So what is the correction here? It's not to discount Jackson Pollock. It's to give more attention to those other abstract expressionists as well. And to know the critic who decided which names we'd learn."
> 
> I'm necessarily saying the same thing happened in classical music, but the power of "influencers" (critics such as Donald Tovey, Charlatan Rosen) shouldn't be underestimated.
> 
> If Leonardo Bernstein wasn't a star, would Mahler's music have become as popular as it is today?


Since you're knowledgeable about this topic, I'm curious to know how widely revered Bach, Mozart, & Beethoven even were in their own times. Not as much as they are today, surely? I'm aware about Bach falling out of style until Mendelssohn, & Mozart on the same track if not for his wife's efforts.


----------



## SanAntone

fbjim said:


> To put it another way, it may be healthy to subscribe to the view that all the Greats are perhaps just a bit overrated - not in their status as composers who made wonderful art, but their status as the sole, singular creative minds that drove art forward. Progress in art, history, and the sciences are generally more complex than this simple view of artistic innovation.
> 
> Not just for the reason of giving other artists credit (though that can be nice) but to keep our ears open to great music outside what always gets played.


For some time and what with the plethora of doctoral dissertations examining composers we've never heard of, and with the easy access to recorded catalogs of many out of the way composers I don't think one can claim that there is a lack of access to all but the most famous composers.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> While an artist hopes to find an audience, his internal drive to actualize his artistic vision dictates his style and finding his unique voice more so than chasing what he may see as a stylistic trend that currently enjoys a large audience. I am speaking here of true artists with a long view, not commercial songwriters/performers writing music designed to sell quickly.


Very true. But it's interesting when looking at the careers of famous musicians of a variety of genres to see how diligent and thorough music students they were early on, educating themselves in existing well-established musical traditions, including classical music, before establishing their own styles. Their eventual "individual voice" is almost always created from a foundation of already known and accepted musical traditions in their culture. So while there is no guarantee that audiences will roar with immediate approval when they strike out in new directions, at some level there are principles and features that audiences will find at least somewhat familiar.
Unless we're talking about someone like the provocateur and conceptual artist John Cage, who often in his career (not always, mind) intentionally did the opposite, cutting the audience off as completely as he could from any comfortable frame of reference. But here the exception proves the rule, I think.


----------



## SanAntone

4chamberedklavier said:


> Since you're knowledgeable about this topic, I'm curious to know how widely revered Bach, Mozart, & Beethoven even were in their own times. Not as much as they are today, surely? I'm aware about Bach falling out of style until Mendelssohn, & Mozart on the same track if not for his wife's efforts.


Like most myths, this one is based on a kernel of truth. Bach was not famous in his own time, certainly not an international superstar like Handel. Mendelssohn did organize a performance of the St. Matthew Passion, and that concert did much to popularize Bach. But it would be inaccurate to call Bach "forgotten" up to 1829, and Mendelssohn is not solely responsible for launching Bach's posthumous career. Though the myth of Mendelssohn "discovering" Bach might lead one to imagine him as a musical Indiana Jones stumbling across a dusty manuscript, eyes widening as he gradually realizes its brilliance, that just wasn't the case.

Instead of marking the beginning of the Bach revival, Mendelssohn's performance was part of a larger Bach appreciation movement that was already underway. The first biography of Bach was published in 1802 by Johann Nikolaus Forkel. Beethoven himself proclaimed that Bach (German for "brook") should have been named Meer ("sea") because his music was so great. Not bad for someone whose existence was allegedly unknown at that point! (source)


----------



## fbjim

SanAntone said:


> Bach might lead one to imagine him as a musical Indiana Jones stumbling across a dusty manuscript, eyes widening as he gradually realizes its brilliance, that just wasn't the case.


Apparently something along those lines kinda happened with the Schubert Great C Major when Schumann and Mendelssohn were gathering up his music, though that's more a case of a well-regarded artist who was horrible at organizing his music. 

Probably my favorite instance of that romantic image of finding a lost masterpiece was the story of the publication of A Confederacy of Dunces - the poor author's mother trying to get any publisher to look at it before someone at a university press finally relented and read the thing. 



> ...the lady was persistent, and it somehow came to pass that she stood in my office handing me the hefty manuscript. There was no getting out of it; only one hope remained—that I could read a few pages and that they would be bad enough for me, in good conscience, to read no farther. Usually I can do just that. Indeed the first paragraph often suffices. My only fear was that this one might not be bad enough, or might be just good enough, so that I would have to keep reading. In this case I read on. And on. First with the sinking feeling that it was not bad enough to quit, then with a prickle of interest, then a growing excitement, and finally an incredulity: surely it was not possible that it was so good


----------



## SanAntone

A Confederacy of Dunces is a great read. I particularly loved his filing system.


----------



## wormcycle

SanAntone said:


> Like most myths, this one is based on a kernel of truth. Bach was not famous in his own time, certainly not an international superstar like Handel. Mendelssohn did organize a performance of the St. Matthew Passion, and that concert did much to popularize Bach. But it would be inaccurate to call Bach "forgotten" up to 1829, and Mendelssohn is not solely responsible for launching Bach's posthumous career. Though the myth of Mendelssohn "discovering" Bach might lead one to imagine him as a musical Indiana Jones stumbling across a dusty manuscript, eyes widening as he gradually realizes its brilliance, that just wasn't the case.
> 
> Instead of marking the beginning of the Bach revival, Mendelssohn's performance was part of a larger Bach appreciation movement that was already underway. The first biography of Bach was published in 1802 by Johann Nikolaus Forkel. Beethoven himself proclaimed that Bach (German for "brook") should have been named Meer ("sea") because his music was so great. Not bad for someone whose existence was allegedly unknown at that point! (source)


Excellent points. What needs to be added that in the first half of 18 century the composers were forgotten as soon as they were replaced in their posts of > Mende;


SanAntone said:


> Like most myths, this one is based on a kernel of truth. Bach was not famous in his own time, certainly not an international superstar like Handel. Mendelssohn did organize a performance of the St. Matthew Passion, and that concert did much to popularize Bach. But it would be inaccurate to call Bach "forgotten" up to 1829, and Mendelssohn is not solely responsible for launching Bach's posthumous career. Though the myth of Mendelssohn "discovering" Bach might lead one to imagine him as a musical Indiana Jones stumbling across a dusty manuscript, eyes widening as he gradually realizes its brilliance, that just wasn't the case.
> 
> Instead of marking the beginning of the Bach revival, Mendelssohn's performance was part of a larger Bach appreciation movement that was already underway. The first biography of Bach was published in 1802 by Johann Nikolaus Forkel. Beethoven himself proclaimed that Bach (German for "brook") should have been named Meer ("sea") because his music was so great. Not bad for someone whose existence was allegedly unknown at that point! (source)


Great points. And the idea of applying the current concept of fame, very close to celebrity, to Bach, is completely misguided. In the first half of 18th century in what we may now call Germany the work of the composers who were making their living as kapellmeisters, cantors, or church organists was usually forgotten as quickly as they left their posts or died. Bach, Telemann, Buxtehude were performing 90% their own music composed almost weekly for church ceremonies, court events etc.. Telemann composed 20 full cycles of cantatas, each cycle covering the entire year of liturgy. Performing the work of dead composers was almost unheard off. That's why so much of their work is lost.


----------



## SanAntone

> Performing the work of dead composers was almost unheard of.


Very true. AS opposed to the current day audiences of previous eras expected to hear the latest music and had little interest in older works. Because we live in an age of recordings and back catalogs, and complete edition boxes, new music has a hard time grabbing market share.


----------



## hammeredklavier

"Beethoven's Ninth: Reactions vary over the centuries" Beethoven's Ninth: Reactions vary over the centuries


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> ...Beethoven himself proclaimed that Bach (German for "brook") should have been named Meer ("sea") because his music was so great. ...


Assuming the quote is genuine I've often wondered if Beethoven actually meant that there was so much more there below the surface of which he was unaware. The complete works of Bach weren't published until decades after Beethoven's death.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> The complete works of Bach weren't published until decades after Beethoven's death.


Doesn't really matter because Beethoven was more into Handel's dramatic aesthetics. ("Making an effect through simple means"). Any number of Bach cantatas or organ works wouldn't have made him change his mind.
What irony. After all your disregard for my arguments "we can't judge X if we haven't given X enough chance." And now you're pretending as if Bach deserves a special treatment in this regard.
Berlioz would also have been a convert if he listened to all of Bach's organ works wouldn't he? Keep dreaming.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> Very true. AS opposed to the current day audiences of previous eras expected to hear the latest music and had little interest in older works. Because we live in an age of recordings and back catalogs, and complete edition boxes, new music has a hard time grabbing market share.


Well, that isn’t the only reason.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> Doesn't really matter because Beethoven was more into Handel's dramatic aesthetics. ("Making an effect through simple means"). Any number of Bach cantatas or organ works wouldn't have made him change his mind.
> What irony. After all your disregard for my arguments "we can't judge X if we haven't given X enough chance." And now you're pretending as if Bach deserves a special treatment in this regard.
> Berlioz would also have been a convert if he listened to all of Bach's organ works wouldn't he? Keep dreaming.


These days you seem to be into all sorts of hypotheticals including, in this case, assuming what would have been in the mind, or not, of Beethoven and Berlioz. And what is particularly annoying is assuming/suggesting what is in the heads of others and then criticizing it.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> Doesn't really matter because Beethoven was more into Handel's dramatic aesthetics. ("Making an effect through simple means"). Any number of Bach cantatas or organ works wouldn't have made him change his mind.
> What irony. After all your disregard for my arguments "we can't judge X if we haven't given X enough chance." And now you're pretending as if Bach deserves a special treatment in this regard.
> Berlioz would also have been a convert if he listened to all of Bach's organ works wouldn't he? Keep dreaming.


I figured you'd be going on an anti-Bach crusade next. 
1. How do you know what Beethoven's reaction would've been? 2. I wasn't even thinking along those lines. 3. Michael Haydn will most likely remain obscure, so chill.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> Well, that isn’t the only reason.


You're right. Today's audiences are not as musical literate as an 18th century audience would have been. During the time of Mozart most members of his audience owned a piano and had at least one person who played. All members of the family could read music and would regularly gather around the piano and sing part songs.

Because of this there was a desire for the latest works by the most popular composers.

For some time the audience for Classical music has become almost entirely passive, consumers, and musically illiterate. All which contributes to a desire to remain within their comfort zone with the music they've heard countless times.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> And what is particularly annoying is assuming/suggesting what is in the heads of others and then criticizing it.


It's what dissident always says when it comes to that topic. "If Z (a composer after Bach) didn't regard Bach highest, it's because he didn't listen to Bach's complete ouevre." I just feel it's unfair a view to other composers whose ouevre Z similarly knew to a limited extent.



dissident said:


> you'd be going on an anti-Bach crusade next.


Never. The last time I acted obnoxiously, it's because I felt no one was listening to me. I still feel guilty about it.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> It's what dissident always says when it comes to this topic. "If Z (a composer after Bach) didn't regard Bach highest, it's because he didn't listen to Bach's complete ouevre." ...


No it's not what I think at all. That's your caricature. The fact is Beethoven was influenced by Bach while probably knowing very little of his overall work.

By the way, I couldn't care less for Berlioz' opinions or music either, frankly.


> Never. The last time I acted obnoxiously, it's because I felt no one was listening to me. I still feel guilty about it.


Hammeredklavier acting obnoxiously? Perish the thought.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

4chamberedklavier said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but my impression is that the objectivist side appears to think the other side wants says all art is of equal value, while the subjectivist side thinks that the other side believes that value in art is an intrinsic, inherent property of art that exists even without a human perceiving it. Both don't seem like the strongest interpretation of either side's point. Why not argue their best case?


Many of the "objectivists" (I prefer to call them "anti-subjectivists" since many don't identify as objectivists) have explicitly stated before they don't believe that art has the intrinsic, inherent property of greatness; so I don't assume they think that; but that's precisely what makes their position so confusing, because then it becomes the issue of what they even mean by greatness or value or profundity or (insert any positive descriptive terms) being objective. At times they seem to appeal to things like cultural and historical impact; but these are just the objective measure of music's impact on many subjectivities.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Forster said:


> "Several pages back" says it all. If neither of us can find it, it's hardly surprising that I overlooked it.


Here it is: What is "Profundity"?--Revisited!


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> You're right. Today's audiences are not as musical literate as an 18th century audience would have been. During the time of Mozart most members of his audience owned a piano and had at least one person who played. All members of the family could read music and would regularly gather around the piano and sing part songs.
> 
> Because of this there was a desire for the latest works by the most popular composers.
> 
> For some time the audience for Classical music has become almost entirely passive, consumers, and musically illiterate. All which contributes to a desire to remain within their comfort zone with the music they've heard countless times.


Gosh, is that ever true. My own grandfather, born in 1899, belonged to that last generation of musical literacy, when even a family of modest middle class means had an upright piano in the parlor, at least one family member who could play it, and piles of sheet music. As a youngster, he was the pianist of his family, and could easily sight read his way through that sheet music while everyone else sang along. And he was not alone. Most American members here will know the name of baseball great Babe Ruth, born in 1895. Not only could Ruth hit long home runs, he could play the popular songs of the day on the piano and was the life of many a party. All that began to change in the 1920s when high fidelity recording and broadcast radio came along.


----------



## Luchesi

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Here it is: What is "Profundity"?--Revisited!


Thanks, I was wondering how to post a post like that. Now I have the example of the code, thanks.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

dissident said:


> And you can't generalize _period_. You go on about "subjectivity" and then go around pushing yet another form of objectivity. The extent to which "it" happens is what your whole thesis hangs on. Otherwise it's pure speculation with no ground in reality except your say-so and philosophical terminology. It's nothing. All you can really say is "I. Don't. Know." But that requires a little humility, and you don't seem to have very much of that particular quality.


Depends on what you mean by "generalize." If something has been demonstrated statistically by science then you can "generalize" even if that generalization doesn't apply equally to every individual. "Smoking is bad for your health" is one such generalization even though not everyone ends up developing serious health problems from cigarettes. People being influenced by society/culture has been amply demonstrated in science, so we can indeed generalize based on that. "My thesis" has made no mention about the extent to which this happens. All I've done is, like hammeredklavier, question how much this happens; and it's no more "speculation" than speculating on any other reason why the "great composers" are so popular. 



dissident said:


> Which ones would those be in particular? Who on this board has said that he/she is personally superior because of the music he/she likes? Strawman.


Go reread the post you initially responded to and you'll find your answer there.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Luchesi said:


> Thanks, I was wondering how to post a post like that. Now I have the example of the code, thanks.


If you're referring to linking to a particular post, in the top left corner of every post is a number. Click on that number, and then copy/paste the URL. It automatically generates a hypertext link to that post. An alternative way is to click on the "insert link" post inside the post editor, past the URL and then type in the text you want. Yet another alternative is to type out the text you want as a link, highlight that text, click the "insert link" button, and paste the URL there. Many ways to skin the cat, as the saying goes.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> There appear to be some things that you need rigorous scientific testing in order to believe whereas I (and I believe some others here) only need some common sense and a couple of eyes and ears to believe.


"Common sense with eyes and ears" can (and have) been used to justify almost every belief under the sun both now and throughout history, including mutually exclusive propositions. That's as awful an epistemology as Woodduck's "my strong feeling = knowledge."


----------



## Strange Magic

> *SanAntone:* "For some time the audience for Classical music has become almost entirely passive, consumers, and musically illiterate. All which contributes to a desire to remain within their comfort zone with the music they've heard countless times."


When do you believe that the audience for CM became stultified and unadventurous consumers of music? And where in CM do they stop listening? I personally am a Bach to Bartok enthusiast but have no interest in music that wanders farther afield tonally or melodically than those boundaries. I think that the transition from, say, Brahms through the Impressionists through to Bartok was a challenge, but that the journey to post-Bartokian music--serial, aleatoric, electronic was a far higher hurdle for large audiences to surmount. Bach to Mozart or even Beethoven is one thing, but the latest transition post-Bartok (or even up to Bartok). is another. We may be nearing the point (Babbitt again) where only a tiny audience will follow when they have a choice of brand-new music or the old favorites. CM concerts aren't cheap (though we used to sneak into Carnegie Hall during intermission up in the balcony and occupy empty seats or sit in the aisles.) We live in a time when we are reaching an end in all sorts of human endeavors and when life is becoming more fraught and complicated. It is to be expected that there be a retreat or a return to the familiar.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

fbjim said:


> I kind of want to emphasize "trivially true" because one reason I didn't really want this to be a point of contention is that I frankly don't think it matters all that much, to the point that I kind of feel bad if it's an idea that offended people, or seemed belittling to their musical taste.
> 
> What I mean to say is that musical popularity and renown is not the result of a lot of people happening to the same independent choice in a total contextual vacuum, as if in some kind of massive double-blind test - music is a part of our culture. The fact that Beethoven's music has been renowned through so many different cultural contexts doesn't imply that people are sheep following what books say - in fact it implies that Beethoven's art has shown the ability to endure, and be a part of later romantic culture, modernist culture, post-modern culture, and whatever other cultures you can think of.
> 
> As to why it has this ability - hell if I know.


I agree with you here and I certainly wasn't intending to offend or insult anyone. It's like when I talk about the universality of cognitive biases; we all have them. Some may be more aware of them and more or less influenced than others, but none of us are perfectly rational, and none of us are uninfluenced by our societies and culture. The only point I'd push back on slightly is that I think Beethoven's music continuing to be renowned can be a product of both its intrinsic qualities and its ability to continue to appeal to people's subjectivities across time; as well as the socio-cultural perception of Beethoven being one of the artistic titans of culture and many people just accepting that as a given. These two elements are mutually dependent and mutually reinforcing. Disentangling them to determine how much each influences any individual is nigh impossible to measure or determine, but I think it's foolish to over or underestimate the influence of either. 



fbjim said:


> I feel like we're saying the same thing to each other here. I'd prefer to say that the response of Beethoven's peers and listeners is a cause of historical impact, but yeah, you can also call it a three step process where Beethoven's music caused great response which caused historical impact.


Here's how I'd model it: 

Beethoven's music -> individual subjectivities -> positive response -> cultural impact -> (cultural impact + Beethoven's music) -> individual subjectivities -> positive response -> historical impact

In other words, Beethoven's music interacts with individual subjectivities, this interaction creates the effect of a positive response (and both the objective qualities of the music and subjective qualities of the listeners' minds are required for that response), which creates a cultural impact due to most people having a positive response. Because of this cultural impact, later generations are exposed to Beethoven, and these people experience both the music and the awareness of the social impact, and because of this now 3-part combination (the knowledge of the cultural impact, the music, and the individual's subjectivity), they still end up having a positive response, and this cycle over time creates historical impact.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> SM complains constantly that others don't understand his "position." I've found a number of instances of ambiguous or misleading wording in his posts over the years I've been reading them. I've sometimes wondered if it's not others, but SM himself, who doesn't understand his position, or at least doesn't hold a consistent position. SM is exceptionally good with words, and it's his responsibility, and no one else's, to choose the words that will make his views unambiguously clear.


One reason I write as much as I do is because I want my own posts to be as clear as possible, so I seek many different ways to clarify them. Most posters don't do this, for the sake of brevity perhaps, or possibly for other concerns; but the consequence of keeping posts relatively brief is you're inevitably going to use language that can be interpreted in different ways. When that happens, the onus may initially be on the poster to clarify what they mean if confusion arises; but when a poster has made their position clear time and again, at what point is the onus on the people reading him to interpret the words he uses in accordance with that position? 



Woodduck said:


> DaveM and I both read SM's words to mean, "I have 75 years of experience listening to music and I think I'm capable of judging what's good." If you think his words mean something else, goody goody for you. Don't tell other people how to read, or lecture us on "The Principle of Charity," or whatever other deep wisdom you think you're qualified to impart to a deluded humanity. It's astoundingly arrogant and presumptuous, and would be hilarious if it weren't so bloody irritating.


That sentence is perfectly compatible with the subjective frame of reference. The fact that you think it's not reveals that, to you, the objectivist position is the default one. This is a statement about your mind, it isn't a statement about "what those words usually mean" or what the default way to interpret them is. The fact that you and DaveM are so glaringly obviously misreading SM leads to one of several conclusions: you're either violating the Principle of Charity, you're violating Occam's Razor, or SM is absolutely correct in that you still don't understand his position. You can be offended and think me "astoundingly arrogant and presumptuous," but my "lecturing" is no more "astoundingly arrogant and presumptions" than you and DaveM assuming you have a monopoly on "what words usually mean" and failing spectacularly to understand someone who's repeatedly made their position crystal clear. 



Woodduck said:


> Responding to you has nothing to do with "deigning." It's mostly a question of deciding what's worth one's time and effort. I've often found it worthwhile, but not always. Once more you're implying some deficiency in others, because they happen not to find your every word fascinating and profound. So sorry.


You mistake me in thinking I was upset that you didn't respond to my last post; I was only upset at you not doing so and then making it seem as if the fault was mine for "lecturing." If, as you say here, that you didn't respond because it's "not worth your time and effort," that's fine; but then say THAT and don't offer the pretense of not responding because I'm lecturing you in a post where I wasn't. 



Woodduck said:


> This is horse pucky where it doesn't state the obvious, and yet another attempt to tell other people what they think and mean, or ought to. The fact that man evolved from other life forms says nothing about what is "higher" or "lower" in his nature, or about what these words even mean. I use them - when I do, which is not often - in a simple, very traditional way. The "few ways" in which we are "different" from other species involve everything in human life that's rooted in our ability to think conceptually: art, science, ethics, engineering, religion, politics, etc. It's only our rational faculty that makes most of a distinctively human existence, along with anything anyone calls "profundity," possible. "Few ways" doesn't approach the immensity of it. If you'd rather not refer to man's faculties as "higher" than the nerve impulses of an earthworm, suit yourself. Just quit trying to be the arbiter of meaning for others.


I wasn't telling you what you think/mean at all, I was simply explaining what the theory of evolution says; I'm sorry if what it says conflicts with your beliefs, but such is often the case with objective facts. Ask yourself this question: what made you decide what was the "higher" and "lower" aspects in man's nature? You say "our rationality." How did you come to that conclusion? You'd probably say "well, reason is what makes us different from other animals." Good, now what made you decide that what makes us different than other animals is "higher?" Also, if you bothered to study cognitive science even a bit you might be less impressed with man's "higher" capacity for reason, and you might also realize that the vast majority of time people put their "reason" to use in justifying their animalistic natures/desires. Humans are much better at rationalizing than actually reasoning. 



Woodduck said:


> I've been wondering the same thing. If the one thing really implied the other, I would have to despise quite a few of my friends and family.


Looking down on someone doesn't imply despising them. 



Woodduck said:


> If anybody's idea of what is "great" is as meaningful and legitimate as anyone else's - which must be true if "all aesthetic judgments are subjective" - then greatness has no real meaning and can be dispensed with.


Completely wrong. It can only be dispensed with in the objective sense. It's still perfectly viable in the subjective sense, or even in the sense of "polling many subjectivities."


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> ..The fact that you and DaveM are so glaringly obviously misreading SM leads to one of several conclusions: you're either violating the Principle of Charity, you're violating Occam's Razor, or SM is absolutely correct in that you still don't understand his position. You can be offended and think me "astoundingly arrogant and presumptuous," but my "lecturing" is no more "astoundingly arrogant and presumptions" than you and DaveM assuming you have a monopoly on "what words usually mean" and failing spectacularly to understand someone who's repeatedly made their position crystal clear..


Do you think that repeating the same thing over and over is going to make your argument any more convincing or more righteous for that matter. Not to mention that one might get away by presenting affectations such as ‘Principle of Charity‘ or Occam’s Razor once, but more than once reminds of someone who thinks they’re speaking from a pulpit or as a philosophy professor rather than on a simple forum. I’ve already mentioned that my view is that SM meant exactly what he said without realizing that it exposed a weakness in his previous comments and then backtracked. You, of course, conveniently ignored it and continue to sing the same song as before, as if SM needs your protection, like some Jeanne d’Arc riding a very high horse.


----------



## 59540

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Go reread the post you initially responded to and you'll find your answer there.


No, I didn't see it. Frankly you and Strange Magic are the only commenters in the thread that have come close to exemplifying that particular attitude, although based on the notion that you are guardians of some "truth" the we poor ignorant nobs can't quite grasp.


----------



## SanAntone

Strange Magic said:


> When do you believe that the audience for CM became stultified and unadventurous consumers of music? And where in CM do they stop listening? I personally am a Bach to Bartok enthusiast but have no interest in music that wanders farther afield tonally or melodically than those boundaries. I think that the transition from, say, Brahms through the Impressionists through to Bartok was a challenge, but that the journey to post-Bartokian music--serial, aleatoric, electronic was a far higher hurdle for large audiences to surmount. Bach to Mozart or even Beethoven is one thing, but the latest transition post-Bartok (or even up to Bartok). is another. We may be nearing the point (Babbitt again) where only a tiny audience will follow when they have a choice of brand-new music or the old favorites. CM concerts aren't cheap (though we used to sneak into Carnegie Hall during intermission up in the balcony and occupy empty seats or sit in the aisles.) We live in a time when we are reaching an end in all sorts of human endeavors and when life is becoming more fraught and complicated. It is to be expected that there be a retreat or a return to the familiar.


It is a big question which I don't want to guess at an answer. 

Instead I will offer my hope for reversing the dichotomy of old vs new music. That CM lovers cultivate two traits: 1) curiosity about the music being composed by living composers; and 2) an open mind concerning what they hear.


----------



## Strange Magic

SanAntone said:


> It is a big question which I don't want to guess at an answer.
> 
> Instead I will offer my hope for reversing the dichotomy of old vs new music. That CM lovers cultivate two traits: 1) curiosity about the music being composed by living composers; and 2) an open mind concerning what they hear.


That would be fine but I doubt it's going to happen. CM, like many other of our pastimes, is an escape from the realization of the growing dysfunction of our society and of the general state of things in the environment and in the state of world order. These times are different from past times in several extremely important ways.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Do you think that repeating the same thing over and over is going to make your argument any more convincing or more righteous for that matter. Not to mention that one might get away by presenting affectations such as ‘Principle of Charity‘ or Occam’s Razor once, but more than once reminds of someone who thinks they’re speaking from a pulpit or as a philosophy professor rather than on a simple forum. I’ve already mentioned that my view is that SM meant exactly what he said without realizing that it exposed a weakness in his previous comments and then backtracked. You, of course, conveniently ignored it and continue to sing the same song as before, as if SM needs your protection, like some Jeanne d’Arc riding a very high horse.


It is true beyond contradiction that DaveM and his cohorts cannot understand my position. It is not that they will not, they just cannot--the wrench is just too great. Carefully erected intellectual and esthetic structures would collapse--actually without real harm--were my views to be widely accepted. Everything important remains in place for the CM listener--the music, the grading, the response to experts and critics and to clusters--all these things continue on but on a personal, individual level. Or even on a voluntary group level. There is just no more exoskeleton of "objectivity" or of metaphysical sanction to support one's inclinations. You are self-reliant and responsible for your own values and preferences.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Wooduck: *"DaveM and I both read SM's words to mean, "I have 75 years of experience listening to music and I think I'm capable of judging what's good."


I mean what I say and say what I mean--the quote of me is entirely correct: "I have 75 years of experience listening to music and I think I'm capable of judging what's good--good for me! For others, perhaps 75 year's listening is not good enough and they seek backbone and validation from others.


----------



## Forster

The claim that CM audiences are less well versed now than they used to be needs some verification, not least that we are comparing like with like. It seems to me that those who listened to CM in Beethoven's day were largely the well-educated, musically, and comparable to those who would claim to be so today.


----------



## Forster

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Here it is: What is "Profundity"?--Revisited!


Thanks. I remember reading this the first time, and can see, as you said, points of alignment with, and difference from SM's view.

You say that:



> there are two crucial elements of the profound, one of which is tied to the sublime and the other is not. The first one that is tied to the sublime is the intensity of the emotions and experiences it stirs. The second one that isn't tied to the sublime is the nature of finding important patterns, even truths, that lie buried under the apparent chaos of our experience; whether we find such things in nature, as science does, or psychologically within ourselves doesn't make much difference, at least not to how I perceive the meaning of the word. By uniting patterns I don't simply mean, eg, the recognition of sonata form, but *the way in which the various patterns of music provokes us to connect it metaphorically and isomorphically with either externally observed patterns or internally felt patterns, even emotional ones*,


On the second element, particularly the point in bold, would you illustrate? Thanks


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> Yes, it's the same in any technical subject in which, by definition, an educated, experienced person can be objective.


That doesn't follow at all, but never mind, I was simply making a joke.


----------



## Forster

Strange Magic said:


> I agree completely. My best guide to what is great is me. The best I can do with others is to recommend a piece of music by telling them I liked it and hope that they like it also. We however all have a tendency to equate our likes with "try it; it's great!" like Tony the Tiger. Force of habit and the suspicion that our tastes are inherently superb so everybody else will think so too.


Or our suspicion that our tastes are inherently inferior and we need confirmation that they are not?


----------



## BachIsBest

Eva Yojimbo said:


> "Common sense with eyes and ears" can (and have) been used to justify almost every belief under the sun both now and throughout history, including mutually exclusive propositions. That's as awful an epistemology as Woodduck's "my strong feeling = knowledge."


Here's the rub. Your epistemology is something along the lines of (I apologise if I get this wrong) "we can know things when there is sufficient scientific evidence for them". But how do you know "we can know things when there is sufficient scientific evidence for them"? Maybe you claim it's because using this knowledge we can build rocket ships (amongst many other extraordinary accomplishments); but why should building rocket ships be taken as evidence for any sort of knowledge; alternatively, maybe the rocket ship is an illusion? Eventually, if you go far enough down this epistemological rabbit hole, you will find that the only possible answer to these questions is some variation of "common sense".

You are right that we can use this to justify most anything, but we can use most anything to justify most anything. We must tread carefully, and, most importantly, rationally, but not treading at all is a poor choice.

When I walk into a wall (as one does), I feel it hit me. When others walk into walls, they describe very similar sensations and observations. We can come up with explanations for why we should all feel running into a wall. You could explain this by saying all our subjective perceptions coincide, but there is no actual wall in any rational sense; there is nothing provably wrong with this explanation. Similarly, when I perceive art I find profound, read what other's perceive in art as profound, and look at commonalities in profundity in art across cultures, I could conclude that there is nothing too this profundity in art thing beyond a coinciding of subjective perceptions; there is nothing provably wrong with this explanation. However, there is a wall, and there is, as far as I can tell, characteristics of artworks that make them profound.


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> [...] *there is, as far as I can tell, characteristics of artworks that make them profound.*


...which are...? Please identify these characteristics, and give examples of works where you've found them. Thanks.


----------



## Strange Magic

Forster said:


> Or our suspicion that our tastes are inherently inferior and we need confirmation that they are not?


I don't know about you but 65 years of listening rapturously to _cante ffamenco _white being surrounded by armies of those who find it distasteful at best and hideous at worst does not lead to feelings of inferior taste but perhaps to a feeling of greater expansiveness and scope than the average bear, when combined with many decades of listening to broad swathes of other sorts of music before I was aware that anyone else was out there listening. I am ancient enough to recall the early days of Doo-W0p and R&B on AM radio, and it being either ignored or castigated by the mainstream Tin Pan Alley establishment--then Tin Pan Alley began to embrace it via Pat Boone, the McGuire Sisters, even Perry Como!


----------



## Forster

Strange Magic said:


> I don't know about you


Well, precisely. Joking aside, it's a curious paradox that we (sorry, "some of us") like to feel that we're in the avant-garde, smarter than the average bear, but, simultaneously, want to be in the big gang that recognises the same tastes, thereby validating our own.

I note you've got round the problem of the system not liking the word w0p. It also doesn't like h0m0.


----------



## Strange Magic

BachIsBest said:


> Here's the rub. Your epistemology is something along the lines of (I apologise if I get this wrong) "we can know things when there is sufficient scientific evidence for them". But how do you know "we can know things when there is sufficient scientific evidence for them"? Maybe you claim it's because using this knowledge we can build rocket ships (amongst many other extraordinary accomplishments); but why should building rocket ships be taken as evidence for any sort of knowledge; alternatively, maybe the rocket ship is an illusion? Eventually, if you go far enough down this epistemological rabbit hole, you will find that the only possible answer to these questions is some variation of "common sense".
> 
> You are right that we can use this to justify most anything, but we can use most anything to justify most anything. We must tread carefully, and, most importantly, rationally, but not treading at all is a poor choice.
> 
> When I walk into a wall (as one does), I feel it hit me. When others walk into walls, they describe very similar sensations and observations. We can come up with explanations for why we should all feel running into a wall. You could explain this by saying all our subjective perceptions coincide, but there is no actual wall in any rational sense; there is nothing provably wrong with this explanation. Similarly, when I perceive art I find profound, read what other's perceive in art as profound, and look at commonalities in profundity in art across cultures, I could conclude that there is nothing too this profundity in art thing beyond a coinciding of subjective perceptions; there is nothing provably wrong with this explanation. However, there is a wall, and there is, as far as I can tell, characteristics of artworks that make them profound.


A thoughtful post. At one point early in this thread I introduced Burke's concept of the Sublime as not necessarily a counterweight to profundity but as a thinking aid to help us understand the Profound. But having done that, I have separated the Sublime from the Profound, finding CM (and all non-verbal arts) to be not explicit enough nor outwardly-directed enough (to the extra-human world) to carry the weight of profundity. Sublimity, yes. Profundity, no. One might cite _La Mer_ as being sufficiently attuned to the natural world to bring it to Profundity, but we recall the critic who wrote that he could neither hear nor see nor feel the sea in the work. Most of us can now, having been brought up with it titled _The Sea_ and making the association. Yet it requires both the title and a bit more intellectual (verbal) content to raise it up from sublimity to profundity.


----------



## Strange Magic

Forster said:


> Well, precisely. Joking aside, it's a curious paradox that we (sorry, "some of us") like to feel that we're in the avant-garde, smarter than the average bear, but, simultaneously, want to be in the big gang that recognises the same tastes, thereby validating our own.
> 
> I note you've got round the problem of the system not liking the word w0p. It also doesn't like h0m0.


And it hates Maine C00n cats too! I'd like to see a George Carlin-like list of the forbidden words.

As far as being in the Big Gang, that is a goal that arouses mixed feelings. Everybody loves company, yet the same person, like two hearts beating within one breast, likes the exclusivity.


----------



## SanAntone

Strange Magic said:


> I don't know about you but 65 years of listening rapturously to _cante ffamenco _white being surrounded by armies of those who find it distasteful at best and hideous at worst


I've never met anyone, much less "armies," of people who thought Flamenco was distasteful or hideous. Where do you live?


----------



## Strange Magic

SanAntone said:


> I've never met anyone, much less "armies," of people who thought Flamenco was distasteful or hideous. Where do you live?


I was reared in middle-class central New Jersey and have been offering *sung* flamenco (recordings) for others to hear for decades. No keepers. When Sabicas recorded his Elektra album with Enrique Montoya and Domingo Alvarado singing, a women who even claimed to like Sabicas' playing (and maybe flamenco guitar generically) asserted that she listened to part of the album she had bought and then threw it out the window because of all that horrid screeching that ruined what she hoped would be a great record.

As a strictly obscure and very much an acquired taste (Agujetas, Pepe el de la Matrona), I am comfortable in asserting that there are "armies" (like "legions" ) of those thinking sung flamenco is definitely Not Their Cup Of Tea. Your experience may differ.


----------



## SanAntone

Since Cante Flamenco is one of my favorite genres it is hard for me to imagine someone reacting to it as strongly as you describe. Everyone I've discussed it with has had the opposite reaction. In fact, it is one of few things my ex-wife and I agree on.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> I was reared in middle-class central New Jersey and have been offering *sung* flamenco (recordings) for others to hear for decades. No keepers. When Sabicas recorded his Elektra album with Enrique Montoya and Domingo Alvarado singing, a women who even claimed to like Sabicas' playing (and maybe flamenco guitar generically) asserted that she listened to part of the album she had bought and then threw it out the window because of all that horrid screeching that ruined what she hoped would be a great record.
> 
> As a strictly obscure and very much an acquired taste (Agujetas, Pepe el de la Matrona), I am comfortable in asserting that there are "armies" (like "legions" ) of those thinking sung flamenco is definitely Not Their Cup Of Tea. Your experience may differ.


Throw in an AEP trip to the Costa del Sol and a generous supply of rioja and paella, and I'll listen to cante flamenco and nothing else the whole time. This only confirms my point about the importance of context in listening to music.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Or our suspicion that our tastes are inherently inferior and we need confirmation that they are not?


We can productively debate disagreements in science. But how do we constructively debate about peoples' psychologies (life path, levels of experience, their interesting affinities, their appreciation of anything)? We can talk and talk, and it's interesting (cathartic for me and some folks). So I enjoy this thread.


----------



## fbjim

Forster said:


> Or our suspicion that our tastes are inherently inferior and we need confirmation that they are not?


I dunno if I'd necessarily say that. One of the first things a lot of people do when they find a song they really like is share it.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> ...which are...? Please identify these characteristics, and give examples of works where you've found them. Thanks.


He would have to write a large post teaching and explaining the examples. (That's always been the problem.)

More knowledge is better than less knowledge. But I'm thinking perhaps it isn't, in this case of art appreciation. It turns people off, and we don't wanna do that.


----------



## Luchesi

fbjim said:


> I dunno if I'd necessarily say that. One of the first things a lot of people do when they find a song they really like is share it.


Yes, and then what happens? If you know the person well can you predict their reaction? You can with a youngster. Their reactions are easier to anticipate.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> By the way, I couldn't care less for Berlioz' opinions or music either, frankly.


Berlioz is actually a wonderful writer and his books have been translated into English very well. Like a lot of artists his opinions on art can seem a bit unusual compared to "consensus" (he was a French guy whose greatest idol was Gluck, so you're starting at a weird place anyway)

Gluck, incidentally, is a weird case where a post-Baroque composer who had huge influence on the history of music isn't much listened to nor talked about today.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> Berlioz is actually a wonderful writer and his books have been translated into English very well. ...


Nah, still not interested.


----------



## SanAntone

Unless a composer is writing about Classical music in general, or describing his process or philosophy I am generally not interested in what they have to say - especially if it's something negative about other composers.

Examples of the former are

Aaron Copland book "What to Listen for"
George Rochberg's book The Aesthetics of Survival
Morton Feldman's Give My Regards to Eighth Street
John Cage's Silence
Elliott Carter's book of his reviews


----------



## Strange Magic

SanAntone said:


> Since Cante Flamenco is one of my favorite genres it is hard for me to imagine someone reacting to it as strongly as you describe. Everyone I've discussed it with has had the opposite reaction. In fact, it is one of few things my ex-wife and I agree on.


You will just have to take my word for it. My mother would sometimes poke her head into my room and ask me when the chicken-strangling would end. You travel in a different milieu where everyone has had the opposite reaction and thus you are a lucky soul. Hang on to that group!


----------



## BachIsBest

Forster said:


> ...which are...? Please identify these characteristics, and give examples of works where you've found them. Thanks.


I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't have a formula for the profound, but I never claimed I did. To give you an example (although I am well aware that, at this point, you probably care very little), I am quite confident Michelangelo's _Pietà_ is a profound work of art.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Strange Magic said:


> I was reared in middle-class central New Jersey and have been offering *sung* flamenco (recordings) for others to hear for decades. No keepers.


I had a similar experienced being raised in lower-middle-class Oklahoma and loving heavy metal, classical, and jazz; not many takers in the epicenter for country music.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> Do you think that repeating the same thing over and over is going to make your argument any more convincing or more righteous for that matter. Not to mention that one might get away by presenting affectations such as ‘Principle of Charity‘ or Occam’s Razor once, but more than once reminds of someone who thinks they’re speaking from a pulpit or as a philosophy professor rather than on a simple forum. I’ve already mentioned that my view is that SM meant exactly what he said without realizing that it exposed a weakness in his previous comments and then backtracked. You, of course, conveniently ignored it and continue to sing the same song as before, as if SM needs your protection, like some Jeanne d’Arc riding a very high horse.


Do you think repeating that "my view is that SM meant exactly what he said..." is any more convincing or righteous when you have completely ignored the fact (not an opinion, not a "view") that his words make complete sense from the subjectivist perspective? If I keep repeating you've violated the principle of charity it's precisely because you are so insistent that your "view" is the only way to read what he wrote, as opposed to reading what he wrote in the context of HIS views. I haven't ignored anything, and your "view" is an interpretation, and it's an uncharitable one, and objectively so. SM certainly doesn't need my protection, and my intention was not to defend him, it was to illustrate either your inability or unwillingness to understand the subjectivist view; something that you've only reinforced by digging your heels in on this point.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

dissident said:


> No, I didn't see it. Frankly you and Strange Magic are the only commenters in the thread that have come close to exemplifying that particular attitude, although based on the notion that you are guardians of some "truth" the we poor ignorant nobs can't quite grasp.


You don't see how this:


> I still know the difference between Fabio and Moby Dick, and the difference between Meyerbeer and Wagner, and the difference between art that speaks profoundly and perceptively and art that tickles the surface of life or wallows in its refuse like a pig. There's room for art at all levels of depth - we need easy fun as well as spiritual enrichment - but we need to keep our perceptions and our values in order. Spare me your exaltation of the man in the street and his unassailable subjective values and exquisite artistic tastes. People are shooting each other in the street, waving QAnon placards, trying to overturn elections, and gunning for women who think they own their own bodies. Is there art that "speaks profoundly" to those aspects of the "human condition"? Roll over, Beethoven.


implies a hierarchy of artistic tastes? I'm curious as to how the hell else you interpret "spare me your exaltation of the man in the street and his unassailable subjective values and exquisite artistic tastes" as if it's NOT looking down on such people; nor how one is supposed to read "I... know the difference between... art that speaks profoundly... and art that tickles the surface of life or wallows in its refuse like a pig" as NOT looking down on much of popular art. Please, interpret these words in a way that isn't doing either of these things.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Forster said:


> Thanks. I remember reading this the first time, and can see, as you said, points of alignment with, and difference from SM's view.
> 
> You say that:
> 
> On the second element, particularly the point in bold, would you illustrate? Thanks


Sure, though it would be difficult to do without a more in-depth analysis. To start I'll pick a few examples and just skim quickly over how I think they do this. 

One example is how Wagner uses the ambiguity of tonality in Tristan und Isolde as an aesthetic metaphor for desire. The same way we desire things we can't have, with that desire often leading to suffering, so we desire a resolution to ambiguous tonality. The latter, like desire itself, creates uneasiness, anxiety, and longing. That Wagner elongates this effect throughout an entire opera and only resolves it at the end, which is about finding love-in-death, suggests that death is the only real release from desirous longing; a concept he got from Schopenhauer. So this is one way of finding musical analogs to what I would consider profound themes of human life. 

Another example might be the finale of Mozart's 41st Symphony, which I almost see as an isomorphic representation of profundity in itself; the way in which Mozart introduces 5 distinct themes that are initially separate, but which he eventually weaves together into a harmonious whole, is not unlike the process by which we find ways to harmonize disparate aspects of life and thought, whether they're through philosophy or scientific theories. 

Another example could be Beethoven's Diabelli Variations, a work which Beethoven takes what is a rather light, humorous waltz theme and from that germ breeds an incredible garden of contrasting ideas. Most of them, to my ears, takes the pieces humor and develops it into a collage of humor in all different forms, from the ironic to playful to the joking. There are hints of darkness and seriousness here and there, but on the whole not very much; until the end, when those last few variations takes us into realms of quiet meditation, lamentation, tragedy, heightened drama, intellectual rigor before pausing on the brink of something... only to end on another dance theme, but this time a minuet of a rather temperate character. This progression from light playfulness to seriousness to neutrality could find isomorphic relations to all kinds of things in life. I almost consider a kind of bildungsroman, in which our "character" passes most of childhood in playful fun and innocence, encounters tragedy, is then forced to contemplate on this, and this serious contemplation reaches the height of both confusion and drama in the fugue, finally reaches the brink of revelation, and emerges in the finale as a man, somewhere between the extremes of childlike frivolity and the philosophical abstraction of old-age. 

Now, there's many things one could object to about all of these. Don't MOST musical works create tension via tonality like Wagner, even if just in the span of a development section? Don't most polyphonic works, like Mozart's 41st, weave together different themes into a harmonious whole? Did Beethoven REALLY have any of this in mind during the Diabelli's, or is it just a fanciful "interpretation" with no real roots in truth? All of these, I admit, are valid objections; but that's where the subjectivity aspect comes in. To me, profundity isn't just in the objective analysis of the elements that's there within the music (or any art), but it exists in the way in which music and art affects us to CARE about such things. Yes, one could use the above analysis for an immense variety of works; but how many of these works will make people CARE about such things. In that respect, profundity in art is similar to Alexander Pope's maxim that "True Wit is Nature to advantage dress'd / What oft was thought, but ne'er so well express'd; / Something whose truth convinced at sight we find / That gives us back the image of our mind."


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

BachIsBest said:


> Here's the rub. Your epistemology is something along the lines of (I apologise if I get this wrong) "we can know things when there is sufficient scientific evidence for them". But how do you know "we can know things when there is sufficient scientific evidence for them"? Maybe you claim it's because using this knowledge we can build rocket ships (amongst many other extraordinary accomplishments); but why should building rocket ships be taken as evidence for any sort of knowledge; alternatively, maybe the rocket ship is an illusion? Eventually, if you go far enough down this epistemological rabbit hole, you will find that the only possible answer to these questions is some variation of "common sense".


That's a too simplistic view of my epistemology, which is much more thoroughly worked out than that. I've oft said that science is built on the pillars of empiricism and rationality. Empiricism is rather straight forward: we generally accept as true what we can directly detect with our senses (while acknowledging that even our senses are fallible; like optical illusions). Rationality is more complicated to formalize, but I think it's been done via Bayes' Theory, which helps us to understand the probabilistic nature of propositional truth claims, and how evidence for them works via conditional probabilities. To go even deeper down that rabbit hole you'd have to explain how we come to our priors and those conditional probabilities, but that would really be getting into the weeds (which I'm willing to do, if you want).

Science works in large part because it follows these two principles. All scientific theories can be thought of as propositional statements with some prior probability of being true; the evidence for them can be modeled as conditional probabilities on the basis of empiricism. With the most robust theories, we've typically tested them enough to where the conditional probability of "Given H(ypothesis), the probability of E(mpirical observation) is ~100%; and Given Not H, the probability of E(empirical observation) is ~0%." One point of clarification is that I don't think in terms of knowledge we ever really reach the binary poles of 0%/100%; one reason is because if we did we could never (according to Bayes' Theorem) change our mind, but I think for many scientific theories we can get to 99.999999...% Generally, the way we get to that high degree of confidence (which I'd classify as "knowledge") is via precise, novel, empirical predictions. One example was the eclipse experiment that was done with General Relativity.

To me, knowledge is just a subset of belief that essentially means "any proposition in which our probabilistic confidence is high enough so that it would take extraordinary evidence to overturn it." I assume that's how you feel about, say, General Relativity, or the Theory of Evolution, or the Germ Theory of disease.

Common sense is something else entirely. Too often "common sense" is basically just cognitive biases put towards making sense of our very limited experiences in the world. Common sense can be useful for navigating all kinds of real-world circumstances, but the notion that this leads to knowledge as compared to pragmatic usefulness is incredibly dubious. Some racists might argue it's "common sense" that black people are more prone to committing crimes, because they have experience living in or near neighborhoods where the majority of crimes are committed by black people. This can be argued on the basis of "common sense," but not as "knowledge" for many reasons; including the sample size being too small to generalize, and the inability to disentangle many variables (like skin color and economic context for one example). This "common sense" can't be justified via genuine rationality, but it can be demonstrated to be irrational by genuine rationality by examining the cognitive biases at play that lead to such "common sense." Now, common sense can certainly be true, too; but the point is that the way to know if it's true or not isn't by common sense, but we can by rational (and scientific) scrutiny.

The ability of science to build rocket ships and the like is just the fruits of having quite accurate models of reality. If we didn't have accurate models it's difficult to imagine what else could account for such abilities.



BachIsBest said:


> When I walk into a wall (as one does), I feel it hit me. When others walk into walls, they describe very similar sensations and observations. We can come up with explanations for why we should all feel running into a wall. You could explain this by saying all our subjective perceptions coincide, but there is no actual wall in any rational sense; there is nothing provably wrong with this explanation. Similarly, when I perceive art I find profound, read what other's perceive in art as profound, and look at commonalities in profundity in art across cultures, I could conclude that there is nothing too this profundity in art thing beyond a coinciding of subjective perceptions; there is nothing provably wrong with this explanation. However, there is a wall, and there is, as far as I can tell, characteristics of artworks that make them profound.


I'm not sure I follow your point with the wall, or at least I'm with you until you get to the "there is no actual wall in any rational sense." I'm not sure how you arrived there.

As for the comparison with art and profundity, if profundity in art was like the wall, then you should be able to have anyone "walk into the wall" (experience the art) and everyone should feel the same thing, or at least something very similar. But people demonstrably don't. The fact that they don't hints towards your (and others') perception of profundity in such works being, at least partially, the product of the subjectivities interacting with the object. This doesn't mean that there aren't objective qualities in much art that isn't more likely to provoke the feeling of profundity in certain people, but that quality exists in much art and in most people, but in very different ways. I'm sure I could make up a list of art I find profundity in, and I could find people who agree with me on all of those works; but I doubt I could find anyone who agreed with all of them, and I certainly couldn't get everyone to agree on any of them. That variability can only be explained, IMO, by the variability of human subjectivities. Our nervous systems are enough alike that anyone who walks into a wall will feel it; but the ways in which we perceive profundity in art are different enough that we have different capacities to feel it in response to radically different works with radically different qualities.

To tie this back in with the above epistemology discussion, I'm also skeptical that we can discover or fully understand artistic profundity, even subjectively, by merely analyzing the objective features of art and saying "this is what makes it profound" AFTER we've already experienced it and decided it was profound. This has very much the feel of a post-hoc or just-so fallacy: how does one know which objective qualities are responsible for them thinking it profound? Works of art are generally complex, and we are generally responding to many objective elements that are occurring simultaneously. In music alone we have harmony, melody, form, rhythm, tone... things we don't experience in isolation, but together. Perhaps we can often say "Oh, I love this melody," but are we sure it's just the melody causing our overall positive reaction? What if that melody was put to an entirely different harmony or rhythm? Change one element, radically change the work. Further, the question of why these objective elements cause this reaction couldn't possibly be understood without also understanding our own subjectivities, the same way we'd have to understand our nervous system to know why we feel the way we do walking into a wall.

I'll also say I'm cognizant of the fact that I'm offering this "skepticism of objective profundity" after a post in which I (mostly objectively) analyzed why/how I think certain works of art can be called profound; but I want to stress that I'm not presenting my view of profundity as knowledge. It's more akin to "this is what I interpret profundity to mean, here is the way in which that manifests in how I react to music." The difference between me and, say, Woodduck is that I'm not elevating my subjective reactions and perception to the realm of objective facts. I'm acknowledging the subjective component and even admitting there's a good deal of mystery there in why these particular works made me feel as they did. 

I could write more, but I think that's more than enough to chew on for now.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Luchesi said:


> He would have to write a large post teaching and explaining the examples. (That's always been the problem.)
> 
> More knowledge is better than less knowledge. But I'm thinking perhaps it isn't, in this case of art appreciation. It turns people off, and we don't wanna do that.


I don't think "more knowledge" turns anyone off unless people feel that knowledge is being used as a cudgel to beat them over the head on matters where that knowledge doesn't apply. Of course, plenty of people deserve beating over the head with the cudgel of knowledge when it comes to factual matters, and I have little sympathy for, as example, people who deny science in favor of their pet conspiracy theories; but a key issue is whether or not aesthetic value is one of those "factual matters" (like "do masks help prevent the spread of Covid?") or is it any different than other subjective tastes? There is no doubt, I think even among us rabid subjectivists, that people with more knowledge of music hear music differently than those ignorant of it; but this is true of EVERY artistic medium. Professional magicians also see magic tricks/illusions differently than people who aren't professional magicians. The question is: is magic for magicians or for the ignorant audience? Can it be both? Similar, is music just for musicians, or is it for an ignorant audience? Can it be both? 

Some artists decide to create art only to impress other artists: I doubt Joyce imagined Finnegans Wake would ever be beloved by anyone who wasn't a word nerd (ie, literature/English professors). That's fine, but I don't think it's the default. Even many of the great composers were conscious of appealing to unlearned audiences; Mozart wrote about this explicitly to his father, the desire of appealing to both the laymen and the connoisseurs. Most composers tailored their work depending on who they were writing for, and I would like to think most did not have a disdain for, or any condescension towards, popular laymen audiences.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Do you think repeating that "my view is that SM meant exactly what he said..." is any more convincing or righteous when you have completely ignored the fact (not an opinion, not a "view") that his words make complete sense from the subjectivist perspective? If I keep repeating you've violated the principle of charity it's precisely because you are so insistent that your "view" is the only way to read what he wrote, as opposed to reading what he wrote in the context of HIS views. I haven't ignored anything, and your "view" is an interpretation, and it's an uncharitable one, and objectively so. SM certainly doesn't need my protection, and my intention was not to defend him, it was to illustrate either your inability or unwillingness to understand the subjectivist view; something that you've only reinforced by digging your heels in on this point.


Interesting that someone who instructs others on the principle of charity has no problem with telling others that what they say is not coherent or rational. Charity starts at home; look to yours.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fbjim said:


> Berlioz is actually a wonderful writer and his books have been translated into English very well. Like a lot of artists his opinions on art can seem a bit unusual compared to "consensus" (he was a French guy whose greatest idol was Gluck, so you're starting at a weird place anyway)


"Indeed, _Liszt_ suggested that _Gluck_ had sowed the seeds for a new approach, which was only now being brought to fruition ... Several of _Liszt's_ choices have parallels in _Gluck's_ own music, and in _Liszt's_ and _Wagner's_ writings on _Gluck_." (Liszt and the Symphonic Poem, page 194, Joanne Cormac, 2017)

There's also an interesting read, "Mozartian Undercurrents in Berlioz: Appreciation, Resistance and Unconscious Appropriation", which is only 16 pages long (Mozartian Undercurrents in Berlioz: Appreciation, Resistance and Unconscious Appropriation).
It ties into some things you've said in the thread such as "interpretation of composers' intentions". For instance, it discusses how Berlioz misinterpreted the masonic elements of Die Zauberflöte as "Egyptian" due to his misunderstanding of the background context, and also, the fact that Berlioz only knew Don Giovanni by the early Romantic adaptation, which twisted a lot of Mozart's original intentions (How Don Giovanni was performed in Paris, in the 1830s).
Also, it says on page 23, "he speaks of Mozart as 'full of passion and gloominess'". We can only speculate what Berlioz would have thought of Haydn if Berlioz knew his music, for instance (heck, even we can't know everything today since a large chunk is still unrecorded). Would Berlioz have perceived similar characteristics in Haydn too? If so, would he have changed his mind about some things? We'll never know. (Btw, I also respect dissident's subjective view regarding Beethoven's evaluation of Bach).


hammeredklavier said:


> So who before Haydn utilized chromaticism in such a dramatic way? Bach didn't have the sense for operatic drama. Handel and Gluck didn't have the sense for chromatic harmony. The sole reason why Haydn isn't called a "father" (to his junior colleague Mozart, his pupil Weber, his admirer Schubert, and from them, the subsequent composers) is because we weren't taught in school that he was. The dogma of the "establishment" dictated that, just like what I described in posts #442, #454. watch?v=Dzmj8lRLHh0&t=11m41s (bars 217~220; "i - vii°4/2 - V7/iv - iv - vii°4/3 - V7 - i"; makes up vertical sonorities containing [B, D, F, Ab, C]). Similarly, the harmonies in bar 226 (34:26) watch?v=Dzmj8lRLHh0&t=34m11s


The point is that even the famous composers of the past didn't know everything; they aren't authorities to be relied on unquestioningly when it comes to objective evaluation of artistry.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Tchaikovsky had to write that long letter about his fondness of Mozart because there were people around him indifferent or negative in attitude to Mozart, such as Nadezhda von Meck. He starts off (his letter to von Meck, 16/28 March 1878) by saying "Why don't you love Mozart? With regard to him we clearly disagree with one another, my dear friend."
Also, Wagner, who was very much "indoctrinated" from childhood, by having a Mozart biography read to him at the age of 6 —"He worked hard to introduce Mozart to his friends." (Wagner, a biography, volume 2, page 82 / Curt von Westernhagen, 1978). If his friends all knew and liked Mozart, why would he have had to _work hard to introduce_ Mozart to them? It doesn't make sense.
There are Mozart partisans on the net today who copy and paste long compilations of quotes by various historical figures to have us believe everyone in the past 2.5 centuries liked Mozart. But the fact is that the popularity of Mozart actually declined during the 19th century (except in connossieur circles), because they frankly found a lot of the stuff to be "wallpaper music" by the sensibilities of their time, and the treatment of Papa by guys like Schumann, Berlioz, Hanslick was far worse.
Whether or not to treat the stuff as "ancient relics from the past" is up to each of us to decide.


hammeredklavier said:


> The same can be said about sports, for instance. How are we any different from the otakus who say "How would life have been without Neon Genesis Evangelion". Just like them, we're closed in our own nerdy little circles, unable to understand why the rest of the world doesn't care for the Art of the Fugue.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> Interesting that someone who instructs others on the principle of charity has no problem with telling others that they are not coherent or rational. Charity starts at home; look to yours.


The principle of charity means understanding what someone means from their point of view, and if you can point to where I have failed to do this then I will say "sorry" and try to do better; but I can not think of any instance where I have insisted that someone must mean X when they could also have meant Y, where Y was consistent with their overall perspective.

Also, this is now probably the 3rd or 4th time where I've had to correct you that I claimed someone was not "logically coherent;" not that they weren't coherent. I openly claim that everyone (including myself) are irrational, at least sometimes, and I haven't said that anyone is incoherent. This is, ironically, another example of you not understanding what someone means by insisting on not only your demonstrably incorrect memory of what they said, but your misinterpretation of what was meant by what they said. Productive discussion can't take place under this paradigm of "people mean only what I think they mean."


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The principle of charity means understanding what someone means from their point of view, and if you can point to where I have failed to do this then I will say "sorry" and try to do better; but I can not think of any instance where I have insisted that someone must mean X when they could also have meant Y, where Y was consistent with their overall perspective.
> 
> Also, this is now probably the 3rd or 4th time where I've had to correct you that I claimed someone was not "logically coherent;" not that they weren't coherent. I openly claim that everyone (including myself) are irrational, at least sometimes, and I haven't said that anyone is incoherent. This is, ironically, another example of you not understanding what someone means by insisting on not only your demonstrably incorrect memory of what they said, but your misinterpretation of what was meant by what they said. Productive discussion can't take place under this paradigm of "people mean only what I think they mean."


My how you do spin.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> My how you do spin.


My how do you completely fail to address what's being said.


----------



## hammeredklavier

BachIsBest said:


> I am quite confident Michelangelo's _Pietà_ is a profound work of art.


That still doesn't explain why none of the composers from the period 1000~1700 should be considered to be on par with Bach, Mozart, Beethoven. objectively


----------



## hammeredklavier

Forster said:


> Joking aside, it's a curious paradox that we (sorry, "some of us") like to feel that we're in the avant-garde, smarter than the average bear, but, simultaneously, want to be in the big gang that recognises the same tastes, thereby validating our own.


Very well put.


----------



## fluteman

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't think "more knowledge" turns anyone off unless people feel that knowledge is being used as a cudgel to beat them over the head on matters where that knowledge doesn't apply. Of course, plenty of people deserve beating over the head with the cudgel of knowledge when it comes to factual matters, and I have little sympathy for, as example, people who deny science in favor of their pet conspiracy theories; but a key issue is whether or not aesthetic value is one of those "factual matters" (like "do masks help prevent the spread of Covid?") or is it any different than other subjective tastes? There is no doubt, I think even among us rabid subjectivists, that people with more knowledge of music hear music differently than those ignorant of it; but this is true of EVERY artistic medium. Professional magicians also see magic tricks/illusions differently than people who aren't professional magicians. The question is: is magic for magicians or for the ignorant audience? Can it be both? Similar, is music just for musicians, or is it for an ignorant audience? Can it be both?
> 
> Some artists decide to create art only to impress other artists: I doubt Joyce imagined Finnegans Wake would ever be beloved by anyone who wasn't a word nerd (ie, literature/English professors). That's fine, but I don't think it's the default. Even many of the great composers were conscious of appealing to unlearned audiences; Mozart wrote about this explicitly to his father, the desire of appealing to both the laymen and the connoisseurs. Most composers tailored their work depending on who they were writing for, and I would like to think most did not have a disdain for, or any condescension towards, popular laymen audiences.


And obviously, what was understood as a matter of course by "unlearned audiences" or laymen of the artist's own time and place may require some learning to understand a few hundred or thousand years later, especially in its original form. Yet, somehow, some of it survives, perhaps in updated or translated form. So persistently in some cases, that as decades and centuries pass, new updates and translations are prepared so as to be more compelling and relevant to the audiences of the current era. Thus, Alexander Pope's translation of Homer, brilliant as it is, is superseded by another more modern one. 
Some seem to think this updating process cannot or should not happen in the case of classical music. But it can and inevitably does.


----------



## BachIsBest

hammeredklavier said:


> That still doesn't explain why none of the composers from the period 1000~1700 should be considered to be on par with Bach, Mozart, Beethoven.


No it doesn't. I'm not sure why it should?


----------



## Strange Magic

BachIsBest said:


> I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't have a formula for the profound, but I never claimed I did. To give you an example (although I am well aware that, at this point, you probably care very little), I am quite confident Michelangelo's _Pietà_ is a profound work of art.





> *Strange Magic: *"I'm not at all sure the the noun "profundity" can be applied to music, in an attempt to categorize it. It seems best to reserve the terms "profound, profundity" to truly illuminating, penetrating insights or discoveries that pierce through a jumble of seemingly isolated and discrete facts about reality and reveal to us an underlying deep truth that knits together many disparate facts into a unity. Examples would be the Theories (using the term as scientists use it) of Special and General Relativity, Evolution by Natural Selection, Plate Tectonics, and many recently verified discoveries in astronomy and cosmology. These are profound. There are areas of mathematics that are profound....


The quote above is from Post #7 of this thread and from Post #19 of the original thread. It's not a perfect definition of the Profound but it works for me. Concerning the above definition I would enlarge it to say that the problems addressed by the various theories of science with either success or failure are, many of them, also profound. You will note that the posts quoted are numbered 7 and 19, both prime numbers. Much is known about primes from a statistical point of view, yet an overriding principle that truly explains the distribution of primes remains something that mathematicians have worked on for centuries and continue to do so. But my key point was the piercing through a jumble of facts (usually about the natural world and our proper place in it) to reveal deep truths that knit together disparate facts into a reasonable and satisfying whole. Does this approach work for you?

In my view the Pieta is or may be considered sublime but I do not think it is profound. I could give verified examples of what appears to be grief--dumb mute grief--. in the animal kingdom that are quite compelling


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't have a formula for the profound, but I never claimed I did. To give you an example (although I am well aware that, at this point, you probably care very little), I am quite confident Michelangelo's _Pietà_ is a profound work of art.


So, you can refer to the 'characteristics of profundity', but not elaborate on what they are? And you can only point to the profound in art, not in music?

Righto.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> Sure, though it would be difficult to do without a more in-depth analysis. To start I'll pick a few examples and just skim quickly over how I think they do this.
> 
> One example is how Wagner uses the ambiguity of tonality in Tristan und Isolde as an aesthetic metaphor for desire. The same way we desire things we can't have, with that desire often leading to suffering, so we desire a resolution to ambiguous tonality. The latter, like desire itself, creates uneasiness, anxiety, and longing. That Wagner elongates this effect throughout an entire opera and only resolves it at the end, which is about finding love-in-death, suggests that death is the only real release from desirous longing; a concept he got from Schopenhauer. So this is one way of finding musical analogs to what I would consider profound themes of human life.
> 
> Another example might be the finale of Mozart's 41st Symphony, which I almost see as an isomorphic representation of profundity in itself; the way in which Mozart introduces 5 distinct themes that are initially separate, but which he eventually weaves together into a harmonious whole, is not unlike the process by which we find ways to harmonize disparate aspects of life and thought, whether they're through philosophy or scientific theories.
> 
> Another example could be Beethoven's Diabelli Variations, a work which Beethoven takes what is a rather light, humorous waltz theme and from that germ breeds an incredible garden of contrasting ideas. Most of them, to my ears, takes the pieces humor and develops it into a collage of humor in all different forms, from the ironic to playful to the joking. There are hints of darkness and seriousness here and there, but on the whole not very much; until the end, when those last few variations takes us into realms of quiet meditation, lamentation, tragedy, heightened drama, intellectual rigor before pausing on the brink of something... only to end on another dance theme, but this time a minuet of a rather temperate character. This progression from light playfulness to seriousness to neutrality could find isomorphic relations to all kinds of things in life. I almost consider a kind of bildungsroman, in which our "character" passes most of childhood in playful fun and innocence, encounters tragedy, is then forced to contemplate on this, and this serious contemplation reaches the height of both confusion and drama in the fugue, finally reaches the brink of revelation, and emerges in the finale as a man, somewhere between the extremes of childlike frivolity and the philosophical abstraction of old-age.
> 
> Now, there's many things one could object to about all of these. Don't MOST musical works create tension via tonality like Wagner, even if just in the span of a development section? Don't most polyphonic works, like Mozart's 41st, weave together different themes into a harmonious whole? Did Beethoven REALLY have any of this in mind during the Diabelli's, or is it just a fanciful "interpretation" with no real roots in truth? All of these, I admit, are valid objections; but that's where the subjectivity aspect comes in. To me, profundity isn't just in the objective analysis of the elements that's there within the music (or any art), but it exists in the way in which music and art affects us to CARE about such things. Yes, one could use the above analysis for an immense variety of works; but how many of these works will make people CARE about such things. In that respect, profundity in art is similar to Alexander Pope's maxim that "True Wit is Nature to advantage dress'd / What oft was thought, but ne'er so well express'd; / Something whose truth convinced at sight we find / That gives us back the image of our mind."


Thanks. You do know you have to leave room for me to come back with my objections and not forestall? 

I recognise the Wagner as a good example, though obviously its having a programme means that the ideas are there already to help make the connection. And I also agree that when listening to music, whether abstract or programme, one rarely has a blank mind, devoid of any accompanying ideas and images, especially if one comes to it having read something about it (LvB's 5th and 'Fate knocking on the door' for example).

If I have any 'objection', it's first, my earlier point about 'profundity' tending only towards the serious. All your examples, even those where there is 'wit' or 'humour' inevitably end up with a serious resolution. In other words, music can _lead _us to think serious things, but not that the music _is _'profound'.

And second, that where one might hear instability and sadness in a particular musical passage, another might hear ambiguity and playfulness. That's where subjectivity starts.
Take Sibelius’ 6th Symphony for example. He said, "Whereas most other modern composers are engaged in manufacturing cocktails of every hue and description, I offer the public pure cold water." He may only have intended his words as metaphorical (well, obviously so, since the symphony isn’t _actually_ cold water ) in the sense that the music is, structurally plain, colourless, simple, direct compared to the excitable concoctions of his contemporaries. He may have intended it to mean that the symphony is ‘about’ leading a sober life (apt for him as he was alcoholic) or about the cool contemplation induced by being in the Finnish lake and river landscape….

What I think about is the death of my dog, Jenny, at the time I was coming to know the symphony. Tom Service includes it in his list of 50 Greatest symphonies, and he points to three performances, one which finds ‘warmth’ and one which finds 'red blooded emotional intensity'!









Symphony guide: Sibelius's Sixth


Was Sibelius's symphony of 'pure cold water' intended as a corrective to a musical world of modernist angst? Tom Service looks at the Finnish composer's self-effacing, but hugely influential, work




www.theguardian.com





As others have concentrated on in their contributions to this thread, we come to music with (to put it simply) 'baggage' - a mind and heart that will be full of things that have nothing to do with the music, but nevertheless impact our listening experience. And even if we're not talking about something as distracting as an immediate life event affecting one's emotional state, there is no accounting for our predisposition to hear things that are definitely there at that time...for me; and definitely not there, for you.

There is therefore no possibility that any particular piece of music _is _profound, only that some listeners might use that term to describe what the music prompts in them.

[add] Oh, and I also reject the implication that 'the profound' is the most valuable, elevated form of musical endeavour and usually to be found in a Bach Mass, a Mahler symphony, a Beethoven quartet or an opera by Wagner.


----------



## annaw

Forster said:


> ....
> There is therefore no possibility that any particular piece of music _is _profound, only that some listeners might use that term to describe what the music prompts in them.


I'm not quite sure if I entirely agree with you here. The way we use language is such as it is and we _do_ say, "This piece is melancholic," or, "This one is profound." And when we say such things, the sentences have a different sense from when we say, "This prompts in me a feeling of melancholy." However, I think the more interesting question is that when does something prompt such a feeling in us and when such a description can be said to be a correct one?

Insofar, when we talk of aesthetic judgements, there are multiple ways in which we can talk of their objectivity--they can be objective as long as there is a way for me to be wrong, and this can occur in multiple different ways. For example, words such as "melancholic" or "beautiful" might be culturally determined. That is, what is correct to describe using one such word or another is different from culture to culture. However, _in this culture, _I may nevertheless be wrong in describing something as beautiful when that does not correspond to certain standards of the way we use such words. For example, if I decide to say that Beethoven's 9th symphony is ugly, someone could make a fair argument that maybe I just haven't grasped the correct meaning of "ugly".

In other words, there might exist instances when it is indeed correct to make a certain aesthetic judgement and that might be objective, but it is objective only insofar as descriptive aesthetic words have a certain meaning in our society. What is ugly for me might be beautiful for you (or what is painful for me might not be painful for you) but this does not mean there is no correct use of such words. Therefore, I think it would be a bit premature to say that we can never say of a piece that _it_ is profound (the same way, I could say, "That was painful").


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> [add] Oh, and I also reject the implication that 'the profound' is the most valuable, elevated form of musical endeavour and usually to be found in a Bach Mass, a Mahler symphony, a Beethoven quartet or an opera by Wagner.


If somebody prefers Benny Hill to Shakespeare I'm not going to object. Just don't try to tell me that Benny Hill is "no worse than" or "just as good as" Shakespeare, especially if you don't know much at all about Shakespeare and your frame of reference and "expertise" lies pretty much exclusively in Benny Hill episodes.


----------



## Barbebleu

I’m very partial to Benny’s Sonnets and Shakespeare’s saucy sketches! 😂


----------



## 59540

Barbebleu said:


> I’m very partial to Benny’s Sonnets and Shakespeare’s saucy sketches! 😂


"Saucy"? Show some respect for Benny's profundity. Let's not get all elitist now and look down on "Yakety Sax" which in itself is every bit as profound as a Brahms symphony because I say so.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> a Brahms symphony


Explain to me its objective profundity in comparison to a Tchaikovsky symphony


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> If somebody prefers Benny Hill to Shakespeare I'm not going to object. Just don't try to tell me that Benny Hill is "no worse than" or "just as good as" Shakespeare, especially if you don't know much at all about Shakespeare and your frame of reference and "expertise" lies pretty much exclusively in Benny Hill episodes.


What is the purpose of art, or music, or literature? Who benefits from the idea that there is high art and low art, with one having the potential of being profound and the other merely entertaining?

You appear to argue that we have a stake in this debate. But do we? Isn't it everyone's right to enjoy the art/music/literature they find enjoyable and ignore the rest?

How is anyone harmed if someone happens to think that Benny Hill is better than Shakespeare? For them it is clearly the case. I wish them well and don't care if they ever discover Shakespeare. I am a big fan of Shakespeare but can understand why he is not for everyone.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> What is the purpose of art, or music, or literature? Who benefits from the idea that there is high art and low art, with one having the potential of being profound and the other merely entertaining?
> 
> You appear to argue that we have a stake in this debate. But do we? Isn't it everyone's right to enjoy the art/music/literature they find enjoyable and ignore the rest?
> 
> How is anyone harmed if someone happens to think that Benny Hill is better than Shakespeare? For them it is clearly the case. I wish them well and don't care if they ever discover Shakespeare. I am a big fan of Shakespeare but can understand why he is not for everyone.


I suppose the more "profound", the more likely to attract a higher price at sale. The less "profound" might attract a lower price, but make more sales.

To that extent, we all have something at stake as the market for what we might choose to buy is bound to be affected by the perceived qualities of the art in question.


----------



## Barbebleu

dissident said:


> "Saucy"? Show some respect for Benny's profundity. Let's not get all elitist now and look down on "Yakety Sax" which in itself is every bit as profound as a Brahms symphony because I say so.


Not to mention the existential masterpiece that is Ernie, The Fastest Milkman in the West! 😂


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> The quote above is from Post #7 of this thread and from Post #19 of the original thread. It's not a perfect definition of the Profound but it works for me. Concerning the above definition I would enlarge it to say that the problems addressed by the various theories of science with either success or failure are, many of them, also profound. You will note that the posts quoted are numbered 7 and 19, both prime numbers. Much is known about primes from a statistical point of view, yet an overriding principle that truly explains the distribution of primes remains something that mathematicians have worked on for centuries and continue to do so. But my key point was the piercing through a jumble of facts (usually about the natural world and our proper place in it) to reveal deep truths that knit together disparate facts into a reasonable and satisfying whole. Does this approach work for you?
> 
> In my view the Pieta is or may be considered sublime but I do not think it is profound. I could give verified examples of what appears to be grief--dumb mute grief--. in the animal kingdom that are quite compelling


,
Your definition of 'profound' is as good as any, and it makes clear the distinction between science and art that I mentioned earlier. For there is no grand, comprehensive, universal theory of art. Theories of art apply only within certain prescribed social and cultural contexts. But I would argue that profundity in the sense you are using it can be found in art within those limited contexts.


----------



## 59540

Barbebleu said:


> Not to mention the existential masterpiece that is Ernie, The Fastest Milkman in the West! 😂


Always, always deeply moving.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> How is anyone harmed if someone happens to think that Benny Hill is better than Shakespeare? ...


I already said I don't care if they do. But if Benny is all they know I don't really care to hear their opinion on the relative "greatness" of Shakespeare either.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> I already said I don't care if they do. But if Benny is all they know I don't really care to hear their opinion on the relative "greatness" of Shakespeare either.


What /who do you want to hear the opinions of others about? The opinions of fellow Shakespeare enthusiasts, I would suspect, and tune out the interests of others, and their opinions also. You have every right.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> I already said I don't care if they do. But if Benny is all they know I don't really care to hear their opinion on the relative "greatness" of Shakespeare either.


It is not up to you whether a Benny Hill fan wishes to say what they think about Shakespeare.


----------



## Forster

Let's stick to classical music. Some posters want to argue their points with reference to other arts (note for example BachisBest post about Michelangelo's _Pietà_), and given that they are not the same as music (especially literature), I don't really see the point. And it's perfectly possible to compare levels of profundity or greatness or whatever other characteristic one wishes to talk about wrt CM without introducing the irrelevant from other completely different musical genres.


----------



## Luchesi

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't think "more knowledge" turns anyone off unless people feel that knowledge is being used as a cudgel to beat them over the head on matters where that knowledge doesn't apply. Of course, plenty of people deserve beating over the head with the cudgel of knowledge when it comes to factual matters, and I have little sympathy for, as example, people who deny science in favor of their pet conspiracy theories; but a key issue is whether or not aesthetic value is one of those "factual matters" (like "do masks help prevent the spread of Covid?") or is it any different than other subjective tastes? There is no doubt, I think even among us rabid subjectivists, that people with more knowledge of music hear music differently than those ignorant of it; but this is true of EVERY artistic medium. Professional magicians also see magic tricks/illusions differently than people who aren't professional magicians. The question is: is magic for magicians or for the ignorant audience? Can it be both? Similar, is music just for musicians, or is it for an ignorant audience? Can it be both?
> 
> Some artists decide to create art only to impress other artists: I doubt Joyce imagined Finnegans Wake would ever be beloved by anyone who wasn't a word nerd (ie, literature/English professors). That's fine, but I don't think it's the default. Even many of the great composers were conscious of appealing to unlearned audiences; Mozart wrote about this explicitly to his father, the desire of appealing to both the laymen and the connoisseurs. Most composers tailored their work depending on who they were writing for, and I would like to think most did not have a disdain for, or any condescension towards, popular laymen audiences.


I try to help children. I should preface my remarks with that fact, that I'm thinking about children and missed opportunities. Musical analysis is a big human achievement coming right out of physics and the natural history of humans. I try to help children to be aware of its value, for their middle age and after that. It's a tough sell because they're naturally much more concerned about their current challenges and their peers.

With my adult students it's not a topic unless they bring it up.


----------



## Strange Magic

Forster said:


> Let's stick to classical music. Some posters want to argue their points with reference to other arts (note for example BachisBest post about Michelangelo's _Pietà_), and given that they are not the same as music (especially literature), I don't really see the point. And it's perfectly possible to compare levels of profundity or greatness or whatever other characteristic one wishes to talk about wrt CM without introducing the irrelevant from other completely different musical genres.


True, and I have also brought in painters and paintings to illustrate points about skill versus real artistry as these visual examples have a more potent and direct effect upon illuminating the discussion. Harder to tell about CM, in that one person's masterwork may be another's waste of valuable listening time. An example might be Shostakovich"s _The Assault on Beautiful Gorky, _where Shostakovich is not at his best.....



I will not go into other examples of such works or composers as my rule is to speak ill of no one"s choices..I do prefer the Addinsell _Warsaw Concerto_ to this work however. Others can pick their own examples.....


----------



## BachIsBest

Eva Yojimbo said:


> That's a too simplistic view of my epistemology, which is much more thoroughly worked out than that. I've oft said that science is built on the pillars of empiricism and rationality. Empiricism is rather straight forward: we generally accept as true what we can directly detect with our senses (while acknowledging that even our senses are fallible; like optical illusions). Rationality is more complicated to formalize, but I think it's been done via Bayes' Theory, which helps us to understand the probabilistic nature of propositional truth claims, and how evidence for them works via conditional probabilities. To go even deeper down that rabbit hole you'd have to explain how we come to our priors and those conditional probabilities, but that would really be getting into the weeds (which I'm willing to do, if you want).
> 
> Science works in large part because it follows these two principles. All scientific theories can be thought of as propositional statements with some prior probability of being true; the evidence for them can be modeled as conditional probabilities on the basis of empiricism. With the most robust theories, we've typically tested them enough to where the conditional probability of "Given H(ypothesis), the probability of E(mpirical observation) is ~100%; and Given Not H, the probability of E(empirical observation) is ~0%." One point of clarification is that I don't think in terms of knowledge we ever really reach the binary poles of 0%/100%; one reason is because if we did we could never (according to Bayes' Theorem) change our mind, but I think for many scientific theories we can get to 99.999999...% Generally, the way we get to that high degree of confidence (which I'd classify as "knowledge") is via precise, novel, empirical predictions. One example was the eclipse experiment that was done with General Relativity.
> 
> To me, knowledge is just a subset of belief that essentially means "any proposition in which our probabilistic confidence is high enough so that it would take extraordinary evidence to overturn it." I assume that's how you feel about, say, General Relativity, or the Theory of Evolution, or the Germ Theory of disease.
> 
> Common sense is something else entirely. Too often "common sense" is basically just cognitive biases put towards making sense of our very limited experiences in the world. Common sense can be useful for navigating all kinds of real-world circumstances, but the notion that this leads to knowledge as compared to pragmatic usefulness is incredibly dubious. Some racists might argue it's "common sense" that black people are more prone to committing crimes, because they have experience living in or near neighborhoods where the majority of crimes are committed by black people. This can be argued on the basis of "common sense," but not as "knowledge" for many reasons; including the sample size being too small to generalize, and the inability to disentangle many variables (like skin color and economic context for one example). This "common sense" can't be justified via genuine rationality, but it can be demonstrated to be irrational by genuine rationality by examining the cognitive biases at play that lead to such "common sense." Now, common sense can certainly be true, too; but the point is that the way to know if it's true or not isn't by common sense, but we can by rational (and scientific) scrutiny.
> 
> The ability of science to build rocket ships and the like is just the fruits of having quite accurate models of reality. If we didn't have accurate models it's difficult to imagine what else could account for such abilities.


I feel you are vastly overcomplicating the point I'm making. If you take the things you believe to be true, or why you believe them to be true e.g., "any proposition in which our probabilistic confidence is high enough so that it would take extraordinary evidence to overturn it", ask why. Why is this a good thing to believe. Eventually, you must come to propositions that you take to be self-evident truths. My point is, the reason these truths are self-evident, is probably something along the lines of "common sense".



Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'm not sure I follow your point with the wall, or at least I'm with you until you get to the "there is no actual wall in any rational sense." I'm not sure how you arrived there.


I didn't attempt to arrive there, only pointed out that this is a position someone could take. We would probably all, in this case, agree this is an unreasonable position.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> As for the comparison with art and profundity, if profundity in art was like the wall, then you should be able to have anyone "walk into the wall" (experience the art) and everyone should feel the same thing, or at least something very similar. But people demonstrably don't. The fact that they don't hints towards your (and others') perception of profundity in such works being, at least partially, the product of the subjectivities interacting with the object. This doesn't mean that there aren't objective qualities in much art that isn't more likely to provoke the feeling of profundity in certain people, but that quality exists in much art and in most people, but in very different ways. I'm sure I could make up a list of art I find profundity in, and I could find people who agree with me on all of those works; but I doubt I could find anyone who agreed with all of them, and I certainly couldn't get everyone to agree on any of them. That variability can only be explained, IMO, by the variability of human subjectivities. Our nervous systems are enough alike that anyone who walks into a wall will feel it; but the ways in which we perceive profundity in art are different enough that we have different capacities to feel it in response to radically different works with radically different qualities.


I chose the wall for a simplistic illustration of the point, of course it is not a perfect analogy. I wish to clarify that I do not claim that perception of profundity is "objective" in the sense it is independent of the human mind. My opinion would be that the disagreement on profundity in art comes largely from people being unable to perceive the profundity in some art. For example, based on conversations with others, I'm somewhat confident Debussy's music is more profound than I can currently observe it to be. 



Eva Yojimbo said:


> To tie this back in with the above epistemology discussion, I'm also skeptical that we can discover or fully understand artistic profundity, even subjectively, by merely analyzing the objective features of art and saying "this is what makes it profound" AFTER we've already experienced it and decided it was profound. This has very much the feel of a post-hoc or just-so fallacy: how does one know which objective qualities are responsible for them thinking it profound? Works of art are generally complex, and we are generally responding to many objective elements that are occurring simultaneously. In music alone we have harmony, melody, form, rhythm, tone... things we don't experience in isolation, but together. Perhaps we can often say "Oh, I love this melody," but are we sure it's just the melody causing our overall positive reaction? What if that melody was put to an entirely different harmony or rhythm? Change one element, radically change the work. Further, the question of why these objective elements cause this reaction couldn't possibly be understood without also understanding our own subjectivities, the same way we'd have to understand our nervous system to know why we feel the way we do walking into a wall.
> 
> I'll also say I'm cognizant of the fact that I'm offering this "skepticism of objective profundity" after a post in which I (mostly objectively) analyzed why/how I think certain works of art can be called profound; but I want to stress that I'm not presenting my view of profundity as knowledge. It's more akin to "this is what I interpret profundity to mean, here is the way in which that manifests in how I react to music." The difference between me and, say, Woodduck is that I'm not elevating my subjective reactions and perception to the realm of objective facts. I'm acknowledging the subjective component and even admitting there's a good deal of mystery there in why these particular works made me feel as they did.
> 
> I could write more, but I think that's more than enough to chew on for now.


If it was only me that experienced profundity in art, and/or I didn't find extensive commonalties in examining the views and experiences of others, then I would agree with your perspective. Although I have stated in this thread I have no formula for profundity, it does seem to me that profundity is related in no small part to meaning and insight. Relatedly, one can realise a work is profound (despite not realising before) by attempting to examine why it is meaningful and insightful (amongst other things), which I think is a strong argument against this just being a post-hoc fallacy.


----------



## BachIsBest

Forster said:


> So, you can refer to the 'characteristics of profundity', but not elaborate on what they are? And you can only point to the profound in art, not in music?
> 
> Righto.


You asked me for an example (you did not clarify music), I gave you an example. I would be very confident in saying that Bach's Violin Partita no. 2 in D minor is profound, if you really insit on musical examples.

In my previous post I have elaborated a bit on 'characteristics of profundity', but your basic point still stands. I do indeed believe there are 'characteristics of profundity', without having a specific idea of what they are. I also believe there is a way to statistically explain the evolution of life on earth, in the time frame of the age of the earth, despite these statistics not being known. I also believe there is a way to derive electric charge is quantised (only comes in discrete units), despite no one knowing the derivation.

In short, you can rationally believe in things based on the evidence for them without having a complete (or really any) description of them.


I don't want to be dragged into another one of these threads, so I think this may be my last post here.


----------



## Luchesi

BachIsBest said:


> You asked me for an example (you did not clarify music), I gave you an example. I would be very confident in saying that Bach's Violin Partita no. 2 in D minor is profound, if you really insit on musical examples.
> 
> In my previous post I have elaborated a bit on 'characteristics of profundity', but your basic point still stands. I do indeed believe there are 'characteristics of profundity', without having a specific idea of what they are. I also believe there is a way to statistically explain the evolution of life on earth, in the time frame of the age of the earth, despite these statistics not being known. I also believe there is a way to derive electric charge is quantised (only comes in discrete units), despite no one knowing the derivation.
> 
> In short, you can rationally believe in things based on the evidence for them without having a complete (or really any) description of them.
> 
> 
> I don't want to be dragged into another one of these threads, so I think this may be my last post here.


Middle English: from Old French _profund_, from Latin _profundus_ ‘deep’, from Latin _pro_ ‘before’ + _fundus_ ‘bottom’. The word was used earliest in the sense ‘showing deep insight’.

Who can predict what's profound for another person?


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> Let's stick to classical music. Some posters want to argue their points with reference to other arts (note for example BachisBest post about Michelangelo's _Pietà_), and given that they are not the same as music (especially literature), I don't really see the point. And it's perfectly possible to compare levels of profundity or greatness or whatever other characteristic one wishes to talk about wrt CM without introducing the irrelevant from other completely different musical genres.


What music has in common with other arts is what matters most here, not the ways in which various artistic disciplines differ. A failure to understand this basic point is a key reason this debate rages on. But I've already explained my view on that here and provided a bibliography.


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> What music has in common with other arts is what matters most here, not the ways in which various artistic disciplines differ. A failure to understand this basic point is a key reason this debate rages on. But I've already explained my view on that here and provided a bibliography.


To be fair to the OP, the thread asked about profundity in the Arts. However, if it's a genuine continuation from the earlier discussion, the OP said this:



> I occasionally see criticisms that some music, especially baroque instrumental and pre-Ludwig classical, lacks profundity. So I ask, what is profundity? Is it something that actually exists in music? Something that triggers a particular neural or emotional response? How can we recognize it?


If others wish to include all the arts, that's fine.

However, I don't agree that the problem is that we've not looked at commonalities. On the contrary, part of the debate has been problematic because of attempting to be inclusive and not tackle the challenge of profundity in music alone.


----------



## SanAntone

> I occasionally see criticisms that some music, especially baroque instrumental and pre-Ludwig classical, lacks profundity.


First of all this alleged criticism is unfounded.

To the extent music can be profound, the Bach B Minor Mass, Haydn's Seven Last Words, or the Mozart late symphonies are at least as profound as anything Beethoven composed. And going back even further, to Palestrina, Monteverdi, Machaut, Josquin, Gregorian Chant ...


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> First of all this alleged criticism is unfounded.
> 
> To the extent music can be profound, the Bach B Minor Mass, Haydn's Seven Last Words, or the Mozart late symphonies are at least as profound as anything Beethoven composed. And going back even further, to Palestrina, Monteverdi, Machaut, Josquin, Gregorian Chant ...


I’m assuming that that is your subjective opinion even though it is stated as fact.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *BachisBest: *"My opinion would be that the disagreement on profundity in art comes largely from people being unable to perceive the profundity in some art. For example, based on conversations with others, I'm somewhat confident Debussy's music is more profound than I can currently observe it to be."


Much of the problem is eliminated by setting forth some sort of criteria for profundity and seeing whether the arts, including CM, are capable of profundity. It is not necessarily a matter of inability to perceive profundity in CM--it may be (my position) that it is not there at all. Unless one defines what they think the profound is, we wallow in pure opinion. If you don't care for my definition and my distinguishing between profundity and sublimity, then offer your own.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> the Bach B Minor Mass, Haydn's Seven Last Words, or the Mozart late symphonies And going back even further, to Palestrina, Monteverdi, Machaut, Josquin, Gregorian Chant ...


the harmonies:


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> Much of the problem is eliminated by setting forth some sort of criteria for profundity and seeing whether the arts, including CM, are capable of profundity. It is not necessarily a matter of inability to perceive profundity in CM--it may be (my position) that it is not there at all. Unless one defines what they think the profound is, we wallow in pure opinion. If you don't care for my definition and my distinguishing between profundity and sublimity, then offer your own.


As I've already said, I liked your definition of profundity from your post 890. And as I've also said, profundity in the sense you use it in science and mathematics can never exist in art, as there are no comprehensive or universal theories of art. So, you win that argument. But I think you give short shrift to Eva Yojimbo's comments, with good specific examples, as in post 877. And even there I can sympathize with your view to an extent. There is nothing in the music of Beethoven, Wagner or Mozart that can be profound by your definition, because without a comprehensive, universal set of rational principles to refer to that consistently explain empirically observable phenomena, there can be no "deep truths" to reveal. 

But in art, there is a substitute for scientific principles, i.e., aesthetic principles, or more accurately, aesthetic values. There is no "truth" to these values, deep or otherwise. They simply are accepted voluntarily by members of a society as a demonstration of solidarity and willingness to live and work together, resulting in lasting cultural traditions that help people to jointly build and maintain a society over multiple generations. A sort of gentlemen's and ladies' agreement. Only once one accepts (mostly if not entirely) the large and elaborate edifice of aesthetic values carefully built up over centuries in aristocratic and wealthy bourgeois European society can one speak of the profundity of Mozart, Beethoven and Wagner.

If you choose not to use the term 'profound' in this way, perhaps by substituting the term 'sublime', that's fine, but it's really only a semantic distinction. I have no problem with using the word profound both ways, though I understand the underlying difference.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> It is not up to you whether a Benny Hill fan wishes to say what they think about Shakespeare.


No but it's up to me how much stock I put into it.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> No but it's up to me how much stock I put into it.


No one is asking you place stock in it or not.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> No one is asking you place stock in it or not.


No one is...anything. What's your point? If someone wants to offer an opinion on Beethoven's ninth but has never heard the ninth I'd say the opinion is worthless whether they have a right to voice it or not. Seems pretty obvious.


----------



## 59540

DaveM said:


> I’m assuming that that is your subjective opinion even though it is stated as fact.


Funny how often that happens.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> Unless one defines what they think the profound is, we wallow in pure opinion.


Is that your opinion or is that objective truth? If the former, I think you might need some qualifiers in there. If the latter, I think we need some precise, scientific definition and explanation work here.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> I’m assuming that that is your subjective opinion even though it is stated as fact.


It is a fact that my subjective opinion is I believe those works to be profound.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> No one is...anything. What's your point? If someone wants to offer an opinion on Beethoven's ninth but has never heard the ninth I'd say the opinion is worthless whether they have a right to voice it or not. Seems pretty obvious.


I guess my point is that stating your opinion of their opinion is somewhat pointless. And that's my opinion.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> It is a fact that my subjective opinion is I believe those works to be profound.


That's not how you presented it. You presented your subjective opinion to refute another subjective opinion as "unfounded". Well, unfounded to you but not to the original opinionator. So it's "founded" to somebody.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> I guess my point is that stating your opinion of their opinion is somewhat pointless. And that's my opinion.


Which is what you did in the example cited above.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> That's not how you presented it. You presented your subjective opinion to refute another subjective opinion as "unfounded". Well, unfounded to you but not to the original opininator.


No, I expressed my opinion that the claim alleged in the OP was unfounded and offered several examples to refute it. You may agree that prior to Beethoven there were no profound works. That's up to you.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> Which is what you did in the example cited above.


Well at least it was an actual opinion stated in this thread as opposed to your hypothetical.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> As I've already said, I liked your definition of profundity from your post 890. And as I've also said, profundity in the sense you use it in science and mathematics can never exist in art, as there are no comprehensive or universal theories of art. So, you win that argument. But I think you give short shrift to Eva Yojimbo's comments, with good specific examples, as in post 877. And even there I can sympathize with your view to an extent. There is nothing in the music of Beethoven, Wagner or Mozart that can be profound by your definition, because without a comprehensive, universal set of rational principles to refer to that consistently explain empirically observable phenomena, there can be no "deep truths" to reveal.
> 
> But in art, there is a substitute for scientific principles, i.e., aesthetic principles, or more accurately, aesthetic values. There is no "truth" to these values, deep or otherwise. They simply are accepted voluntarily by members of a society as a demonstration of solidarity and willingness to live and work together, resulting in lasting cultural traditions that help people to jointly build and maintain a society over multiple generations. A sort of gentlemen's and ladies' agreement. Only once one accepts (mostly if not entirely) the large and elaborate edifice of aesthetic values carefully built up over centuries in aristocratic and wealthy bourgeois European society can one speak of the profundity of Mozart, Beethoven and Wagner.
> 
> If you choose not to use the term 'profound' in this way, perhaps by substituting the term 'sublime', that's fine, but it's really only a semantic distinction. I have no problem with using the word profound both ways, though I understand the underlying difference.


The situation may be as you describe--that there is a gentlemen's and ladies agreement to erect a large edifice of esthetic values. While this is a fact that this agreement exists, it is founded on nothing more than custom--essentially polling over the decades and centuries. There is nothing at all wrong with this, but it should sometime be acknowledged that such is the case. I find the case for profundity in science far more compelling (or, shall we say, of a different order of magnitude) than that in the arts. 

There is nothing wrong with sublimity as a descriptor of art and music, but those endeavors are more in the nature of entertainment (and emotional catharsis as some have said) rather than a way of penetrating as deeply as possible to the center of the vast forces operative in the universe around us. I am often very deeply moved by much in art, music, fiction as are we all--recognizing sublimity as I experience it. But what deep questions about the fabric of the world does art answer? Humans' empathy or viciousness toward one another is well dealt with by art, as are other emotions--joy. terror of the unknown or of death; grief, much more. Of the arts, painting, sculpture, fiction are better at expressing a full range of emotions than is music because of more direct use of images and words. But in my own personal case, CM is the most capable of inducing an unfocused, unembodied joy--it's just the magic of the music itself! 😇


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> I guess my point is that stating your opinion of their opinion is somewhat pointless. And that's my opinion.


And stating your opinion of his opinion is pointless. (Sorry, couldn’t help it)


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> Well at least it was an actual opinion stated in this thread as opposed to your hypothetical.


Well it's not totally hypothetical. There are those who'll offer opinions on Bach's cantatas or Wagner's operas, er, music dramas for example who've obviously not listened to many, if any at all.


----------



## 59540

DaveM said:


> And stating your opinion of his opinion is pointless. (Sorry, couldn’t help it)


 A rebuke of my hypothetical rebuke of a hypothetical opinion.

I think this whole thread is actually pointless, at least hypothetically.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> A rebuke of my hypothetical rebuke of a hypothetical opinion.
> 
> I think this whole thread is actually pointless, at least hypothetically.


Indeed, why are you here, having presented no coherent thesis yourself?


----------



## 59540

...


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> Indeed, why are you here, having presented no coherent thesis yourself?


For entertainment, rather than a way of penetrating as deeply as possible to the center of the vast forces operative in the universe around us.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> The situation may be as you describe--that there is a gentlemen's and ladies agreement to erect a large edifice of esthetic values. While this is a fact that this agreement exists, it is founded on nothing more than custom--essentially polling over the decades and centuries. There is nothing at all wrong with this, but it should sometime be acknowledged that such is the case. I find the case for profundity in science far more compelling (or, shall we say, of a different order of magnitude) than that in the arts.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with sublimity as a descriptor of art and music, but those endeavors are more in the nature of entertainment (and emotional catharsis as some have said) rather than a way of penetrating as deeply as possible to the center of the vast forces operative in the universe around us. I am often very deeply moved by much in art, music, fiction as are we all--recognizing sublimity as I experience it. But what deep questions about the fabric of the world does art answer? Humans' empathy or viciousness toward one another is well dealt with by art, as are other emotions--joy. terror of the unknown or of death; grief, much more. Of the arts, painting, sculpture, fiction are better at expressing a full range of emotions than is music because of more direct use of images and words. But in my own personal case, CM is the most capable of inducing an unfocused, unembodied joy--it's just the magic of the music itself! 😇


Yes, well said.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> For entertainment, rather than a way of penetrating as deeply as possible to the center of the vast forces operative in the universe around us.


Yes. The real reason indeed. All will take note. Thanks for the admission.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Forster said:


> Thanks. You do know you have to leave room for me to come back with my objections and not forestall?
> 
> I recognise the Wagner as a good example, though obviously its having a programme means that the ideas are there already to help make the connection. And I also agree that when listening to music, whether abstract or programme, one rarely has a blank mind, devoid of any accompanying ideas and images, especially if one comes to it having read something about it (LvB's 5th and 'Fate knocking on the door' for example).
> 
> If I have any 'objection', it's first, my earlier point about 'profundity' tending only towards the serious. All your examples, even those where there is 'wit' or 'humour' inevitably end up with a serious resolution. In other words, music can _lead _us to think serious things, but not that the music _is _'profound'.
> 
> And second, that where one might hear instability and sadness in a particular musical passage, another might hear ambiguity and playfulness. That's where subjectivity starts.
> Take Sibelius’ 6th Symphony for example. He said, "Whereas most other modern composers are engaged in manufacturing cocktails of every hue and description, I offer the public pure cold water." He may only have intended his words as metaphorical (well, obviously so, since the symphony isn’t _actually_ cold water ) in the sense that the music is, structurally plain, colourless, simple, direct compared to the excitable concoctions of his contemporaries. He may have intended it to mean that the symphony is ‘about’ leading a sober life (apt for him as he was alcoholic) or about the cool contemplation induced by being in the Finnish lake and river landscape….
> 
> What I think about is the death of my dog, Jenny, at the time I was coming to know the symphony. Tom Service includes it in his list of 50 Greatest symphonies, and he points to three performances, one which finds ‘warmth’ and one which finds 'red blooded emotional intensity'!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Symphony guide: Sibelius's Sixth
> 
> 
> Was Sibelius's symphony of 'pure cold water' intended as a corrective to a musical world of modernist angst? Tom Service looks at the Finnish composer's self-effacing, but hugely influential, work
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As others have concentrated on in their contributions to this thread, we come to music with (to put it simply) 'baggage' - a mind and heart that will be full of things that have nothing to do with the music, but nevertheless impact our listening experience. And even if we're not talking about something as distracting as an immediate life event affecting one's emotional state, there is no accounting for our predisposition to hear things that are definitely there at that time...for me; and definitely not there, for you.
> 
> There is therefore no possibility that any particular piece of music _is _profound, only that some listeners might use that term to describe what the music prompts in them.
> 
> [add] Oh, and I also reject the implication that 'the profound' is the most valuable, elevated form of musical endeavour and usually to be found in a Bach Mass, a Mahler symphony, a Beethoven quartet or an opera by Wagner.


Ha! My intentions weren't so much to "forestall" so much as to say that I'm aware of many possible objections and readily accept them because I also recognize a huge part of my definition and application of profundity relies on a subjective component that isn't "true" in the way I define truth. 

You make a good point about profundity tending towards the serious. To me, the most profound comedic work I can think of aren't music, but in literature and film. My hunch is that's because comedic narratives still provide a means for serious reflection on the events being described, whereas music--at least non-operatic music--doesn't do this; though I do think Beethoven's Diabelli's do illustrate how you can take the germ of something comedic and connect it to the serious, for whatever that's worth. 

I absolutely agree with you about the subjectivity of tone as well. It's one of the fascinating aspects about music, and all art in general for that matter. I'm always fascinated by works that people can interpret in totally different ways tonally. 

If by "there is therefore no possibility that any particular piece of music is profound..." you mean in a completely objective sense, as in the profundity isn't some property of the music, then I 100% agree, and I don't (never did) mean it that way. I do, however, think that the music is not an inert force that has no affect on why we think of it as being profound, and that's also true of the composer's ability in composing it. I mean, we can say something similar about all language: language itself is not profound, but it's commonly understood to refer to certain things and, through that mutual understanding, we can use its meanings to reflect on thoughts and themes that WE find profound. In my mind, music is little different except in the respect that it does this abstractly rather than literally. 

I'm not sure where I sit on whether or not "the profound" is the most valuable form of artistic expression. I certainly don't think it is any objective sense (meaning that anyone who disagrees is wrong, or lesser, or anything else); but for my own personal tastes I do think they tend towards preferring profundity to other art that, to me, is merely entertaining. However, I also wouldn't want all art to be "profound." One gets tired of such heaviness and craves something else after a while.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

BachIsBest said:


> I feel you are vastly overcomplicating the point I'm making. If you take the things you believe to be true, or why you believe them to be true e.g., "any proposition in which our probabilistic confidence is high enough so that it would take extraordinary evidence to overturn it", ask why. Why is this a good thing to believe. Eventually, you must come to propositions that you take to be self-evident truths. My point is, the reason these truths are self-evident, is probably something along the lines of "common sense".


My point is that I have, indeed, asked "why" about as much as it's humanly possible to ask why. I would also agree that there is a point where (to quote Yudkowsky's phrase) recursive justification hits bottom. However, I don't think it hits a bottom we accept because "common sense" (at least, not how I understand that term): I think we accept that bottom because there's simply nowhere else to go. To me, that bottom is empiricism and rationality. Why do we accept either? Well, the pragmatic answer (and probably the only philosophical answer, period) is because they work to help us navigate our experience of reality. To me, they do this better than "common sense;" again, at least in how I understand the phrase "common sense."




BachIsBest said:


> I chose the wall for a simplistic illustration of the point, of course it is not a perfect analogy. I wish to clarify that I do not claim that perception of profundity is "objective" in the sense it is independent of the human mind. My opinion would be that *the disagreement on profundity in art comes largely from people being unable to perceive the profundity in some art. *For example, based on conversations with others, I'm somewhat confident Debussy's music is more profound than I can currently observe it to be.
> 
> If it was only me that experienced profundity in art, and/or I didn't find extensive commonalties in examining the views and experiences of others, then I would agree with your perspective. Although I have stated in this thread I have no formula for profundity, it does seem to me that profundity is related in no small part to meaning and insight. Relatedly, one can realise a work is profound (despite not realising before) by attempting to examine why it is meaningful and insightful (amongst other things), which I think is a strong argument against this just being a post-hoc fallacy.


As for the bolded: that's rather the crux of the issue, isn't it? Let's take that as hypothesis A: there's also hypothesis B, that profundity isn't (at least wholly) a product of the work of art, but of people's subjective perceptions, reactions, etc. of that art. Now, how would you distinguish between these two competing hypotheses? To me, if you're going to claim A then there should be some conceivable way of demonstrating or proving to people who don't see the profundity that it's there. Is there such a way to do this that doesn't amount to simply rewiring their entire subjectivity to be like those of the people of who do see it, or simply having them understand your perspective empathetically (or intellectually) without feeling it themselves?

There all kinds of areas if life that revolve around subjectivities in agreement that don't amount to objective truths; we've discussed many of these in the past, like axiomatic systems, value systems (like with money), games (like chess), etc. To me, the only difference with art is that there is very much an object that undoubtedly has some influence on the ways in which we react to it (including our perception of profundity); but it is clearly not the sole determining factor in that reaction, and thus it becomes an issue of disentangling what aspects are caused by the art and what because of our subjectivities, as individuals, groups, and even as a species. The wall analogy can be understood in how we all have similar nervous systems that react similarly to certain stimuli; art isn't really like this, which, to me, hints at the ways in which our subjectivities are different being the cause of that.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Strange Magic said:


> ...But what deep questions about the fabric of the world does art answer?


Depends on what you mean by "answer." I think one thing art does phenomenally well is depict, especially mimetically, various aspects of human life in a way that allows us to reflect on it. Even that idea, the notion that art "holds a mirror up to nature" (to slightly misquote Hamlet) is a rather profound idea, I'd say. Imagine thousands of years of human existence engaged in art without ever really reflecting on why we do it until someone points out that it allows us to observe and reflect on ourselves as if in a mirror. A rather profound idea, I'd say! Though there are differences in the mechanics of how science and philosophy does this, I don't think art is completely dissimilar. Philosophy and science may be more concerned with coming to conclusions (answers) about certain questions, while art is "merely" providing a means by which to reflect on the questions; but being able to present the right questions is, in its own way, profound. If Hamlet has persisted as arguably the pinnacle of philosophical literature it's probably because it asks so many questions that still stab at the heart of the human condition: one of those questions being precisely the subjective and relative nature of values, and what happens when someone starts to question and doubt such fictions. I see Hamlet as being just as valuable in posing these questions as any philosophy or science has been in trying to answer them. 

But... that's literature... I think many around here seem to think that literature is at least capable of offering comparable insights into life, human nature, etc. as philosophy, even if not as much (or, at least, different than) science; but what about music? Well, as I've said elsewhere, I think the kind of patterns music presents can abstractly tap into the kind of emotional patterns we experience in life, and thus provides another method of reflecting on such things. Of course, not everyone will reflect, but not everyone reflects even on the profound discoveries of science, or the answers offered in philosophy. There's much of the "you can lead a horse to water..." saying in all that. I'd say that music has, just as much as literature, film, or other more representationally mimetic mediums, provoked me to reflect on the nature of life, humanity, our place in the universe, etc. These thoughts may not be objectively IN the music, but I also don't think--as I said above--music is causally inert in provoking this reflection. The fact that music does hit us so directly emotionally might, one could argue, make it even superior in provoking such reflection as we are more likely to care about profundity of any kind when we are emotionally moved to do so. There's often a deep chasm between coldly, intellectually, understanding something (like one does much of science and philosophy), and really getting it on a gut, intuitive, emotional level. One thing art is very good at is building a bridge across that divide.


----------



## Strange Magic

*^^^^@Eva Yojimbo: *This must seem cold but the fates of humanity and of individuals are predecided--the first by human nature failing utterly to understand the environmental crises that are upon us. An example: Vladimir Putin wakes up one morning and thinks: "I could begin seriously to solve world problems like AGW and the introduction of novel materials and toxic metals and compounds into the environment. Or I could invade Ukraine.. Let's invade Ukraine--more fun and glory.". Almost all of that part of society and much of the rest have decided not to worry about the big problems--God or the Wise Men will take care of them or they don't really exist. That is pretty profound.

The second is predecided by the facts--nobody has successfully become immortal. And while suffering, rage, grief, pain, joy are all part of the human condition, they are part of our animal heritage and are to be expected as routine. Life is not otherwise. I say these things having been around for a while and observing both humanity and the non-human world. The poetry of Robinson Jeffers largely sums up this attitude while still--as I am--deeply saddened that it has to end this way due to humankind's "incestuous" relationship with itself. Jeffers comes very close to profundity indeed in the arts--it is the tension between his conviction of how things really are and what he wished they would be in a better world that is at the root of his creativity and power. Our destruction of the fellow species with whom we share the Earth is enough to sear the heart of anyone with any awareness of the rich biological diversity that we inherited and are destroying due to our numbers multiplying the enormous throughput of energy and materials that characterize today's world.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Strange Magic said:


> Jeffers comes very close to profundity indeed in the arts--it is the tension between his conviction of how things really are and what he wished they would be in a better world that is at the root of his creativity and power.


A lovely post in general, but for this part: Jeffers is not a poet I'm familiar with, but what you say of him vaguely reminds me of Wallace Stevens. He was also a poet obsessed with the conflict between our imaginations and (to borrow Yeats's phrase) "the desolation of reality," and sought desperately to find some harmony between the two. Perhaps apropos of nothing, but I've always loved this Stevens poem: 


> *Final Soliloquy of the Interior Paramour*
> 
> Light the first light of evening, as in a room
> In which we rest and, for small reason, think
> The world imagined is the ultimate good.
> 
> This is, therefore, the intensest rendezvous.
> It is in that thought that we collect ourselves,
> Out of all the indifferences, into one thing:
> 
> Within a single thing, a single shawl
> Wrapped tightly round us, since we are poor, a warmth,
> A light, a power, the miraculous influence.
> 
> Here, now, we forget each other and ourselves.
> We feel the obscurity of an order, a whole,
> A knowledge, that which arranged the rendezvous.
> 
> Within its vital boundary, in the mind.
> We say God and the imagination are one...
> How high that highest candle lights the dark.
> 
> Out of this same light, out of the central mind,
> We make a dwelling in the evening air,
> In which being there together is enough.


----------



## Strange Magic

Eva Yojimbo said:


> A lovely post in general, but for this part: Jeffers is not a poet I'm familiar with, but what you say of him vaguely reminds me of Wallace Stevens. He was also a poet obsessed with the conflict between our imaginations and (to borrow Yeats's phrase) "the desolation of reality," and sought desperately to find some harmony between the two. Perhaps apropos of nothing, but I've always loved this Stevens poem:


I am not familiar with Stevens' poetry and will definitely acquaint myself with his work, thanks to your example. Robinson Jeffers was at one time the most acclaimed poet in America, appearing on the cover of Time Magazine in April of 1932. His influence took a rapid tumble during WWII, which he opposed American entry into vigorously though as an individual. He never joined the Lindbergh Isolationist movement, but considered war, any war, as a horrible example of humankind's obessesion with itself. Some of his several anti-war poems are extremely powerful such as _Rearmament_ and _Contemplation of the Sword. _My introduction to Jeffers' poetry came in junior college in an American Literature course; the text had three poems by Jeffers, and reading them one day waiting for class to begin, I was thunderstruck immediately by their power--almost like a physical blow. I still remember the moment.

Stevens and Jeffers were near-contemporaries, WS being 8 years older. Jeffers for years was treated with indifference bordering on dismissal in the middle of the last century by professors of poetry and the house poets of the various schools. But he found new followers in the environmental movement, partly from his discovery by David Brower of the Sierra Club, who published a large-format book of Jeffers' poetry along with photos of the Big Sur coast where Jeffers lived. The book's title was _Not Man Apart_, taken from a line in one of Jeffers" poems. His reputation since has been on a steady upswing, with him now being now accepted as one of the greats by many recent scholars and, of couse, celebrated as an inspiration by poetically-minded Friends of the Earth (also the name of a group founded by Brower after a great schism in the Sierra Club).

Here is the first poem that blew my mind on that wonderful day...*Hurt Hawks*

The broken pillar of the wing jags from the clotted shoulder,
The wing trails like a banner in defeat,
No more to use the sky forever but live with famine
And pain a few days: cat nor coyote
Will shorten the week of waiting for death, there is game without talons.
He stands under the oak-bush and waits
The lame feet of salvation; at night he remembers freedom
And flies in a dream, the dawns ruin it.
He is strong and pain is worse to the strong, incapacity is worse.
The curs of the day come and torment him 
At distance, no one but death the redeemer will humble that head,
The intrepid readiness, the terrible eyes.
The wild God of the world is sometimes merciful to those
That ask mercy, not often to the arrogant.
You do not know him, you communal people, or you have forgotten him;
Intemperate and savage, the hawk remembers him;
Beautiful and wild, the hawks, and men that are dying, remember him.


II

I’d sooner, except the penalties, kill a man than a hawk; but the great redtail
Had nothing left but unable misery
From the bones too shattered for mending, the wing that trailed under his talons when he moved.
We had fed him for six weeks, I gave him freedom,
He wandered over the foreland hill and returned in the evening, asking for death,
Not like a beggar, still eyed with the old
Implacable arrogance. I gave him the lead gift in the twilight. What fell was relaxed,
Owl-downy, soft feminine feathers; but what
Soared: the fierce rush: the night-herons by the flooded river cried fear at its rising
Before it was quite unsheathed from reality.


----------



## Forster

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Ha! My intentions weren't so much to "forestall" so much as to say that I'm aware of many possible objections and readily accept them because I also recognize a huge part of my definition and application of profundity relies on a subjective component that isn't "true" in the way I define truth.
> 
> You make a good point about profundity tending towards the serious. To me, the most profound comedic work I can think of aren't music, but in literature and film. My hunch is that's because comedic narratives still provide a means for serious reflection on the events being described, whereas music--at least non-operatic music--doesn't do this; though I do think Beethoven's Diabelli's do illustrate how you can take the germ of something comedic and connect it to the serious, for whatever that's worth.
> 
> I absolutely agree with you about the subjectivity of tone as well. It's one of the fascinating aspects about music, and all art in general for that matter. I'm always fascinated by works that people can interpret in totally different ways tonally.
> 
> If by "there is therefore no possibility that any particular piece of music is profound..." you mean in a completely objective sense, as in the profundity isn't some property of the music, then I 100% agree, and I don't (never did) mean it that way. I do, however, think that the music is not an inert force that has no affect on why we think of it as being profound, and that's also true of the composer's ability in composing it. I mean, we can say something similar about all language: language itself is not profound, but it's commonly understood to refer to certain things and, through that mutual understanding, we can use its meanings to reflect on thoughts and themes that WE find profound. In my mind, music is little different except in the respect that it does this abstractly rather than literally.
> 
> I'm not sure where I sit on whether or not "the profound" is the most valuable form of artistic expression. I certainly don't think it is any objective sense (meaning that anyone who disagrees is wrong, or lesser, or anything else); but for my own personal tastes I do think they tend towards preferring profundity to other art that, to me, is merely entertaining. However, I also wouldn't want all art to be "profound." One gets tired of such heaviness and craves something else after a while.


Thanks.

Haydn's music is often described as 'witty'. His symphonies (I'm only familiar with London and Paris, but that's quite enough to be going on with) are not heavy, but neither are they 'comical'. I think there is a continuum from tragic to comic, and music might strike the listener anywhere between the two ends of the dimension. I've not listened to the Diabelli Variations, so must try them out.

Music isn't the only art form that has its champions of the serious. Cinéastes love to list their favourite Italian movies or Japanese or Iranian (or French etc) as examples of the highest form of cinema, though when surveys are taken of 'world' opinion, Hitchcock or Welles often come out on top. There is undoubtedly a gap between the opinions of those who regard themselves as the most cultured, and those whose self-regard is less significant, in cinema and in music.


----------



## EdwardBast

Strange Magic said:


> The situation may be as you describe--that there is a gentlemen's and ladies agreement to erect a large edifice of esthetic values. While this is a fact that this agreement exists, *it is founded on nothing more than custom--essentially polling over the decades and centuries.* There is nothing at all wrong with this, but it should sometime be acknowledged that such is the case. I find the case for profundity in science far more compelling (or, shall we say, of a different order of magnitude) than that in the arts.


No, it's founded on a large body of critical analysis by musicians with the skills to perform such analysis and to persuasively argue conclusions drawn from it. You simply lack any understanding of what the project of criticism is, how it works, and the critiera for judging when it's done effectively, so you keep endlessly repeating this nonsense about polling. You are on entirely "the wrong page" to be participating in a discussion of profundity in music or the arts.


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> No, it's founded on a large body of critical analysis by musicians with the skills to perform such analysis and to persuasively argue conclusions drawn from it. You simply lack any understanding of what the project of criticism is about, how it works, and the critiera for judging when it's done effectively, so you keep endlessly repeating this nonsense about polling. You are on entirely "the wrong page" to be participating in a discussion of profundity in music or the arts.


Are you contradicting yourself? When I asked you to explain your views of Bruckner using the argument, "it's founded on a large body of critical analysis by musicians with the skills to perform such analysis and to persuasively argue conclusions drawn from it."
And also pointed out that there are scholars doing stuff like


hammeredklavier said:


> <The Immense Fugal Finale of Bruckner's Fifth Symphony>
> 00:00 - Slow intro quoting prior movements
> 05:54 - Exposition, first theme (fugue, green subject)
> 08:17 - Exposition, second theme ("gesangsperiode" orange theme)
> 13:53 - Exposition, closing (3rd) theme (green augmented variant)
> 16:07 - Brass chorale theme (blue)
> 18:30 - Development (fugue, blue subject)
> 22:47 - Development (double fugue, blue/green subjects)
> 27:52 - Recapitulation (blue/green themes)
> 30:24 - Recapitulation ("gesangsperiode" orange theme)
> 33:13 - Recapitulation, closing theme, return of purple theme from first movement, counterpoint involving purple/green themes
> 37:01 - "Coda of all codas" with return of green/blue/purple themes in augmentation


You answered:


EdwardBast said:


> *Profundity or shallowness is, IMO, not something that can be proved or disproved.* It can be argued for or against more or less convincingly and in a more or less informed way, but *it's a subjective judgment.* I have no interest in whether or not Bruckner's music is profound because, as you are aware, I don't think he was a good composer by any standard I care about. Were it profound I would still think it botched, so why bother.


Is there anything in Western classical music that can never be criticized as


hammeredklavier said:


> superficially appealing, sentimental, or over the top, or have attractive concepts (eg. "avantgardists of their time", "tortured artists", "musical philosophers", "masters of universal laws of complexity/simplicity") etc


?


----------



## SanAntone

Profundity is a vague concept that different people will detect in different works.

How a composer handles his thematic, harmonic, and architectural materials can be identified and examined by a competent scholar (music historian/theorist/fellow composer) with a determination made how the composer brought the work off.

Often these scholars build and extent the work of previous scholars.


----------



## fbjim

EdwardBast said:


> No, it's founded on a large body of critical analysis by musicians with the skills to perform such analysis and to persuasively argue conclusions drawn from it. You simply lack any understanding of what the project of criticism is, how it works, and the critiera for judging when it's done effectively, so you keep endlessly repeating this nonsense about polling. You are on entirely "the wrong page" to be participating in a discussion of profundity in music or the arts.


I've said this before and SM can use what definition he wants but I take "polling" as a loose amalgamation of literal popularity, critical consensus and appraisal of influence. In other words, things which are results of the music and not internal to them.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> I’m assuming that that is your subjective opinion even though it is stated as fact.


This is a discussion board. I don't actually think it's necessary to preface literally every single post about an opinion, aesthetic reaction, etc with "IMO".


----------



## SanAntone

It is still an objective fact that some composers/works have been identified as great musical achievements. How we interpret that historical fact or how much importance we place on it is for each of to decide.

For myself I became aware of this historical judgment early on, and had it reinforced during my college years, and used it to guide my listening while I was developing my taste. But for a number of decades now it has been of little importance to me.


----------



## SanAntone

I will go further in that I think this body of acknowledged works and composers ought to constitute the required listening for anyone with more than a passing interest in CM. Just as Harvard's "The Five Foot Shelf Of Books" (or something like it), provides anyone with the basic knowledge to begin to be "well-read."

When I was in high school "The Great Books" series was required reading and we had to choose a topic and write a 30 page paper.


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> No, it's founded on a large body of critical analysis by musicians with the skills to perform such analysis and to persuasively argue conclusions drawn from it.


Again, what do you think about Gould's views?








Are they any less objectively insightful than your views of Bruckner's "cycles of sequences"?


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> I've said this before and SM can use what definition he wants but I take "polling" as a loose amalgamation of literal popularity, critical consensus and appraisal of influence. In other words, things which are results of the music and not internal to them.


Yes, but the appearance of that consensus is not merely coincidence. Man is a social animal, and people living together in societies always seek that consensus on aesthetic and other cultural values, a social contract I have called a gentlemen's and ladies' agreement. I don't know him, but Stange Magic seems to have a background in the physical sciences rather than the social sciences, hence his loose use of the word "polling". The precise nature of that consensus depends on a huge number of historically accidental and/or random factors. However, the ability of certain artists in finding creative ways to fulfill the aesthetic values of their society is far from accidental, and often the result of immense talent and skill.

SanAntone, a formally trained musician himself, says he is past worrying about such training and skills, and he may well be. But the many contemporary composers he has featured in his posts here over a long period routinely display obvious formal training and skills in the western music tradition (as well as perhaps others). Many of you reject much of that music, and reasonably so, as it stands outside the terms of the particular social contract that you as an individual have 'signed'. But we all sign at least slightly different social contracts, none of which is the right or objectively correct one.


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> They have the shape of narratives and something like their coherence without having concrete extramusical meaning. For example, in the first movement of the Appassionata, the "Fate motive," Db-Db-Db-C, is always a disruptive force. After it first appears the immediate repetition of the opening idea is torn apart and disrupted by loud outbursts. And when the second theme is asserted in the development and coda, it is overwhelmed by the return of the Fate motive. So what we have are abstract dramatic roles. The principal theme is, by convention, the protagonist, the second theme is an unsustainable ideal, and the Fate motive is an antagonistic force that wreaks havoc on both. None of the ideas have a concrete extramusical meaning, but there is a narrative logic to how they interact and to how their long-term relationships develop.






"I don't ever expect to persuade you of the empty rhetoric of the Appassionata sonata" -Gould


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> SanAntone, a formally trained musician himself, says he is past worrying about such training and skills, and he may well be. But the many contemporary composers he has featured in his posts here over a long period routinely display obvious formal training and skills in the western music tradition (as well as perhaps others).


I think you misunderstood my post. I said nothing about skill or training of composers, but I was speaking of listeners having knowledge and experience with the canon of great composers and works.

The works and composers I listen to now was informed by my knowledge and depth of experience of the canon and I still greatly appreciate those great works and am always interested in new recordings of Beethoven piano sonatas, or the Goldberg Variations, etc. - but I no longer rely on "the canon" as strongly as I did when I was much younger.

Our subjective responses gain meaning only to the extent we know the library of acknowledged great works.


----------



## fbjim

Forster said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Haydn's music is often described as 'witty'. His symphonies (I'm only familiar with London and Paris, but that's quite enough to be going on with) are not heavy, but neither are they 'comical'. I think there is a continuum from tragic to comic, and music might strike the listener anywhere between the two ends of the dimension. I've not listened to the Diabelli Variations, so must try them out.
> 
> Music isn't the only art form that has its champions of the serious. Cinéastes love to list their favourite Italian movies or Japanese or Iranian (or French etc) as examples of the highest form of cinema, though when surveys are taken of 'world' opinion, Hitchcock or Welles often come out on top. There is undoubtedly a gap between the opinions of those who regard themselves as the most cultured, and those whose self-regard is less significant, in cinema and in music.


Funny enough, it was partially the influence of the French that directors of "low" films like Westerns, mysteries and suspense films such as Howard Hawks or Alfred Hitchcock got critical repute (that's a big oversimplification but still). It's probably down to when the artform developed in regards to Western critical philosophy, and it being a "new" artform generally, but even the most "high-minded" film critics I know think highly of people like Hitchcock, Billy Wilder, and Nicholas Ray.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> "I don't ever expect to persuade you of the empty rhetoric of the Appassionata sonata" -Gould


This has been asked and answered before. You don’t seem to accept what is known about Glenn Gould and his eccentricities. He was not a big fan of a lot of Mozart. He didn’t like practically all of Chopin and the Romantic period in general.

Also, he was known to come out with throwaway comments where you couldn’t tell if he was serious or not such as ‘Mozart died too late, not too early.’


----------



## fbjim

What sense are we talking about when we call a subjective opinion "meaningful"?

I've actually said things like "meaningful" or "useful" before, but what actually are we looking to get out of others opinions on art, or sharing our own?


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> You don’t seem to accept what is known about Glenn Gould and his eccentricities.


Would you say the same about EB's thoughts on Bruckner's music — that it is meaningless series of sequences and repeititions that go nowhere, and cheap bombastic orchestral sounds?


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> Would you say the same about EB's thoughts on Bruckner's music — that it is meaningless series of sequences and repeititions that go nowhere, and cheap bombastic orchestral sounds?


You asked me a similar question before which I answered clearly. Does the fact that EB doesn’t like Bruckner diminish the fact that he is more educated in music than you or I? Not to mention that you have a recent hate-on for Mozart and a love fest for Michael Haydn. What does that say about your preferences?


----------



## hammeredklavier

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


----------



## hammeredklavier

fbjim said:


> If the idea is that experienced, informed opinions on the aesthetics of music should be valued more than layman, or inexperienced opinions - well, first off, I don't necessarily agree with this, but even then I don't think this represents any sort of "objectivity" at all, because people consistently demonstrate an ability to ignore the credentials of expertise, formal education and experience when it suits their tastes.
> The idea of "valuing expert opinion" isn't really offensive to me because it smacks of snobbery - it strikes me as wrong because- in practice, it ends up being an after-the-fact way to justify your own personal tastes under the guise of objectivism. It's a sin of disingenuity, not necessarily snobbery.


Very well said. Something some people in this thread should remind themselves of from time to time, I think.


----------



## SanAntone

fbjim said:


> What sense are we talking about when we call a subjective opinion "meaningful"?


Meaningful to oneself. 

Our subjective opinions reside within the context of all knowledge about composers, music, styles, periods, etc. To the extent we know little about the so-called "great works", i.e. we have not listened to them, or been exposed to the historical judgment about those composers, our subjective opinion is in a vacuum. 

I'm not saying that is "bad" but does render the act of listening a solipsistic enterprise.



> I've actually said things like "meaningful" or "useful" before, but what actually are we looking to get out of others opinions on art, or sharing our own?


I weigh opinions considering their source. If I know someone has a depth of experience with the Classical music canon and is will versed in the repertory and styles, their opinion carries more weight with me rather than that of someone who advertises their ignorance of that canon and history, especially if they dismiss its importance.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> ...
> I weigh opinions considering their source. If I know someone has a depth of experience with the Classical music canon and is will versed in the repertory and styles, their opinion carries more weight with me rather than that of someone who advertises their ignorance of that canon and history, especially if they dismiss its importance.


 Uh, yeah, that's what I said a few dozen posts ago and was lectured about how nobody needs my permission to have an opinion.


----------



## fbjim

SanAntone said:


> Our subjective opinions reside within the context of all knowledge about composers, music, styles, periods, etc. To the extent we know little about the so-called "great works", i.e. we have not listened to them, or been exposed to the historical judgment about those composers, our subjective opinion is in a vacuum.


I've talked about what I called "affinity" before, though I think it's a bit broader and more general than just knowledge of the canon (and in practice, anyone with interest in classical will likely do this anyway).

It's about being able to take yourself to the "text" (so to speak). Most views of criticism these days tend to emphasize the importance on evaluating art on its own terms, and doing this can require familiarity of artistic convention, style, listener expectation, and historical context. The more context we can put works in, the easier it can be to listen this way. 

That said all the knowledge in the world isn't going to help someone whose tastes prevent them from having any affinity with a style at all. I think we do have the ability to "dial" and adjust our aesthetic expectations based on a combination of experience, contextual knowledge, and aesthetic sensibility but it can be hard-to-impossible depending on what starting points our own sense of aesthetics gives us. (which is to say that I may never be able to fully appreciate opera, if I simply can't find operatic singing particularly beautiful to listen to)


----------



## Baflar

I very rarely post anything on anywhere (so I hope I'm not considered an interloper here), but I wanted to offer the thought that profundity is evident in the intersection between complexity and clear ability to evoke an emotional reaction. Thus, a complex piece of music that is still capable of being 'owned' at an emotional level is surely profound. I well remember, many, many years ago, when I first heard Brandenburg No.4 sitting back in silence at the end, and just wispering "wow...". It seems that, every now and then, I find some further subtlety, and my "wow" has been joined by the unspoken wonderment that anyone (i.e. Bach) could possibly be that clever.


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> I've talked about what I called "affinity" before, though I think it's a bit broader and more general than just knowledge of the canon (and in practice, anyone with interest in classical will likely do this anyway).
> 
> It's about being able to take yourself to the "text" (so to speak). Most views of criticism these days tend to emphasize the importance on evaluating art on its own terms, and doing this can require familiarity of artistic convention, style, listener expectation, and historical context. The more context we can put works in, the easier it can be to listen this way.
> 
> That said all the knowledge in the world isn't going to help someone whose tastes prevent them from having any affinity with a style at all. I think we do have the ability to "dial" and adjust our aesthetic expectations based on a combination of experience, contextual knowledge, and aesthetic sensibility but it can be hard-to-impossible depending on what starting points our own sense of aesthetics gives us. (which is to say that I may never be able to fully appreciate opera, if I simply can't find operatic singing particularly beautiful to listen to)


Very true. The fact that you are not a 19th century European person and member of a certain socioeconomic class of that society no doubt significantly contributes to your inability to "fully appreciate" (your words) the music of the 19th century European grand opera tradition. That a relatively small group of diehard enthusiasts today are still utterly devoted to 18th and 19th century European opera does say something about that tradition, but also is the exception that proves the rule, in a social science sense. Our aesthetic values have evolved (not necessarily improved or deteriorated) in order to continue to address the needs of modern society.


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> Very true. The fact that you are not a 19th century European person and member of a certain socioeconomic class of that society no doubt significantly contributes to your inability to "fully appreciate" (your words) the music of the 19th century European grand opera tradition. That a relatively small group of diehard enthusiasts today are still utterly devoted to 18th and 19th century European opera does say something about that tradition, but also is the exception that proves the rule, in a social science sense. Our aesthetic values have evolved (not necessarily improved or deteriorated) in order to continue to address the needs of modern society.


What are you talking about? 18th & 19th century opera makes up everything from Mozart to Wagner, Verdi ,and Puccini, and everything in between. It is the primary repertory of all opera companies worldwide. It is not a "relatively small group of diehard enthusiasts."


----------



## DaveM

Baflar said:


> I very rarely post anything on anywhere (so I hope I'm not considered an interloper here), but I wanted to offer *the thought that profundity is evident in the intersection between complexity and clear ability to evoke an emotional reaction. Thus, a complex piece of music that is still capable of being 'owned' at an emotional level is surely profound. * I well remember, many, many years ago, when I first heard Brandenburg No.4 sitting back in silence at the end, and just wispering "wow...". It seems that, every now and then, I find some further subtlety, and my "wow" has been joined by the unspoken wonderment that anyone (i.e. Bach) could possibly be that clever.


A particularly profound post. And you are not alone: It is this kind of wonderment that suggests that there is more than simple subjectivity going on in the appreciation of many of these creations.


----------



## 59540

fluteman said:


> Very true. The fact that you are not a 19th century European person and member of a certain socioeconomic class of that society no doubt significantly contributes to your inability to "fully appreciate" (your words) the music of the 19th century European grand opera tradition. That a relatively small group of diehard enthusiasts today are still utterly devoted to 18th and 19th century European opera does say something about that tradition, but also is the exception that proves the rule, in a social science sense. Our aesthetic values have evolved (not necessarily improved or deteriorated) in order to continue to address the needs of modern society.


If you want to follow that to its logical conclusion then we really can't "understand" or "fully appreciate" anything more than a few years old. Heck, the year 1992 was in many ways a different world. There's "collective memory". We're not goldfish.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> What are you talking about? 18th & 19th century opera makes up everything from Mozart to Wagner, Verdi ,and Puccini, and everything in between. It is the primary repertory of all opera companies worldwide. It is not a "relatively small group of diehard enthusiasts."


I don't know how things are where you live, but around these parts, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Verdi and Puccini all are only fully appreciated, to use fbjim's words, by a relatively small group of diehard enthusiasts.
Actually, I do know how things are where you live, and everywhere else, at least in the US of A, where the entire genres of classical music and opera are well down the list of favored music according to published music industry statistics.
If I randomly polled people of all ages in my neighborhood, it would take quite a while to find someone who even knew who Puccini was, much less who was a diehard Puccini enthusiast. And that includes people over 70 years old.
That is what I am talking about.


----------



## 59540

fluteman said:


> I don't know how things are where you live, but around these parts, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Verdi and Puccini all are only fully appreciated, to use fbjim's words, by a relatively small group of diehard enthusiasts.
> ...


That also would apply to jazz and avant garde music recorded yesterday. Maybe even more so.


----------



## 59540

> Our aesthetic values have evolved (not necessarily improved or deteriorated) in order to continue to address the needs of modern society.


There was no "social need" for Tristan und Isolde or the Rite of Spring. Individual artists had vision and the fortitude and conviction to follow through with it and in the process bring audiences along.


----------



## fbjim

fluteman said:


> Very true. The fact that you are not a 19th century European person and member of a certain socioeconomic class of that society no doubt significantly contributes to your inability to "fully appreciate" (your words) the music of the 19th century European grand opera tradition. That a relatively small group of diehard enthusiasts today are still utterly devoted to 18th and 19th century European opera does say something about that tradition, but also is the exception that proves the rule, in a social science sense. Our aesthetic values have evolved (not necessarily improved or deteriorated) in order to continue to address the needs of modern society.


It certainly might be easier for me to appreciate operatic singing (and I do like opera more than I've been letting on) if I had grown up where that discipline of singing was what I expected when I went to a concert hall to hear a singer. Beyond that it's hard for me to attribute it to anything but taste, though.

I can't discount the possibility that more exposure and effort might give me an affinity for it, and it's happened with other genres. But sometimes it feels like there's a barrier of my own aesthetic sensibilities which are insurmountable. .


----------



## hammeredklavier

What baffles me the most about people like EB is that is this attitude they always have: "I know technicality more than you, so everyone just shut up and listen to me when it comes to objective evaluation." EB doesn't hesitate using his "knowledge" to negatively judge composers like Bruckner, but when one of his favorites, such as Beethoven, is criticized, he tries to defend at all costs with the same mindset.


EdwardBast said:


> Turning from the personal to the technical: Beethoven was the ...


EB says regarding Bruckner: "I don't think he was a good composer by any standard I care about."
But this is exactly what tdc have said regarding Beethoven; for him, Beethoven wasn't a good composer by any standard he cares about. He says: "Beethoven's sense of vertical harmony leaves me underwhelmed, so his longer musical paragraphs, although groundbreaking in form, don't help in redeeming his music for me. They actually make it worse. For me it is like listening to someone who is chatty but doesn't have anything that meaningful to say. Or someone that is telling me a boring story, but they try to spice it up by being over dramatic. I acknowledge his greatness, virtuosity and genius in form but that is how his music subjectively impacts me."

There can be a view that Beethoven was bold, daring, imaginative (and less "pedantic" in musical thinking than Mozart, for instance), as well as a view that he lacked taste. Maybe some of you are disturbed about this (the fact that there are people like tdc), but the idea that some artists in Western classical music somehow _had everything_ is wishful thinking.


hammeredklavier said:


> Customers at the Mcdonalds prefer the Big Mac to the other burgers. Customers at the Burger King prefer the Whopper to the other burgers. Of course every franchise has "icons" that they use to represent themselves. That's just how human culture works, for various purposes such as marketing, and there's nothing special about that. Certainly we can comment (to a limited extent) on spiciness or saltiness (in elements such as use of harmony) how they apply to everyone's taste, but whether or not one burger tastes better than another is a vague and subjective notion. Again, we should not resort to _Argumentum ad populum_.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> I don't know how things are where you live, but around these parts, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Verdi and Puccini all are only fully appreciated, to use fbjim's words, by a relatively small group of diehard enthusiasts.
> Actually, I do know how things are where you live, and everywhere else, at least in the US of A, where the entire genres of classical music and opera are well down the list of favored music according to published music industry statistics.
> If I randomly polled people of all ages in my neighborhood, it would take quite a while to find someone who even knew who Puccini was, much less who was a diehard Puccini enthusiast. And that includes people over 70 years old.
> That is what I am talking about.


This is a classical music forum. Why would the impact on, or appreciation of, opera by people in your neighborhood mean squat? Do you judge the value/importance of the sub-genres of CM based on opinions/knowledge of people who know nothing about them and couldn’t care less?


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> I don't know how things are where you live, but around these parts, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Verdi and Puccini all are only fully appreciated, to use fbjim's words, by a relatively small group of diehard enthusiasts.
> Actually, I do know how things are where you live, and everywhere else, at least in the US of A, where the entire genres of classical music and opera are well down the list of favored music according to published music industry statistics.
> If I randomly polled people of all ages in my neighborhood, it would take quite a while to find someone who even knew who Puccini was, much less who was a diehard Puccini enthusiast. And that includes people over 70 years old.
> That is what I am talking about.


Oh. I thought we were talking about people interested in Classical music. I don't see much point talking about anyone else when it comes to the standard repertory, composers, historical appreciation, etc.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> What baffles me most about people like EB is that is this attitude they always have: "I know technicality more than you, so everyone just shut up and listen to me when it comes to objective evaluation." EB doesn't hesitate using his "knowledge" to negatively judge composers like Bruckner, but when one of his favorites, such as Beethoven, is under attack, he tries to defend at all costs with the same mindset.
> 
> EB says regarding Bruckner: "I don't think he was a good composer by any standard I care about."
> But this is exactly what tdc have said regarding Beethoven; for him, Beethoven wasn't a good composer by any standard he cares about. He says: "Beethoven's sense of vertical harmony leaves me underwhelmed, so his longer musical paragraphs, although groundbreaking in form, don't help in redeeming his music for me. They actually make it worse. For me it is like listening to someone who is chatty but doesn't have anything that meaningful to say. Or someone that is telling me a boring story, but they try to spice it up by being over dramatic. I acknowledge his greatness, virtuosity and genius in form but that is how his music subjectively impacts me."
> 
> tdc sees similar characteristics as these Beethoven works above, in Beethoven's more famous masterpieces.
> There can be a view that Beethoven was bold, daring, imaginative in them (and less "pedantic" in musical thinking than Mozart, for instance), as well as a view that he lacked taste. Maybe some of you are so disturbed people like tdc exist, but the idea that some artists in Western classical music somehow _had everything_ is wishful thinking.


Several posts have gone by and you’re still perseverating on EB and Bruckner? Are you perhaps intimated?And if repeating your post on ‘_Argumentum ad populum’ _is supposed to convince people that it is the basis for Beethoven’s overall status in the world of CM then you might want to rethink in the interest of credibility.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> tdc sees similar characteristics as these Beethoven works above, in Beethoven's more famous masterpieces.
> There can be a view that Beethoven was bold, daring, imaginative in them (and less "pedantic" in musical thinking than Mozart, for instance), as well as a view that he lacked taste. Maybe some of you are disturbed about this (the fact that there are people like tdc), but the idea that some artists in Western classical music somehow _had everything_ is wishful thinking.


Who is tdc? And why would anyone be "disturbed" that someone doesn't like Beethoven or whoever? You seem to think that those who admire "the big 3" and others are forever quaking in fear lest they be toppled from some supposed thrones.


----------



## 59540

DaveM said:


> Several posts have gone by and you’re still perseverating on EB and Bruckner? ...


Well just hope that it doesn't go back to "inexorable logic".


----------



## DaveM

dissident said:


> Well just hope that it doesn't go back to "inexorable logic".


My poor wife has had to live with my ‘inexorable logic’ for many years.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> Who is tdc? And why would anyone be "disturbed" that someone doesn't like Beethoven or whoever?


Yes, who is "tdc"? More to the point, why should we care about his outlier opinion?


----------



## SanAntone

There are some composers who are unassailable, IMO. Their contribution to Classical music is so large, the cumulative critical opinion has been so high and consistent for so long that anyone who dismisses their work cannot help but come off as an ignorant fool. I say fool for expressing the opinion, not holding it. 

It is perfectly fine to say that the music of Beethoven does not appeal to you. But to attempt to prove that Beethoven was not a great composer ... well that crosses over into the absurd.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> And if repeating your post on ‘_Argumentum ad populum’ _is supposed to convince people that it is the basis for Beethoven’s overall status in the world of CM then you might want rethink in the interest of credibility.


With all due respect, not to discredit the famous composers— you honestly think all that popularity has been gained justly and fairly? Artists can be neglected due to "'excessive focus' on some" or even "'history distortions' that favor some", (see dissident's discussion of the "Amadeus phenomenon", people's tendency to be drawn into the "tortured, tragic artist" concept), look back at posts such as #442. (what-is-profundity-revisited.80215/page-23#post-2311156) Is this fair? For example, a composer, X, of the Classical period _sounds too happy all the time_,— people, who by nature find that repulsive, could have been introduced to an alternative, composer Y, who is different. In reality, people generally aren't given "choices" like that— what's happening is, a constant shoving of X in their throats, all the time. Just look at all the writings by Charlatan Rosen and all the others, you name it. Because X has to be continued to be glorified and worshipped, "potential fans" of Y are all taken away by the X industry. People like Fabulin on this forum said they didn't see the things the way I did until I told them to. How can you say it was a "fair game" from the start. You people say it's not a _zero-sum game_, but why is there still that compulsion to rate objectively, as if the famous ones haven't been glorified enough already? What's the whole point?


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> But to attempt to prove that Beethoven was not a great composer ... well that crosses over into the absurd.


There hasn't been any downright denigration of Beethoven in this thread. The attitude of the "free-thinkers" on this topic might just be like what Eva Yojimbo described; "I have no interest in invalidating you Beethoven enthusiasts' taste or preferences. There's no rule Beethoven shouldn't be popular in the world today."


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> With all due respect, not to discredit the famous composers— you honestly think all that popularity has been gained justly and fairly? Artists can be neglected due to "'excessive focus' on some" or even "'history distortion' that favors some", (see dissident's discussion of the "Amadeus phenomenon", people's tendency to be drawn into the "tortured, tragic artist" concept), look back at posts such as #442. (what-is-profundity-revisited.80215/page-23#post-2311156) Is this fair? For example, a composer, X, of the Classical period _sounds too happy all the time_,— people, who by nature find that repulsive, could have been introduced to an alternative, composer Y, who is different. In reality, people generally aren't given "choices" like that— what's happening is, a constant shoving of X in their throats, all the time. Just look at all the writings by Charlatan Rosen and all the others, you name it. Because X has to be continued to be glorified and worshipped, "potential fans" of Y are all taken away by the X industry. People like Fabulin on this forum said they didn't see the things the way I did until I told them to. How can you say it was a "fair game" from the start. You people say it's not a _zero-sum game_, but why is there still that compulsion to rate objectively, as if the famous ones haven't been glorified enough already? What's the whole point?


You continue to think of intelligent folks as herd members who get shoved around and manipulated (except for you).


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> With all due respect, not to discredit the famous composers— you honestly think all that popularity has been gained justly and fairly? Artists can be neglected due to "'excessive focus' on some" or even "'history distortions' that favor some", (see dissident's discussion of the "Amadeus phenomenon", people's tendency to be drawn into the "tortured, tragic artist" concept), look back at posts such as #442. (what-is-profundity-revisited.80215/page-23#post-2311156) Is this fair? For example, a composer, X, of the Classical period _sounds too happy all the time_,— people, who by nature find that repulsive, could have been introduced to an alternative, composer Y, who is different. In reality, people generally aren't given "choices" like that— what's happening is, a constant shoving of X in their throats, all the time. Just look at all the writings by Charlatan Rosen and all the others, you name it. Because X has to be continued to be glorified and worshipped, "potential fans" of Y are all taken away by the X industry. People like Fabulin on this forum said they didn't see the things the way I did until I told them to. How can you say it was a "fair game" from the start. You people say it's not a _zero-sum game_, but why is there still that compulsion to rate objectively, as if the famous ones haven't been glorified enough already? What's the whole point?


No composer is perfect, so all the major composers _can_ be thought of as being somehow overrated, but given that, what's next? I would assume that the mindset that the big name composers were the greatest & cannot be matched is only common among newer or casual classical fans, but that's a problem faced by every genre, not just classical. What you're trying to achieve - that there be no misconceptions about greatness, seems like an impossible task, since these misconceptions are to be expected in any community centered around some music (or art form in general)


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> There hasn't been any downright denigration of Beethoven in this thread.


Well, you posted these comments by "tdc":



> But this is exactly what tdc have said regarding Beethoven; for him, Beethoven wasn't a good composer by any standard he cares about. He says: "Beethoven's sense of vertical harmony leaves me underwhelmed, so his longer musical paragraphs, although groundbreaking in form, don't help in redeeming his music for me. They actually make it worse. For me it is like listening to someone who is chatty but doesn't have anything that meaningful to say. Or someone that is telling me a boring story, but they try to spice it up by being over dramatic. I acknowledge his greatness, virtuosity and genius in form but that is how his music subjectively impacts me."


Though carefully couched in subjective terms, "any standard he cares about" this tdc claims, "Beethoven wasn't a good composer" "Beethoven's sense of vertical harmony leaves me underwhelmed" "it is like listening to someone who is chatty but doesn't have anything that meaningful to say" "someone that is telling me a boring story, but they try to spice it up by being over dramatic"

Who is tdc? And where did you find these comments?

To be sure, no one is obligated to like Beethoven's music. But for someone to go on as does this "tdc" about Beethoven's faults strikes me as ridiculous and cannot be taken seriously.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bulldog said:


> You continue to think of intelligent folks as herd members who get shoved around and manipulated (except for you).


Holy crap, I didn't know _you_ were following this thread (now, I'm really _intimidated_). But trust me; I don't have the kind of elitist mindset you described.


SanAntone said:


> Who is tdc? And where did you find these comments?


The same thread I quoted EB from, in #975








What does Beethoven mean to you???


I find this an odd point (no offense). In the nature-vs-nurture debate, musical aptitude (along with mathematical, athletic, engineering problem solving, etc.) is very much built in -- even though they need to be developed through education and experience. With identical education and lives...




www.talkclassical.com


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> With all due respect, not to discredit the famous composers— you honestly think all that popularity has been gained justly and fairly? Artists can be neglected due to "'excessive focus' on some" or even "'history distortions' that favor some", (see dissident's discussion of the "Amadeus phenomenon", people's tendency to be drawn into the "tortured, tragic artist" concept), ...


So essentially you think Michael Haydn wasn't given his due because Mozart grew to be too "popular". It's that zero-sum view you have of affection and respect for composers: if I have _this_ much respect for Mozart, I'm not going to have any left over for anyone else from that time frame. But that's **** I respect both Wagner and Brahms, for example, and Schoenberg and Stravinsky.

You say you're not "discrediting" the "great" but then hint that they gained their fame unfairly. How? The fact that this one you like didn't gain much of an audience isn't proof.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> if I have _this_ much respect for Mozart, I'm not going to have any left over for anyone else from that time frame.


I think you're being dishonest with yourself again; come on; I'm well aware how much you loathe the Alberti bass, how it _ruins all the profundity_ in music for you. How can you be so sure of the objective _superiority_, without giving equal amount of chance to every composer from that period. Just keep relying on received wisdom, if that's what you want to do. Cause in the end, it's all about _popularity._


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> I think you're being dishonest with yourself again; I'm well aware how much you loathe the Alberti bass. How can you be so sure of the objective _superiority_, without giving equal chance to all the composers from that period. Just keep relying on received wisdom, if that's what you want to do. Cause in the end, it's all about _popularity._


I wouldn't say I _loathe_ the Alberti bass. It was a cliché of its time and in itself can get really tiresome, but it could be transcended by what was written above it.

Ok, let's say it's all about popularity. How did such music become popular in the first place?

And who said anything about "objective superiority"?


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> Oh. I thought we were talking about people interested in Classical music. I don't see much point talking about anyone else when it comes to the standard repertory, composers, historical appreciation, etc.


That's fine, but I'm always amused how many in these debates (not you, of course), completely forget how few people anywhere qualify as true classical music enthusiasts. When a contestant on a well-known American and British TV talent show gave a competent rendition of Nessun Dorma and it seemed to get an enthusiastic response (though much that goes on in this show is staged and comes off as phony), I was very happy to see it. But how many watching were familiar with the opera that aria comes from, which character sings it, and why? And that is probably one of the 2 or 3 most famous of all 19th century opera arias.
All art, including music, is created in a particular social and cultural context, including a particular time. When that time and context passes, most of it fades into the background of the collective consciousness. A few highlights remain even after centuries pass, and to me that is significant. People still know Beethoven's name, though perhaps not most of his music, and recognize the opening motif of the 5th symphony, even if they are not among the few diehard devotees. That is significant.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> People still know Beethoven's name, though perhaps not most of his music, and recognize the opening motif of the 5th symphony, even if they are not among the few diehard devotees. That is significant.


Whatabout


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> Whatabout


I looked at the score and thought the canonic patterns are interesting. It's a nice piece, after all. What's your point in always bringing it up?


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> I looked at the score and thought the canonic patterns are interesting. It's a nice piece, after all. What's your point in always bringing it up?


Look at this:


hammeredklavier said:


>


"It's a curious paradox that we (sorry, "some of us") *like to feel that we're in the avant-garde*, smarter than the average bear, but, simultaneously, *want to be in the big gang that recognises the same tastes*, thereby validating our own." {Forster}
Have you "objectivists" thought about this seriously? You sound like you haven't.


----------



## hammeredklavier

It's just freaking "music", for goodness' sake. Why do we in our little nerdy circles have to be so pretentious and snobbish about it?


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> ...
> "It's a curious paradox that we (sorry, "some of us") *like to feel that we're in the avant-garde*, smarter than the average bear, but, simultaneously, *want to be in the big gang that recognises the same tastes*, thereby validating our own." {Forster}
> Have you "objectivists" thought about this seriously? You sound like you haven't.


Isn't that yet another strawman? I never claimed to be in the avant garde and I don't need anyone else to validate my own tastes. Sharing or comparing notes isn't looking for validation. And what is an "objectivist"?


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> It's just freaking "music", for goodness' sake. Why do we in our little nerdy circles have to be so pretentious and snobbish about it?
> ...


Says the one who's in the habit of quoting big blocks of musicology in blue text.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> I looked at the score and thought the canonic patterns are interesting. It's a nice piece, after all.


What if I tell you, you haven't _understood_ it. The _transcendence_.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> What if I tell you, you haven't _understood_ it. The _transcendence_.


I'd say "fine, hammered." And then maybe "You fools! Don't you see that the devotion you're showing this piece is taking devotion away from Froberger and Couperin?!?!?!?!?"


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> Holy crap, I didn't know _you_ were following this thread (now, I'm really _intimidated_). But trust me; I don't have the kind of elitist mindset you described.
> 
> The same thread I quoted EB from, in #975
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does Beethoven mean to you???
> 
> 
> I find this an odd point (no offense). In the nature-vs-nurture debate, musical aptitude (along with mathematical, athletic, engineering problem solving, etc.) is very much built in -- even though they need to be developed through education and experience. With identical education and lives...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkclassical.com


Oh, I see. You quote this "tdc" an anonymous member of TC as if his opinion is worthy of consideration, but refer to Charles Rosen, the respected author of several books on 18th and 19th composers as "Charlatan" Rosen. Ridiculous.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> Oh, I see. You quote this "tdc" an anonymous member of TC as if his opinion is worthy of consideration, but refer to Charles Rosen, the respected author of several books on 18th and 19th composers as "Charlatan" Rosen. Ridiculous.


Can you explain how "tdc" is objectively wrong, similar to how I did with Rosen? (Opinions vs less and more objective argumentation)


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> Can you explain how "tdc" is objectively wrong, the same way I did with Rosen? (Opinions vs less and more objective argumentation)


"tdc" is entitled to his opinion. But his opinion appears to me as a juvenile attempt to get attention on an Internet forum by making claims that fly in the face of 250 years of musical scholarship, historical assessment, the respect of countless composers both during Beethoven's time as well as throughout the successive decades. And hundreds of symphony orchestras who perform and record the symphonies each year, all the pianists who perform and record the sonatas, string quartets, new recordings come out every month. Every piano student learns the sonatas, music conservatories devote courses to his music, not to mention thousands of books devoted to his music and life, and finally, the legions of Classical music lovers who revere the music of Beethoven.

Your "refutation" of Charles Rosen is cut from the same cloth.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> Saying that Beethoven is greater than Hummel is a subjective statement, and hard, if not impossible, to prove to someone (other than pointing to the cumulative test of time) who has more enthusiasm for Hummel. Judging greatness based on the test of time is the closest thing we have to an objective standard. But again, the test of time is merely a cumulative collection of subjective determinations, many of which were influenced by the judgment of previous generations and what has been taught. Multiplying subjective judgments over time does not produce an objective determination.


I'm just curious; what has made you change your mind over the years?


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm just curious; what has made you change your mind over the years?


I've never changed my opinion of Beethoven, or any of the composers in the canon.

I have never said anything other than 1) I believe people respond to music subjectively; but 2) there is the objective historical fact of the Classical music canon which is the cumulative assessment of dozens of composers and works judged to constitute the greatest; and finally 3) the idea of greatness does not affect my personal listening habits. It is of historical interest and was an early path to discovering the composers and works judged to be important. But when it comes to the music I enjoy to listen to the most, my favorites mostly fall outside that canon, although I do love many of the composers and works included in it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> what is an "objectivist"?


The opposite of a "free-thinker".


----------



## SanAntone

I believe an "objectivist" is someone who thinks there are objective criteria inherently with a work of music that can demonstrate why it is great.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> The opposite of a "free-thinker".


So what if "free thinking" leads someone to conclude that yeah, Mozart is better than Michael Haydn? And Franz Joseph is better than Michael? You want "free thinking", but you want the result to be the way you think it should be. That isn't "free".


SanAntone said:


> I believe an "objectivist" is someone who thinks there are objective criteria inherently with a work of music that can demonstrate why it is great.


Well I think there are some objective characteristics like symmetry, resolution, skillful counterpoint and the like that may contribute. Other than that I don't know, and those characteristics may not appeal to this or that person. I don't know if anything can be stated on the subject with certainty either way.

However, someone did say in an earlier thread that if an evaluation contains subjective elements then it has to be considered subjective. So then by those terms I don't know if an "objectivist" really exists.


----------



## SanAntone

I think we all respond to music similarly but some of us wish to see ourselves as objectivists and others are fine with the subjective label.


----------



## DaveM

dissident said:


> what is an "objectivist"?





hammeredklavier said:


> The opposite of a "free-thinker".


Then what are you, after all these posts about Michael Haydn that infer -given what you seem to present as objective evidence- that we are a bunch of dummies for not recognizing how great he was? And if you were to respond that you never said it was objective evidence, then of what value is it and why should we be persuaded?


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> This has been asked and answered before. You don’t seem to accept what is known about Glenn Gould and his eccentricities. He was not a big fan of a lot of Mozart. He didn’t like practically all of Chopin and the Romantic period in general.
> 
> Also, he was known to come out with throwaway comments where you couldn’t tell if he was serious or not such as ‘Mozart died too late, not too early.’


He was a fan of early Mozart. He gives all the reasons why. And elsewhere, why late Mozart was disappointing to him (not to me!).
But Bruno has said that that was an entertainment piece. Scripted for humor, as was usual.
We are removed from that time, it was different back then, and I hope CM fans understand the spirit in which it was scripted, edited and produced.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> "tdc" is entitled to his opinion. But his opinion appears to me as a juvenile attempt to get attention on an Internet forum by making claims that fly in the face of 250 years of musical scholarship, historical assessment, the respect of countless composers both during Beethoven's time as well as throughout the successive decades. And hundreds of symphony orchestras who perform and record the symphonies each year, all the pianists who perform and record the sonatas, string quartets, new recordings come out every month. Every piano student learns the sonatas, music conservatories devote courses to his music, not to mention thousands of books devoted to his music and life, and finally, the legions of Classical music lovers who revere the music of Beethoven.
> 
> Your "refutation" of Charles Rosen is cut from the same cloth.


In other words, that Beethoven remains a cultural icon nearly 200 years after his death is objective fact, regardless of one's subjective opinion of his music. The same is true of Mozart, Verdi and Puccini, whom you mentioned earlier. And Stravinsky, and Debussy. Even though their names may no longer be on the lips of the average "man on the street", they have had a lasting impact on western music and culture generally that can be observed empirically and objectively. It seems to me that is far more significant than a popularity poll, in which none of those composers, not even Beethoven, would do very well in the current era. Why anyone would insist there is any further objective quality to any purely aesthetic value mystifies me. You won't find it and you don't need it. 

As for Charles Rosen, I think he did as good a job as anyone in the modern era writing in English of explaining the nuts and bolts behind the art of Beethoven and a handful of other greats of the classical and romantic eras to an educated lay audience. To anyone who calls him a charlatan, I say, I look forward to the publication of your book explaining why and offering your own analysis of Beethoven's music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> To anyone who calls him a charlatan, I say, I look forward to the publication of your book


He could have been wrong about various things because the revival of Classical period music was limited in his time (some composers didn't publish their music, so it isn't widespread even to this day). Just cause a critic/academic published books it doesn't mean everything he said was right. They aren't some sort of _holy books_ for goodness' sake. What you're suggesting might be _blind submission to authority_. 79894/page-25#post-2297955


----------



## hammeredklavier

Rosen could only tell about stuff he knew in his time. But frankly, all he does in page 281 of that book, for example, is making the conclusion first ("everything in Mozart comes from the so-called father") and trying to base (interpret) all the observed things around it. It's way too subjective to the point of being amateurish. Again, if given tests like this [50 Unidentified Excerpts from Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach Keyboard Sonatas] on the music of the lesser-known composer mentioned in this thread, you won't pass. You don't know the stuff. Just admit it and stop pretending like you do. All you can do is to rely on received wisdom.


----------



## 59540

> It's way too subjective to the point of being amateurish


So the more "objective", the more "professional"? Hammeredklavier, your comments are becoming incoherent.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> So the more "objective", the more "professional"? Hammeredklavier, your comments are becoming incoherent.


Depends on what he's telling. Just read page 281 of that book and my criticism of it (page-25#post-2298000), the guy claims to know and tell _real history_. I won't say any more on this topic. What comedy.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> Depends on what he's telling. Just read page 281 of that book and my criticism of it (page-25#post-2298000), the guy claims to know and tell _real history_. I won't say any more on this topic. What comedy.


Your gripe would appear to be that he slights Michael Haydn when it comes to evaluating influences on Mozart. Well hammered the answer is obviously to come out with your own book.


----------



## hammeredklavier

^That's just one of the many problems of that book.
It's fair to ask the questions "Is the author telling the truth?" "Is what I'm reading truly authentic?" Btw, here's an acquaintance of Mozart, Franz Ignaz von Beecke (1733-1803), who also composed many quartets such as string quartet in C (1780)


----------



## 59540

> It's fair to ask questions, "is the author telling the truth?" "Is what I'm reading truly authentic?" Only cultists would refuse to ask these questions.


Well does it make it any more true and authentic if Michael Haydn comes out as _the_ giant of the Classical era?


----------



## SanAntone

The actual cultists are those surrounding secondary composers such as Michael Haydn. These cultists attempt to elevate the focus of their obsession above the acknowledged great composers by making hyperbolic claims and dismissals of the test of time. 

It is a trite display of fanboyism that appears primarily on Internet forums.


----------



## 59540

All of these Classical era composers used similar techniques, similar "turns of phrase" etc such that you can isolate passages and say "Aha! This is just like Mozart! See? Absolutely no better..." Occasionally you can do the same with Bach and Handel, or Bach and Telemann, or Mozart and Salieri, or Beethoven and Hummel. But you have to look at consistency across entire bodies of work.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> The actual cultists are those surrounding secondary composers such as Michael Haydn.


But how do you know he's secondary? You don't know. Tell me about the average quality of his works (from the earliest opuses) compared to, say, Mozart's.


SanAntone said:


> a trite display of fanboyism


So when POP Dylan is pitted against Beethoven; that's when they shout "It's all subjective!"


----------



## SanAntone

Michael Haydn is a secondary composer because that has been the judgment of history.

Bob Dylan's place in history will be as a major songwriter of the 20th century. His stature has nothing to do with Beethoven.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> Michael Haydn is a secondary composer because that has been the judgment of history.


But what if his music didn't become widespread because of this?:


hammeredklavier said:


> "The fact that his music was not distributed very widely in his lifetime did not help, also the fact that he couldn’t be captured in the narrative of Vienna the musical capital pushed him to the margins.”
> -Professor David Wyn Jones (interview-with-david-wyn-jones/)
> "I think one of the reasons why he did not get as famous as his brother is that he never wanted his music printed. Joseph Haydn's works really disseminated throughout Europe via printing, and that's what lacks with Michael Haydn's music. And Michael Haydn stayed in Salzburg all the time, so he didn't have the same exposure."
> -Dr. Eva Neumayr (YA2sTVyDNrA&t=16m44s)


It's some other people who indulge in idolatry of composers in this thread. I don't need to indulge in idolatry of any composer.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> ...
> So when POP Dylan is pitted against Beethoven; that's when they shout "It's all subjective!"


I'd say it's apples and oranges. Different genres, different techniques.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> But you have to look at consistency across entire bodies of work.


Thanks for bringing that up, actually. How do we know for sure, when not everything has been recorded (such as the later dramatic works). You can close your ears and shout "Mozart über alles" all you want, but wouldn't that be just another form of "Mozart idolatry" (which some members have accused the Mozart partisans of?)


hammeredklavier said:


> I see what you're saying, but if I think like that, I still end up arriving at disturbing conclusions (what seem to me like "an elephant in the room", based on what I've observed). Any late 18th century composer/work can be thought to be objectively better/equal/worse than another, for instance? On what grounds do we think Mozart is _guaranteed_ to win that contest in all aspects objectively? And by what criteria are we judging? The composers' sense in harmony and sophistication of counterpoint?
> For example - Haydn, a composer even lesser-known than Boccherini not many people care about, wrote
> Christus factus est, MH38 (1761) OLAK5uy_nMi5KOC_1JKTnHcO9E88D4UBlaVtEweq8&index=13
> as his (roughly) "38th" work,
> Missa sanctae Crucis MH56 (1762) Nbr83TnFL-g&list=PLBSULQah5VycDjSqGgwApQL4iyR8aaQR3
> as his (roughly) "56th" work,
> symphony No.4 in B flat MH62 (1763), (which would later have an influence on Mozart's 25th in terms of the mood changes and structure of the slow movement) watch?v=w-t1JKs_L3U&t=10m53s
> as his (roughly) "62nd" work,
> the quintet from the singspiel 'Die Hochzeit auf der Alm' MH107 (1768) youtube.com/watch?v=M2SHuHCivRI
> as his (roughly) "107th" work,
> and so on..
> 
> You see what I'm saying?
> People talk about how Mozart never wrote any "bad work". But (as far as harmony and counterpoint are concerned) this Haydn guy seems to have gone even farther by never writing any "bad or immature work". Here's a guy who seems to have had a grip on counterpoint from his earliest opuses (in the 1760s), and consistently kept or went above that level of "quality" in some 800 works that followed (up until 1805), many of which have not been recorded yet.
> By comparison, it could be thought that Mozart really had only about 15 years of "mature period". Some day, when all of Haydn's works are recorded, it could may be shown that Mozart cannot beat Haydn in terms of average level of quality of works, a legitimate criterion of "artistic achievement".
> What are the "Mozart equivalents" of the arias of the serenata, Endimione MH186 (1776) -maybe the arias of Litaniae K.243 or Il re Pastore K.208?
> Which one is more "profound", if we're trying to judge things fairly?


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> I'd say it's apples and oranges. Different genres, different techniques.


That's exactly what the member Tchaikov6 has said regarding rap vs classical.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> Thanks for bringing that up, actually. How do we know for sure, when not everything has been recorded (such as the later dramatic works). You can close your ears and shout "Mozart über alles" all you want, isn't that just another form of "Mozart idolatry", which some members have accused the Mozart partisans of?


Well, back at you. How can _you_ make such judgements when you haven't heard them either? Let it all be recorded. What I've heard so far sounds pleasant enough but not so much to justify your constant advocacy.


> But how do you know he's secondary? You don't know.


How do you know he's not? You go on about subjectivity, but yet all subjective opinions must converge and come to the conclusion that Michael Haydn isn't any worse than Mozart. That's an objective judgement that you can't make.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> That's exactly what the member Tchaikov6 has said regarding rap vs classical.


Well that's probably why a discussion of rap would be elsewhere.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> But what if his music didn't become widespread because of this?:
> 
> It's some other people who indulge in idolatry of composers in this thread. I don't need to indulge in idolatry of any composer.


Look, you can think that Michael Haydn was greater than Mozart, or whatever. But the judgment of history is a fact that Michael Haydn is a footnote to the Classical era. His music is certainly worthwhile and ought to be celebrated. But he will never replace Mozart in the canon of great composers. That train has left the station.

It is not indulging in in idolatry of a composer to recognize his place in music history.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> How can _you_ make such judgements when you haven't heard them either?


People who don't listen to those lesser-known composers and still make judgments about them — Are they really different from 99.99% of people in the world who think classical music is simply too outdated to be taken seriously? We are just closed in our nerdy little circles. It's questionable for whom this "objective greatness" thing is relevant.
Composers of the period 1000~1700, it could be said that their music is simply less accessible than Bach, Mozart, Beethoven.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> What I've heard so far sounds pleasant enough but not so much to justify your constant advocacy.


That's what I thought when I first started listening to his music too. But over time, I started to think, what if he worked in musical capitals (like Vienna) and published his music widely, and had the same amount of exposure as Mozart? There could have been people thinking subjectively, to this day:
-In terms of dissonance, chromaticism, and vocal-writing, Mozart isn't really that special.
-Haydn's requiem of 1771 isn't sketchy like Mozart's (which gets disappointing with its jubilant Sanctus and all the parts "not sounding like Mozart"),
-At least Haydn didn't write fluff like Cosi fan tutte, and "potboilers" of Alberti bass,
-Mozart's early works can't match Haydn's in terms of harmony and counterpoint,
etc, etc.
I think it's possible. (I guess my admiration for Mozart just isn't cultish enough.)
I don't know what "pleasantness" means in this context. There are many Mozart works I've wept listening to, but I wouldn't be able to find an argument to refute, if they're described as "pleasant".


----------



## Strange Magic

SanAntone said:


> Look, you can think that Michael Haydn was greater than Mozart, or whatever. But the judgment of history is a fact that Michael Haydn is a footnote to the Classical era. His music is certainly worthwhile and ought to be celebrated. But he will never replace Mozart in the canon of great composers. That train has left the station.
> 
> It is not indulging in in idolatry of a composer to recognize his place in music history.


Just a reminder that while the Judgement of History is a confirmable, objective fact, the foundations of that judgement are a coalescence of opinions to form a cluster, though a large one. "We all say so, so it must be true". If the opinions of the cluster define what is good, great, profound--provide the criteria for evaluation, then so be it. But don't call the actual judgement itself anything objective. Mozart is great (only) if you think he is. It is actually more direct and more honest to say "I like Mozart", "I like Mozart more than I like X or Y."


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> People who don't listen to those lesser-known composers and still make judgments about them — Are they really different from 99.99% of people in the world who think classical music is simply too outdated to be taken seriously? ...


I don't care. The point is it doesn't change the way I feel about _Mozart's_ music.


Strange Magic said:


> ... But don't call the actual judgement itself anything objective. Mozart is great (only) if you think he is. It is actually more direct and more honest to say "I like Mozart", "I like Mozart more than I like X or Y."


Really that's just semantic juggling to avoid the idea of objective "greatness" or "goodness". The end result is the same. Call it whatever you want.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> Look, you can think that Michael Haydn was greater than Mozart


Have I said I do?


SanAntone said:


> But the judgment of history is a fact that Michael Haydn is a footnote to the Classical era. His music is certainly worthwhile and ought to be celebrated. But he will never replace Mozart in the canon of great composers. That train has left the station.


How convenient. It's still all about _popularity_. As I said to other people, the attitude "Mozart (late Mozart to be precise) is all I need from the 18th century Classical period, I don't really care much for the period anyway" should not be passed as _insight_ in these matters. If you haven't given the time, effort, consideration, it just means you're no different from the masses who believe the things said in Charles Hazlewood's BBC Mozart documentary word for word and continue to live in that delusion.


----------



## Strange Magic

Baflar said:


> I very rarely post anything on anywhere (so I hope I'm not considered an interloper here), but I wanted to offer the thought that profundity is evident in the intersection between complexity and clear ability to evoke an emotional reaction. Thus, a complex piece of music that is still capable of being 'owned' at an emotional level is surely profound. I well remember, many, many years ago, when I first heard Brandenburg No.4 sitting back in silence at the end, and just wispering "wow...". It seems that, every now and then, I find some further subtlety, and my "wow" has been joined by the unspoken wonderment that anyone (i.e. Bach) could possibly be that clever.


My thinking on this subject has me crystallizing the idea of the Profound being the ultimate state of an ascending Sublime. And so I repeat my thesis that profundity is attained only within science as it pierces through a jumble of disconnected facts to reveal vast unifying structures linking those facts. This idea is well explored in a book I have begun reading, _The Scientific Sublime_ by Alan G. Gross, the author of several books on science communication and the literature of science. I find the book an excellent presentation of my views--the only difference is that Gross does not employ the nicety that I do in naming the findings and the problems leading to the findings of science--he merely uses the term ''scientific sublime' as his endpoint, the ultimate sublimity that science recognizes and that at cannot attain. I use instead the term "profound" as a synonym for Gross' scientific sublime. If I have the energy, I'll likely review the book here on TC when finished.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> My thinking on this subject has me crystallizing the idea of the Profound being the ultimate state of an ascending Sublime. And so I repeat my thesis that profundity is attained only within science as it pierces through a jumble of disconnected facts to reveal vast unifying structures linking those facts. This idea is well explored in a book I have begun reading, _The Scientific Sublime_ by Alan G. Gross, the author of several books on science communication and the literature of science. I find the book an excellent presentation of my views--the only difference is that Gross does not employ the nicety that I do in naming the findings and the problems leading to the findings of science--he merely uses the term ''scientific sublime' as his endpoint, the ultimate sublimity that science recognizes. I use instead the term "profound" as a synonym for Gross' scientific sublime. If I have the energy, I'll likely review the book here on TC when finished.


So why aren't you always on a science forum instead of one dealing with an art form?


----------



## Strange Magic

EdwardBast said:


> No, it's founded on a large body of critical analysis by musicians with the skills to perform such analysis and to persuasively argue conclusions drawn from it. You simply lack any understanding of what the project of criticism is, how it works, and the critiera for judging when it's done effectively, so you keep endlessly repeating this nonsense about polling. You are on entirely "the wrong page" to be participating in a discussion of profundity in music or the arts.


A skillful and often-employed use of disparagement--"simply lack any understanding", "endlessly repeating this nonsense", "on the wrong page to be participating". Not working, I'm afraid, and reflects the similar rhetoric of others slowly finding the ground of argument eroding beneath them. Mere assertion alone: just not working. Just an opinion. Continue as you see fit.


----------



## Strange Magic

fbjim said:


> What sense are we talking about when we call a subjective opinion "meaningful"?
> 
> I've actually said things like "meaningful" or "useful" before, but what actually are we looking to get out of others opinions on art, or sharing our own?


Finding about new music to listen to, and the pleasure of what David Riesman called Taste-Exchanging. It's what we do here on TC.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> *People who don't listen to those lesser-known composers and still make judgments about them — Are they really different from 99.99% of people in the world who think classical music is simply too outdated to be taken seriously? *We are just closed in our nerdy little circles. It's questionable for whom this "objective greatness" thing is relevant.
> Composers of the period 1000~1700, it could be said that their music is simply less accessible than Bach, Mozart, Beethoven.


I have an extensive playlist of the works of many lesser-known composers mostly of the 19th century and most of my CM listening these days is of their works. Given your fixation on the 2 or 3 composers (particularly M.Haydn), you keep mentioning, I just may have more experience with lesser-known composers than you.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> I don't care. The point is it doesn't change the way I feel about _Mozart's_ music.
> 
> Really that's just semantic juggling to avoid the idea of objective "greatness" or "goodness". The end result is the same. Call it whatever you want.


The conclusion is correct in that I have no use for the idea of objective greatness or goodness, only of the individual's personal assessment of greatness or goodness. This has been clear from the beginning of this and the previous thread.


----------



## Strange Magic

Baflar said:


> I very rarely post anything on anywhere (so I hope I'm not considered an interloper here), but I wanted to offer the thought that profundity is evident in the intersection between complexity and clear ability to evoke an emotional reaction. Thus, a complex piece of music that is still capable of being 'owned' at an emotional level is surely profound. I well remember, many, many years ago, when I first heard Brandenburg No.4 sitting back in silence at the end, and just wispering "wow...". It seems that, every now and then, I find some further subtlety, and my "wow" has been joined by the unspoken wonderment that anyone (i.e. Bach) could possibly be that clever.


Strange Magic said:
My thinking on this subject has me crystallizing the idea of the Profound being the ultimate state of an ascending Sublime. And so I repeat my thesis that profundity is attained only within science as it pierces through a jumble of disconnected facts to reveal vast unifying structures linking those facts. This idea is well explored in a book I have begun reading, _The Scientific Sublime_ by Alan G. Gross, the author of several books on science communication and the literature of science. I find the book an excellent presentation of my views--the only difference is that Gross does not employ the nicety that I do in naming the findings and the problems leading to the findings of science--he merely uses the term ''scientific sublime' as his endpoint, the ultimate sublimity that science recognizes. I use instead the term "profound" as a synonym for Gross' scientific sublime. If I have the energy, I'll likely review the book here on TC when finished.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> I have an extensive playlist of the works of many lesser-known composers mostly of the 19th century and most of my CM listening these days is of their works. Given your fixation on the 2 or 3 composers (particularly M.Haydn), you keep mentioning, I just may have more experience with lesser-known composers than you.


As I said before, by mentioning Haydn, I'm not just picking any random "underappreciated/underrated composer" arbitrarily, - I'm talking in terms of the traits he has with respect to Mozart —darkness in chromatic harmony, minor keys, and fluidity of instrumental melody, vocal writing, etc. I don't know if you've understood me fully. You listen to lesser-known composers? Good for you. Even when you see things in contemporaries of Beethoven that Beethoven lacks - (maybe your idolatry of Beethoven is too strong) you don't want to admit it.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> ..Even when you see things in contemporaries of Beethoven that Beethoven lacks - (maybe your idolatry of Beethoven is too strong) you don't want to admit it.


I bet I was appreciating the contemporaries of Beethoven when you were still singing Ring-Around-The-Rosie.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> anyone who dismisses their work cannot help but come off as an ignorant fool.


They aren't some sort of deities; dismissing them won't get you in hell, for goodness' sake.


SanAntone said:


> It is a trite display of fanboyism that appears primarily on Internet forums.


Well, it's the fanboyism around one-trick ponies like cheesy song writers who can't even read music that truly baffles me (subjectively). We don't even know if _they're_ going to survive the test of time. Why make judgments on them now?


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

Suggesting that the popularity of X composer is not totally a reflection of their greatness (& instead may be a result of something like random chance) shouldn't be confused with suggesting that X composer does not deserve to be popular at all, or that X composer was never to some extent better than his contemporaries. I don't think anyone here would find that objectionable


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> [...] Nessun Dorma [...] seemed to get an enthusiastic response (though much that goes on in this show is staged and comes off as phony), I was very happy to see it. But how many watching were familiar with the opera that aria comes from, which character sings it, and why? [...]


Everyone in the UK knows that Nessun Dorma was written expressly to capture the triumph and tragedy of the 1990 Italia World Cup. Most notably, the failure of Chris Waddle to convert a penalty in the semi-final against Germany. I mean, come on fluteman, do you think we're dim or something? 








SanAntone said:


> Michael Haydn is a secondary composer because that has been the judgment of history.


Judgements of history shift of course. Bach and Mahler are two composers about whom it has been said that they were underappreciated until someone came along and spread the word to the contrary. It doesn't matter that what has been said may not be true - it matters that we recognise the myth and the truth as not dissimilar in their reliance on transmission across the relevant population, and not necessarily by any objective and definitive assessment.



> Crediting Bernstein with, or blaming him for, the ubiquity of Mahler’s music today seems wildly over-simplistic. [...] On the other hand, Bernstein was the most famous, most successful, most prolific, most influential and most discussed Mahler interpreter who has ever lived. Of course he didn’t rediscover Mahler or rescue Mahler’s music from oblivion, but one would be hard pressed to think of any other conductor who did as much or more to facilitate the dissemination and understanding of Mahler’s music.







__





Leonard Bernstein- The Mahler Conductor Turns 100 | Kenneth Woods - conductor







kennethwoods.net







> For about 50 years after Bach’s death, his music was neglected. This was only natural; in the days of Haydn and Mozart, no one could be expected to take much interest in a composer who had been considered old-fashioned even in his lifetime—especially since his music was not readily available, and half of it (the church cantatas) was fast becoming useless as a result of changes in religious thought. At the same time, musicians of the late 18th century were neither so ignorant of Bach’s music nor so insensitive to its influence as some modern authors have suggested. Emanuel Bach’s debt to his father was considerable, and Bach exercised a profound and acknowledged influence directly on Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven.











Johann Sebastian Bach | Biography, Music, Death, & Facts


Johann Sebastian Bach, (born March 21 [March 31, New Style], 1685, Eisenach, Thuringia, Ernestine Saxon Duchies [Germany]—died July 28, 1750, Leipzig), composer of the Baroque era, the most celebrated member of a large family of north German musicians. Although he was admired by his...



www.britannica.com


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> Well, it's the fanboyism around one-trick ponies like cheesy song writers who can't even read music that truly baffles me (subjectively).


And you accused me of elitism?


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> The conclusion is correct in that I have no use for the idea of objective greatness or goodness, only of the individual's personal assessment of greatness or goodness. This has been clear from the beginning of this and the previous thread.


And I have no use for conflating science with art. Following that line of thinking, sex is far more profound than either.


----------



## SanAntone

dissident said:


> And I have no use for conflating science with art.


There is a quote from *Walker Percy* who got a MD but only was a practicing doctor for a short time before he contracted tuberculosis. After three years of convalescence Percy decided to try his hand at writing: "Science can tell you about man, in general, but literature tells you about the individual."


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> There is a quote from *Walker Percy* who got a MD but only was a practicing doctor for a short time before he contracted tuberculosis. After three years of convalescence Percy decided to try his hand at writing: "Science can tell you about man, in general, but literature tells you about the individual."


Einstein recognized a difference: "If what is seen and experienced is portrayed in the language of logic, then it is science. If it is communicated through forms whose constructions are not accessible to the conscious mind but are recognized intuitively, then it is art".


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> So the more "objective", the more "professional"?


I stand by the things I said about Rosen. His books are supposed to describe real history from an objective point of view, and yet they're too full of personal opinions. Not to discredit any of the composers discussed, I think it demonstrates how much influence a critic can have on the masses with his personal opinions. For instance, he calls religious music of the Classical period, namely Mozart's requiem, "Baroque pastiche", but that just a blatantly personal opinion. If you try to ignore the "Classical elements", you'll only see it as "Baroque pastiche". The recitative and aria might as well be "Baroque pastiche", depending on how you look at them.
Even the works Rosen tries to make out to be the "origin of all things Classical", such as Haydn Op.20 No.2, which even has an archaic fugue lacking Classical sense of drama and pacing/breathing (such as rhythm, dynamic, mood changes) in its final movement, can be seen as such, depending on how you look at it.
Vivaldi RV522/ii: watch?v=pL37dgznKoM&t=3m24s
Haydn Op.20 No.2/ii: watch?v=vX_hZPRRERA&t=10m15s
It's all about how one frames things. One could even point to Berlioz, Schumann, Hanslick and other Romantics' comments about a certain "welcome old friend", and interpret all the things based on them.


----------



## 59540

> Not to discredit any of the composers discussed, I think demonstrates how much influence a critic can have over the masses with his personal opinions.


Oh, come on. How many have read anything by Rosen beyond some things in the NYT?


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> His books are supposed to describe real history from an objective point of view


Who says? His books are like all books: the author's version of history. Of course he has spent a career studying his subject and writing about it, so there's that.


----------



## 59540

As with Lincoln you never can tell if an Einstein quote is genuine or not, but I came across this one which was footnoted as coming from another source, so take it or leave it I guess:
_“_It is impossible for me to say whether Bach or Mozart means more to me. In music, I do not look for logic. I am quite intuitive on the whole and_ know no theories. I never like work if I cannot intuitively grasp its inner unity”._

Anyway, so much for "inexorable logic".


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> Einstein recognized a difference: "If what is seen and experienced is portrayed in the language of logic, then it is science. If it is communicated through forms whose constructions are not accessible to the conscious mind but are recognized intuitively, then it is art".


We recollect that Einstein grew up in a world of Freud and Jung, who seemed to have gotten to the bottom of several of the mysteries of human life and thought, and Einstein willingly agreed to their truths in the area of intuition and the subconscious. I also recall the quote of Theodore Reik writing to his colleague Freud about Freud"s psychoanalysis of Mahler: "He sought for the hidden metaphysical truth behind and beyond the phenomena of this world, . He never tired of his search after that transcendental and supernatural secret of the Absolute and _he did not recognize that the great secret of the transcendental, the miracle of the metaphysical, is that it does not exist". _


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> Just a reminder that while the Judgement of History is a confirmable, objective fact, the foundations of that judgement are a coalescence of opinions to form a cluster, though a large one. "We all say so, so it must be true". If the opinions of the cluster define what is good, great, profound--provide the criteria for evaluation, then so be it. But don't call the actual judgement itself anything objective. Mozart is great (only) if you think he is. It is actually more direct and more honest to say "I like Mozart", "I like Mozart more than I like X or Y."


Yes, but why on earth is this 'reminder' needed? If artistic inspiration could be reduced to a fixed set of absolute, objective, permanent rules, it could never be the wondrous thing that it is. I do think it is perfectly OK to say I like Mozart more than X, so long as one acknowledges that such a value judgment inevitably is based on one's own, subjective values. (Edit: The fact that many of us in western society share many of these values does not make them any less subjective. Nor does it demean the prodigious talents and skills of Mozart.) The trouble comes when some try to impose their value judgments on everyone by claiming they are based on objectively verifiable truth. That's when cultural hegemony and ethnocentrism rear their heads.


----------



## fbjim

fluteman said:


> Yes, but why on earth is this 'reminder' needed? If artistic inspiration could be reduced to a fixed set of absolute, objective, permanent rules, it could never be the wondrous thing that it is. I do think it is perfectly OK to say I like Mozart more than X, so long as one acknowledges that such a value judgment inevitably is based on one's own, subjective values. The trouble comes when some try to impose their value judgments on everyone by claiming they are based on objectively verifiable truth. That's when cultural hegemony and ethnocentrism rear their heads.


I think it's pretty clear that neither of the extreme versions of each side (not that I think anyone really holds these, and the people who did are mostly banned) are either correct nor accurate descriptions of what anyone is saying. It is pretty clearly not the case that there are zero objective frames with which one can possibly evaluate composers, nor is there some kind of way one can prove another's tastes to be bad in a way that holds as objective truth in all possible frames-of-reference (meaning they can be "imposed" on others).


----------



## fbjim

I have sympathy for HK here but I think there's too much focus on attempting to prove history wrong. Elevating the works of composers who have been marginalized by history is laudable, and it's not necessary to try to form some narrative about how we only like Mahler because of Bernstein to do so. Even if this is possibly true in some narrow cases, it's a mischaracterization on how history and artistic inspiration actually works, and this is coming from someone who's generally skeptical of "great man" models of artistic progression.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> We recollect that Einstein grew up in a world of Freud and Jung, who seemed to have gotten to the bottom of several of the mysteries of human life and thought, and Einstein willingly agreed to their truths in the area of intuition and the subconscious. ...


For one thing I think Einstein influenced Jung more than the other way around; for another I don't know if anything either Jung or Freud produced could be called "truths". They dealt in pseudoscience.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fbjim said:


> I have sympathy for HK here but I think there's too much focus on attempting to prove history wrong.


History told by whom? There was so much going on behind the scenes in those eras. (Remember all the anecdotes, from my previous posts, about Schubert, Bruckner, Weber having interest in learning from the lesser known composers) You said it's up to each of us to decide which experts to listen to and which to ignore.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> Who says? His books are like all books: the author's version of history. Of course he has spent a career studying his subject and writing about it, so there's that.


He still has too many unsubstantiated claims without the use of "I think".


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> I think it's pretty clear that neither of the extreme versions of each side (not that I think anyone really holds these, and the people who did are mostly banned) are either correct nor accurate descriptions of what anyone is saying. It is pretty clearly not the case that there are zero objective frames with which one can possibly evaluate composers, nor is there some kind of way one can prove another's tastes to be bad in a way that holds as objective truth in all possible frames-of-reference (meaning they can be "imposed" on others).


There is no question that our aesthetic tastes are based on how we humans relate to our environment, and our environmental conditions as well as our physiology are matters of objective, verifiable fact. But there is far too much that is accidental and random in the human experience to identify a set of universal, permanent aesthetic values. Each culture has its unique features. No two are identical, just as no two individuals are identical.

So, it pretty clearly IS the case that there are zero objective frames from which one can evaluate music, as such "eVALuation" inevitably requires reference to one set of aesthetic values or another, which are always in significant part subjective.

Nevertheless, most of us here at TC probably share enough aesthetic values that we can have a serious conversation about evaluating Mozart's music. We certainly can objectively discuss Mozart's place in the history of western music. I also have no problem if someone wants to argue that Michael Haydn deserves a more prominent place in that history. One member here has done a good job in making that argument. However, all such arguments inevitably are based on the premise that we all accept a certain set of subjective, unverifiable aesthetic values as given. 

Expert musicologists and other cultural historians are acutely aware that this basic premise underlies all of their work. I've cited some well-known books and essays that discuss this in detail. Alas, none of these ideas originate with me. So you can hold off nominating me for all of those prestigious prizes and awards.


----------



## fbjim

fluteman said:


> So, it pretty clearly IS the case that there are zero objective frames from which one can evaluate music, as such "eVALuation" inevitably requires reference to one set of aesthetic values or another, which are always in significant part subjective.


I think you misunderstand me - There are objective frames with which we can evaluate music from - as in, based on actual data, but the actual valuation of this framing is a personal thing. 

This is a silly, trivial example but one could evaluate symphonies by how many notes they contain, and place them into order that way. Of course nobody would place any sort of value on this framing as a useful way to look at classical music, but it does exist.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> Yes, but why on earth is this 'reminder' needed? If artistic inspiration could be reduced to a fixed set of absolute, objective, permanent rules, it could never be the wondrous thing that it is. I do think it is perfectly OK to say I like Mozart more than X, so long as one acknowledges that such a value judgment inevitably is based on one's own, subjective values. (Edit: The fact that many of us in western society share many of these values does not make them any less subjective. Nor does it demean the prodigious talents and skills of Mozart.) The trouble comes when some try to impose their value judgments on everyone by claiming they are based on objectively verifiable truth. That's when cultural hegemony and ethnocentrism rear their heads.


Unless I misread you, I think we know why the reminder is needed--people here are still banging on about objective truths being at play in the evaluation of art, rather than there being a mutual agreement among peers that whatever they choose to assert is objective and true and not a pure, shared exercise in groupthink. It's as if(?!) we have spent hours, days of time discussing this issue without common comprehension of what the issue really is.


----------



## Strange Magic

Many if not most objective truths about art are often interesting but relatively trivial--how long a piece takes, how many notes or pages or whatever it has, etc. What is not trivial is the relationship between art and its individual perceiver--this is both unique and of ultimate importance and interest to both the perceiver and to any others curious about the choices of others. Our common humanity drives such an interest in the judgements of others on these issues. I have mentioned several times that I regard Hovhaness' 2nd violin concerto as, for me, the equal or better than other such in giving me pleasure to hear. My hope would be that anyone fortunate enough to find a recording of it--good luck with that-- might agree with me and we could share in our experience of it. This is the high personal value that is of real significance in the subjective experience of art


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> He still has too many unsubstantiated claims without the use of "I think".


So you say. However the book has received universal praise and respect from music historians, scholars, and musicians and in at least one review (W. Dean Sutcliffe. _Music & Letters. _Vol. 79, No. 4 (Nov., 1998), pp. 601-604 (4 pages) has been compared to The Bible because of the authority of both the book and author. 

I cannot take you nor your assessment of this book seriously.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> So you say. However the book has received universal praise and respect from music historians, scholars, and musicians and in at least one review (W. Dean Sutcliffe. _Music & Letters. _Vol. 79, No. 4 (Nov., 1998), pp. 601-604 (4 pages) has been compared to The Bible because of the authority of both the book and author.
> 
> I cannot take you nor your assessment of this book seriously.


An insightful and well-written review, at least from the first page. He is right that Rosen's book The Classical Style, originally drawn from the Norton lectures he gave at Harvard (the same source as Bernstein's The Unanswered Question) has profoundly (there's that word) influenced musical scholarship ever since. Sutcliffe recently came out with his own book, Instrumental Music in an Age of Sociability: Haydn, Mozart and Friends, that also addresses issues discussed here (by me, anyway). Alas, $184 on Amazon, and not much less elsewhere. I'll try to find a library copy at some point.

Though all are entitled to their own opinions, I agree it is amusing that when someone here posts a topic that some of the world's most prominent music scholars have spent their entire careers studying, not to mention art scholars an historians generally and aesthetic philosophers dating back to the 18th century, the debate nevertheless proceeds as if these issues have never previously been considered. Again, to anyone who wants to dismiss these scholars as buffoons, I say that I look forward to the publication of your own book. Make sure it's available as a library loan.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> some of the world's most prominent music scholars have spent their entire careers studying, not to mention art scholars an historians generally and aesthetic philosophers dating back to the 18th century, the debate nevertheless proceeds as if these issues have never previously been considered.


Rosen did not _spend an entire career_ studying. He was a professional pianist (like Glenn Gould, who also wrote books on music, wherein he expressed his views on Mozart and Beethoven). All the Classical period music that has been recorded for the first time in history over the past several decades —Rosen had not had the chance to hear it before he wrote The Classical Style. He couldn't have taken it into consideration in his writings. His knowledge and insight were limited by that, and so his perspective was narrow.



SanAntone said:


> However the book has received universal praise and respect from music historians, scholars, and musicians and in at least one review (W. Dean Sutcliffe. _Music & Letters. _Vol. 79, No. 4 (Nov., 1998), pp. 601-604 (4 pages) has been compared to The Bible because of the authority of both the book and author.


So did Clement Greenberg. He had peers who agreed with him; _"he had a painter's eye"_.


hammeredklavier said:


> "One critic shaped how we look at a half-century of painting. If Pollock was overrated, Clement Greenberg was the one doing it. We just followed his lead. So what is the correction here? It's not to discount Jackson Pollock. It's to give more attention to those other abstract expressionists as well. And to know the critic who decided which names we'd learn."


If they (the "music historians, scholars, and musicians who praised Rosen") did not care about or know the stuff better than him, it's somewhat meaningless. Anthony Tommasini doesn't seem to have known the stuff better. Life is short, no one wants to spend hours and hours listening to lesser-known composers, especially if the composers don't interest them. "Experts" in music are no different.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> I bet I was appreciating the contemporaries of Beethoven when you were still singing Ring-Around-The-Rosie.


O RLY? Then let's see how many you can identify :


----------



## hammeredklavier

^Still no attempt yet?

I think of this whole thing as a "paradox", a "counter-example" that reveals a hole in the objectivist argument.
Btw, sorry, I don't think the person who used to obsessively repeat


SanAntone said:


> *Saying that Beethoven is greater than Hummel is a subjective statement*, and hard, if not impossible, to prove to someone (other than pointing to the cumulative test of time) who has more enthusiasm for Hummel. The test of time is merely a cumulative collection of subjective determinations, many of which were influenced by the judgment of previous generations and what has been taught. *Multiplying subjective judgments over time does not produce an objective determination.*


and is now unable to convincingly explain why he has changed his position (maybe he has thought the change of position would favor more the pop music he admires), has the right to accuse me like


SanAntone said:


> These cultists attempt to elevate the focus of their obsession above the acknowledged great composers by making hyperbolic claims and dismissals of the test of time. It is a trite display of fanboyism that appears primarily on Internet forums.


None of my claims are "hyperbolic"— "What if an artist *didn't want to be known* to the posterity, and *didn't have his work published*? What if he's not widely known today because of that? What did composers/musicians of the past who *actually knew both* of their (Haydn's and Mozart's) work, for instance, Schubert, Weber, Bruckner, say/think about them? (Schubert, who had known Haydn's music intimately since his days as a chorister in Vienna, said that he wanted to be like Haydn, not Mozart.)" Where is this "cumulative collection of informed opinions" that specify "Mozart was better than Haydn"? 



How would you prove to me you're not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing just to win an argument. How would you prove to me you're not biased by experience.


hammeredklavier said:


> With B, you've had only 10 hours of listening to his music (it). At this point, you treat B the same way you treated A back then when you had only 10 hours of listening to A.
> 1. Would you decide that A is "objectively superior" to B artistically anyway?
> 3. How would you know if the following is true or false at this point: 'B also has his (its) merits, its just that you don't recognize them cause you haven't spent enough time with his music (it).'


Maybe Strange Magic and Eva Yojimbo are right, - it's all a result of polling, all about popularity.


hammeredklavier said:


> It implies that Mozart could just as have been forgotten (to a degree) depending on circumstance, say, if he locked himself up in Salzburg and didn't get his music printed, like the other, forgotten composer.





dissident said:


> Well a lot of it predates Amadeus, and in fact you could say Amadeus was a symptom of it. *The thing is "the tragic" has hung over Mozart since his early death, and so (for example) everything in a minor key is of course full of foreboding and desolation...like the 40th symphony.*


You said yourself- about the whole _propaganda _thing_, and _people's tendency to swoon over the _tragic, tortured artist. _Now you expect me to take you saying "I find Haydn's requiem _merely pleasant_, whereas Mozart's, _full of foreboding and desolation_" seriously.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> ^Still no attempt yet?
> 
> I think of this whole thing as a "paradox", a "counter-example" that reveals a hole in the objectivist argument.
> Btw, sorry, I don't think the person who used to obsessively repeat
> 
> and is now unable to convincingly explain why he has changed his position (maybe he has thought the change of position would favor more the pop music he admires), has the right to accuse me like
> 
> None of my claims are "hyperbolic"— "What if an artist *didn't want to be known* to the posterity, and *didn't have his work published*? What if he's not widely known today because of that? What did composers/musicians of the past who *actually knew both* of their (Haydn's and Mozart's) work, namely Schubert, Weber, Bruckner, say about them? (Schubert said he wanted to be like Haydn, not Mozart.)"
> 
> 
> How would you prove to me you're not just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing just to win an argument. How would you prove you don't have any of these dilemma:
> 
> Maybe Strange Magic and Eva Yojimbo are right, - it's all a result of polling, all about popularity.
> 
> 
> You said yourself- about the whole _propaganda and brainwashing, and _people's tendency to swoon over the _tragic, tortured artist. _Now you expect me to take you saying "I find Haydn's requiem _merely pleasant_, whereas Mozart's, _full of foreboding and desolation_" seriously.


So there's no objective reasons for popularity among fans of CM? What are the reasons? Accidents of history, I guess people can say.

Maybe I'm fooling myself, as a result of all these years. I look at a score of a Hummel piano trio and it's not as impressive as the Archduke. Perhaps this is as far as I can extend my thesis. I mean, nothing beyond the obvious..

In the Arts nothing is ever settled by the evidence, and that's what appreciative people benefit from. I surely don't want to take away from the mystery.

Look at a good song by the Beatles, then Mary Had a Little Lamb. Isn't this an example of what we're talking about?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> So there's no objective reasons for popularity among fans of CM? What are the reasons? Accidents of history, I guess people can say.





hammeredklavier said:


> Things can be and have qualities to be popular, but whether or not they're popular because they're superficially appealing, sentimental, or over the top, or have attractive concepts (eg. "avantgardists of their time", "tortured artists", "musical philosophers", "masters of universal laws of complexity/simplicity") etc, still depends on how each one of us perceives them.





Luchesi said:


> Maybe I'm fooling myself, as a result of all these years. I look at a score of a Hummel piano trio and it's not as impressive as the Archduke.


Objectively? How?


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> There is no question that our aesthetic tastes are based on how we humans relate to our environment, and our environmental conditions as well as our physiology are matters of objective, verifiable fact. But there is far too much that is accidental and random in the human experience to identify a set of universal, permanent aesthetic values. Each culture has its unique features. No two are identical, just as no two individuals are identical.
> 
> So, it pretty clearly IS the case that there are zero objective frames from which one can evaluate music, as such *"eVALuation" inevitably requires reference to one set of aesthetic values or another, which are always in significant part subjective.*
> 
> Nevertheless, *most of us here at TC probably share enough aesthetic values that we can have a serious conversation about evaluating Mozart's music.* We certainly can objectively discuss Mozart's place in the history of western music. I also have no problem if someone wants to argue that Michael Haydn deserves a more prominent place in that history. One member here has done a good job in making that argument. However, *all such arguments inevitably are based on the premise that we all accept a certain set of subjective, unverifiable aesthetic values as given.
> 
> Expert musicologists and other cultural historians are acutely aware that this basic premise underlies all of their work.*


The ability of an artist to set forth, in his work, certain aesthetic premises and suppositions, and to carry them out with inventiveness and skill in a way that's comprehensible to a perceiver, is not meaningfully called a "subjective, unverifiable aesthetic value." It's a requisite of excellence in every artistic style, genre and tradition, and the human mind, flexible as it is, is capable of adjusting, expanding and deepening its context and its expectations when confronted with the most diverse art forms in order to comprehend unfamiliar art on its own terms. We've all done this as individuals, and cultures do it as they meet and merge. It is not only possible but commonplace to recognize the excellence of Brahms, Josquin des Prez, Miles Davis and Ali Akbar Khan, appreciating each one's work as the kind of thing it is, and all of them as masters and exemplars among their peers.

Just what faculty of the human mind, and what aspects of art, do "subjectivists" suppose make possible this ever-enlarging appreciation of art in its near-infinite variety of forms? Why aren't we all just permanently stuck in our little personal, familial or cultural "subjectivities"? How do we learn, not only to understand the techniques of arts outside our particular sphere of life, but to love art that opens up areas of sound, sight, and feeling we never suspected? Equally to the point, how do so many people recognize excellence in art they don't even like?

Burying critical questions of artistic perception and valuation under endless protestations of the unqualified "subjectivity" of taste (yes, obviously, a person might happen to enjoy absolutely anything, possibly even being tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail), and suggesting that if art really had value beyond the personal everyone would value all art identically and little green people from outer space would instantly know what earth music was "best," suggests such an astounding obliviousness to the nature of art that I began to feel as if I were trapped in an insane asylum and needed to get away from the madness for a few days.

I see that the madness continues.

Afterthought: Maybe it isn't madness, but simply the desire or need to take an easy, familiar road. It's easy to cite, say, Chinese guzheng and Romanian traditional music as so radically different as to prove the diversity of aesthetic values at a very deep level. What's not easy is to explain what enables one person to love both of them and to appreciate excellence in the performance of them. Is our response entirely determined by learned sets of criteria and expectations, or is the mind, qua human brain, looking for something and finding it in art that has the power to "make sense"?


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> The ability of an artist to set forth, in his work, certain aesthetic premises and suppositions, and to carry them out with inventiveness and skill in a way that's comprehensible to a perceiver, is not meaningfully called a "subjective, unverifiable aesthetic value." It's a requisite of excellence in every artistic style, genre and tradition, and the human mind, flexible as it is, is capable of adjusting, expanding and deepening its context and its expectations when confronted with the most diverse art forms in order to comprehend unfamiliar art on its own terms. We've all done this as individuals, and cultures do it as they meet and merge. It is not only possible but commonplace to recognize the excellence of Brahms, Josquin des Prez, Miles Davis and Ali Akbar Khan, appreciating each one's work as the kind of thing it is, and all of them as masters and exemplars among their peers.
> 
> Just what faculty of the human mind, and what aspects of art, do "subjectivists" suppose make possible this ever-enlarging appreciation of art in its near-infinite variety of forms? Why aren't we all just permanently stuck in our little personal, familial or cultural "subjectivities"? How do we learn, not only to understand the techniques of arts outside our particular sphere of life, but to love art that opens up areas of sound, sight, and feeling we never suspected? Equally to the point, how do so many people recognize excellence in art they don't even like?
> 
> Burying critical questions of artistic perception and valuation under endless protestations of the unqualified "subjectivity" of taste (yes, obviously, a person might happen to enjoy absolutely anything, possibly even being tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail), and suggesting that if art really had value beyond the personal everyone would value all art identically and little green people from outer space would instantly know what earth music was "best," suggests such an astounding obliviousness to the nature of art that I began to feel as if I were trapped in an insane asylum and needed to get away from the madness for a few days.
> 
> I see that the madness continues.


You're right. Every teacher goes through this, to some degree. I have to be there with them. Show examples at the piano, or discuss instructional segments of recordings. I need to see how they're doing, where they are. 

We can't teach 'appreciation', we can only explain scores. Where and how they're effective. If they don't get it, don't want it, aren't ready, maybe they will be someday. It's always finally up to them. Not like a science course.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> Objectively? How?


see my post #1076
I can't teach in these small posts.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> ...
> You said yourself- about the whole _propaganda _thing_, and _people's tendency to swoon over the _tragic, tortured artist. _Now you expect me to take you saying "I find Haydn's requiem _merely pleasant_, whereas Mozart's, _full of foreboding and desolation_" seriously.


Saying that an attitude toward an artist became this way is not the same as saying that that artist's work would be forgotten otherwise.



> Maybe Strange Magic and Eva Yojimbo are right, - it's all a result of polling, all about popularity.


O RLY? Now all you have to do is explain how they became "popular" in the first place.

Even better, let's just let this stupid pointless thread die peacefully.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Woodduck: "*It's easy to cite, say, Chinese guzheng and Romanian traditional music as so radically different as to prove the diversity of aesthetic values at a very deep level. What's not easy is to explain what enables one person to love both of them and to appreciate excellence in the performance of them. Is our response entirely determined by learned sets of criteria and expectations, or is the mind, qua human brain, looking for something and finding it in art that has the power to "make sense"?


The subjectivist viewpoint is to agree that it is indeed easy to cite examples and prove the diversity of esthetic values at a very deep level, a very shallow level, and every level in between, as demonstrated proof of the variability of human taste and the uniqueness of each person's individual taste and perceptions. Radical differences in the nature of things enjoyed in music and the arts are, in fact, a hallmark of subjectivism. The subjectivist also appreciates as easy to understand the operation of *both* factors cited above--learned sets of criteria (criteria either learned from the group or self-established) *and *the individual, unique human brain finding in certain art the power to "make sense". 

In the appreciation of art, everyone is different, with groups of people forming clusters of the like-minded enjoying certain shared, specific interests/perceptions. I love Brahms and Prokofiev, cante flamenco, gharnatii, malhun, Latin music, Rock, Pop, and bagpipes (and much else). I wish to be introduced to the person(s) who like exactly what I like in exactly the same measure, but experience and ordinary sense both tell me it is not to be. All ethetics is personal. valid, and subjective. The only things measurable and objective in the arts are or may be interesting but they are trivial--weight, color, creator, duration, complexity (defined), units moved, when created, monetary value, etc.

If this argument seems familiar, it's because it is familiar.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> So there's no objective reasons for popularity among fans of CM? What are the reasons? Accidents of history, I guess people can say.
> 
> Maybe I'm fooling myself, as a result of all these years. I look at a score of a Hummel piano trio and it's not as impressive as the Archduke. Perhaps this is as far as I can extend my thesis. I mean, nothing beyond the obvious..
> 
> In the Arts nothing is ever settled by the evidence, and that's what appreciative people benefit from. I surely don't want to take away from the mystery.
> 
> Look at a good song by the Beatles, then Mary Had a Little Lamb. Isn't this an example of what we're talking about?


Once you understand the basic principles of harmony and counterpoint, you can learn about the sonata form and thematic development in the classical style. Then you can analyze Beethoven's music or read one of several good writers who can help you, at least in a basic way. Beethoven gets complicated, especially as he matured, because he developed the basic rules he started out with to a high and sophisticated level.

Just because the rules Beethoven worked with are not universally applicable to all possible systems of music, doesn't mean they didn't exist. Far from it. The same is true of the Beatles. Though I find their music nowhere near as complex as Beethoven's, it certainly surpassed most of the popular music of its time, especially in harmonic sophistication. Did you know many Beatles songs are in the Mixolydian mode? Modal harmony was common in Renaissance music that was the root of much traditional British folk music, which in turn influenced the Beatles.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> Saying that an attitude toward an artist became this way is not the same as saying that that artist's work would be forgotten otherwise.


Whatabout this?


dissident said:


> I think Mozart frequently resorted to musical cliché with the best of them.
> I love Mozart. But if we knew as little about his life as we know about [...]'s, I don't think we would listen to his work in quite the same way.


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> Once you understand the basic principles of harmony and counterpoint, you can learn about the sonata form and thematic development in the classical style. Then you can analyze Beethoven's music or read one of several good writers who can help you, at least in a basic way. Beethoven gets complicated, especially as he matured, because he developed the basic rules he started out with to a high and sophisticated level.
> 
> Just because the rules Beethoven worked with are not universally applicable to all possible systems of music, doesn't mean they didn't exist. Far from it. The same is true of the Beatles. Though I find their music nowhere near as complex as Beethoven's, it certainly surpassed most of the popular music of its time, especially in harmonic sophistication. Did you know many Beatles songs are in the Mixolydian mode? Modal harmony was common in Renaissance music that was the root of much traditional British folk music, which in turn influenced the Beatles.


In Beethoven's later works he actually simplified his writing. The first movement of his last piano sonata used one theme. But, the intensity of his works grew in depth despite a distillation of his materials, or maybe because of that distillation.

However, Beethoven did not recognize "rules" for sonata form. That kind of codification of the properties of the standard sonata-allegro movement did not occur until around 1840 at the earliest and didn't become pedagogical "rules" until even later.

What Beethoven, and all of the other composers of the 18th and early 19th century recognized were conventions, similar to how songwriters thought/think of the 32-bar song form.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> In Beethoven's later works he actually simplified his writing. The first movement of his last piano sonata used one theme. But, the intensity of his works grew in depth despite a distillation of his materials, or maybe because of that distillation.
> 
> However, Beethoven did not recognize "rules" for sonata form. That kind of codification of the properties of the standard sonata-allegro movement did not occur until around 1840 at the earliest and didn't become pedagogical "rules" until even later.
> 
> What Beethoven, and all of the other composers of the 18th and early 19th century recognized were conventions, similar to how songwriters thought/think of the 32-bar song form.


Yes, "conventions" is a much better term than "rules". Good comment. I was only talking about after the fact analysis of Beethoven, not explicitly set down rules he recognized. And his 'simplification' late in his career had much underlying subtlety and complexity. Consider the piano sonata No. 28, Op. 101 and the violin sonata no. 10, Op. 96, the latter written for the conservative classical violinist Pierre Rode. BTW, that violin sonata famously uses a trill as an important thematic element in the opening theme, an important innovation of the classical style. In Baroque music, trills were generally decorative ornaments. Beethoven does the same thing in the opening theme of his Archduke trio, Op. 97, that Luchesi mentioned.

As for Op. 101, if that's simple, the rest of us are gibbering idiots. But I know what you mean. I'd call it spare classicism rather than simplicity.


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> We've all done this as individuals, and cultures do it as they meet and merge. It is not only possible but commonplace to recognize the excellence of Brahms, Josquin des Prez, Miles Davis and Ali Akbar Khan, appreciating each one's work as the kind of thing it is, and all of them as masters and exemplars among their peers.


This is one of those things where I think the extremists of either position have actually left and I don't know how much the remaining players actually disagree on. The practice of appreciating work on its own terms is central to the so-called "subjectivist" mindset - which would point out that the fact that our aesthetic expectations change when we listen to different genres (in fact, this is what makes "genre" a thing at all) is pretty much just "subjectivism" distilled.


For context the view on threads that started this whole mess, mostly by members who don't post anymore and are banned (nobody in here), was that one could prove the objective worth of classical music _generally_ over another genre (usually hip-hop), probably the "extremist" view of the objectivist position.


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> This is one of those things where I think the extremists of either position have actually left and I don't know how much the remaining players actually disagree on. The practice of appreciating work on its own terms is central to the so-called "subjectivist" mindset - which would point out that the fact that our aesthetic expectations change when we listen to different genres (in fact, this is what makes "genre" a thing at all) is pretty much just "subjectivism" distilled.
> 
> 
> For context the view on threads that started this whole mess, mostly by members who don't post anymore and are banned (nobody in here), was that one could prove the objective worth of classical music _generally_ over another genre (usually hip-hop), probably the "extremist" view of the objectivist position.


The important thing to remember is, style is everything when evaluating music. I was just thinking in the car about how Jacques Ibert uses trills as thematic elements in the outer movements of his neoclassical flute concerto, much as Beethoven does in the Archduke trio and 10th violin sonata. If you think this is a mere coincidence, you are wrong. Ibert is intentionally tipping his hat to Mozart and Beethoven and their classical style in this and a number of other ways. Hence the term, "neoclassical". And every style has its conventions, to use SanAntone's term. Those stylistic conventions in turn are derived from a certain set of aesthetic values. This is what Sutcliffe is trying to show in his book (you can read the first few pages online) very much in the manner of Rosen.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> Whatabout this?


So what? It doesn't mean he'd be in Michael Haydn territory.


----------



## SanAntone

fbjim said:


> This is one of those things where I think the extremists of either position have actually left and I don't know how much the remaining players actually disagree on. The practice of appreciating work on its own terms is central to the so-called "subjectivist" mindset - which would point out that the fact that our aesthetic expectations change when we listen to different genres (in fact, this is what makes "genre" a thing at all) is pretty much just "subjectivism" distilled.


I definitely believe that art, music, literature, etc. are appreciated subjectively, i.e. each of us forms an opinion on what we like or dislike according to our personal taste. But at the same time there is a phenomenon of trends in style and taste, so that certain artists rise to great popularity and fame for a period of time until a new trend emerges. For some reason and for a period of time large swathes of the listening public seem to share the same taste.

I think this is true whether it is during the time of Beethoven or The Beatles.

I don't think this is evidence of inherent objective qualities that can be demonstrated so much as psychological and aesthetic tendencies that an audience made up of demographic groups exhibit synchronously. Also the personal charismatic qualities of a composer such as Beethoven or Liszt play into why they became famous whereas other composers/musicians did not. Again something which can be seen during our time concerning various Pop stars.


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> This is one of those things where I think the extremists of either position have actually left and I don't know how much the remaining players actually disagree on. The practice of appreciating work on its own terms is central to the so-called "subjectivist" mindset - which would point out that the fact that our aesthetic expectations change when we listen to different genres (in fact, this is what makes "genre" a thing at all) is pretty much just "subjectivism" distilled.


I'm glad you take my point, but, with respect, I don't think subjectivism as a principle of aesthetic evaluation is fundamentally about adjusting our aesthetic expectations to the differences between styles and genres. Can you elaborate on why you think it is?



> For context the view on threads that started this whole mess, mostly by members who don't post anymore and are banned (nobody in here), was that one could prove the objective worth of classical music _generally_ over another genre (usually hip-hop), probably the "extremist" view of the objectivist position.


I don't remember those arguments, possibly because I wasn't interested in comparing apples to aardvarks. But as for extremism, is there such a thing as a "subjectivism" that isn't extreme? Most people who've considered the question, I think, know that our responses to art are both personal and influenced by our cultural situation, and recognize that art is so diverse that the structural rules that apply to one sort of art don't apply to all. Understanding this doesn't make one a "subjectiv_ist_," with emphasis on the "ist." One can understand these things, and still affirm the possibility of recognizing real differences in the quality of artistic achievement - recognizing them, not by a process of mechanical measurement (the only kind of "objectivity" acceptable to some here) but through a complex cognitive process involving, among other things, knowledge based on experience of art, skill in the employment of our innate faculties of percept and concept formation - faculties that make sense out of data coming to us from the outer world - and the ability to make "cross-domain" connections between the abstract forms of art and the concepts and feelings with which those forms are isomorphic. Debating the "subjectivity" versus the "objectivity" of these cognitive processes - indeed, debating the very meaning of those words - can easily obscure the very real things that are happening in the perception and evaluation of art, and it all becomes ponderous, unproductive, and tiresome.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> It is not only possible but commonplace to recognize the excellence of Miles Davis and Ali Akbar Khan


Why can't Pachelbel's canon be mentioned alongside Ali Akbar Khan?


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> Once you understand the basic principles of harmony and counterpoint, you can learn about the sonata form and thematic development in the classical style. Then you can analyze Beethoven's music or read one of several good writers who can help you, at least in a basic way. Beethoven gets complicated, especially as he matured, because he developed the basic rules he started out with to a high and sophisticated level.
> 
> Just because the rules Beethoven worked with are not universally applicable to all possible systems of music, doesn't mean they didn't exist. Far from it. The same is true of the Beatles. Though I find their music nowhere near as complex as Beethoven's, it certainly surpassed most of the popular music of its time, especially in harmonic sophistication. Did you know many Beatles songs are in the Mixolydian mode? Modal harmony was common in Renaissance music that was the root of much traditional British folk music, which in turn influenced the Beatles.


I don't think you understand me, but I love to talk about it. We can discuss it. Music appreciation has always been very interesting to me. 
Thanks to this thread, I no longer think my approach to helping piano students appreciate analysis for the long term is relevant to the question of objectivity and subjectivity (because, for one reason, where is the dividing line between the two? Also because I work with notes and intervals and building chords and listening for/pointing out the specific effects and then applying that info to parts of the score they've 'analyzed'). 
Mine are not university students needing a required curriculum to measure their comprehension and qualifying for a degree. They should know what counterpoint is and sonata form etc. and the dates and locations of the composers of course, but I certainly don't want to turn them off. I remember that Music Appreciation 101 turned me off, to a large degree. I suspect that it wasn't relevant to me at all at that time in my life. I wanted to know directly and specifically how music works in my pop favorites and in my classical pieces, when I was in my teens.
When Bernstein talked about Beatles and the mixolydian mode on his TV shows I was surprised that he seemed surprised (but maybe he was just being an enthusiastic teacher, because the kids in the audience seemed to get the humor of this conductor talking/‘singing' about short, simple Beatles songs). The three Beatles were singing into their guitars and they were trying to hear sounds that would be attractive (cutting/effective) to their audience, and as we know some modes are quite mysteriously attractive to humans. IMO, it was all about them exploring with their guitars, but I doubt that that they could derive any of the modes. They surely had enough to do trying to put out pop hits, and what they were doing was already very successful!


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> So what? It doesn't mean he'd be in Michael Haydn territory.


Why? Because Haydn is not supposed to be _divine perfection_? Btw, you're also free to take the "test" I posted in #1071, and so is everyone else, at any time.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> I don't think you understand me, but I love to talk about it. We can discuss it. Music appreciation has always been very interesting to me.
> Thanks to this thread, I no longer think my approach to helping piano students appreciate analysis for the long term is relevant to the question of objectivity and subjectivity (because, for one reason, where is the dividing line between the two? Also because I work with notes and intervals and building chords and listening for/pointing out the specific effects and then applying that info to parts of the score they've 'analyzed').
> Mine are not university students needing a required curriculum to measure their comprehension and qualifying for a degree. They should know what counterpoint is and sonata form etc. and the dates and locations of the composers of course, but I certainly don't want to turn them off. I remember that Music Appreciation 101 turned me off, to a large degree. I suspect that it wasn't relevant to me at all at that time in my life. I wanted to know directly and specifically how music works in my pop favorites and in my classical pieces, when I was in my teens.
> When Bernstein talked about Beatles and the mixolydian mode on his TV shows I was surprised that he seemed surprised (but maybe he was just being an enthusiastic teacher, because the kids in the audience seemed to get the humor of this conductor talking/‘singing' about short, simple Beatles songs). The three Beatles were singing into their guitars and they were trying to hear sounds that would be attractive (cutting/effective) to their audience, and as we know some modes are quite mysteriously attractive to humans. IMO, it was all about them exploring with their guitars, but I doubt that that they could derive any of the modes. They surely had enough to do trying to put out pop hits, and what they were doing was already very successful!


^ I agree the Beatles didn't know a whole lot of formal music theory. They couldn't even read music scores, afaik. But there is no doubt they were influenced by traditional British folk songs as well as (African-) American rock 'n' roll. As well as many other American and British popular music genres and traditional classical music. That eclecticism served them well and enabled them to stand apart from those who were merely trying to imitate Elvis.


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> I'm glad you take my point, but, with respect, I don't think subjectivism as a principle of aesthetic evaluation is fundamentally about adjusting our aesthetic expectations to the differences between styles and genres. Can you elaborate on why you think it is?


The reasoning is that ascribing things like "profundity" / "beauty" / etc to art is dependent on us (not just personally, but as a population) having sympathy or affinity for the aesthetic conventions of the work. It's something that happens with the interaction of a sympathetic listener and a work of music, and only makes sense within that context. 



Woodduck said:


> I don't remember those arguments, possibly because I wasn't interested in comparing apples to aardvarks. But as for extremism, is there such a thing as a "subjectivism" that isn't extreme?


Most of it expressed in this thread, I think. I don't think "all art is of the same value" for instance - that's an extremist reduction of the view that "artistic value" is a concept that only makes sense when it is placed into context by human observation and evaluation. In all honesty there's not much here that I haven't heard even with a layman's understanding on aesthetic philosophy- in fact, outside this forum it's remarkably rare that I read criticism of art which purports to be "objective", in the sense that it is true from all frames-of-reference, or is undeniable. The "extreme" positions on both sides don't seem to be what anyone in here actually holds - the differences seem to be more interpretation-based disagreements on what constitutes "objectivity" or "subjectivity". 

I don't really like the "objectivist"/"subjectivist" labels (hence the scare quotes) because it makes it too easy to ascribe extremist positions to people who don't actually hold those positions.


----------



## Strange Magic

fbjim said:


> The reasoning is that ascribing things like "profundity" / "beauty" / etc to art is dependent on us (not just personally, but as a population) having sympathy or affinity for the aesthetic conventions of the work. It's something that happens with the interaction of a sympathetic listener and a work of music, and only makes sense within that context.
> 
> Most of it expressed in this thread, I think. I don't think "all art is of the same value" for instance - that's an extremist reduction of the view that "artistic value" is a concept that only makes sense when it is placed into context by human observation and evaluation. In all honesty there's not much here that I haven't heard even with a layman's understanding on aesthetic philosophy- in fact, outside this forum it's remarkably rare that I read criticism of art which purports to be "objective", in the sense that it is true from all frames-of-reference, or is undeniable. The "extreme" positions on both sides don't seem to be what anyone in here actually holds - the differences seem to be more interpretation-based disagreements on what constitutes "objectivity" or "subjectivity".
> 
> I don't really like the "objectivist"/"subjectivist" labels (hence the scare quotes) because it makes it too easy to ascribe extremist positions to people who don't actually hold those positions.


You can mark me down as an extreme subjectivist who has never left the field. I assert forcefully that every individual's connection to/with art is unique, valid, and personal. There arise clusters of like-minded souls who gravitate together to sing of the glories of their chosen shared enthusiasm, but never, ever share everything within any given genre, let alone multiple genres. This disposes of any notion of there being immeasurable but "real", objective art criteria above and beyond group sharing of such criteria specific to the work or genre being discussed; said criteria being the coalesced subjective opinions of the cluster members.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> Why? Because Haydn is not supposed to be _divine perfection_? ...


I never said anything about "divine perfection". Now you're creating strawmen.


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> The reasoning is that ascribing *things like "profundity" / "beauty" / etc* to art is dependent on us (not just personally, but as a population) having sympathy or affinity for the aesthetic conventions of the work. It's something that happens with the interaction of a sympathetic listener and a work of music, and *only makes sense within that context.*


I can't avoid the feeling that this argument, if it is one, is a closed circle. "Things like beauty, profundity, etc." are simply defined outright as being entirely products of "sympathy or affinity" on the part of the "sympathetic listener." Left unaddressed are questions of how the listener becomes sympathetic to aesthetic values in the first place, how his sympathies can evolve, enlarge, and change, and how he can recognize and acknowledge high aesthetic quality in work for which he has little sympathy or affinity (as I can, for example, in music of Stravinsky).



> Most of it expressed in this thread, I think. I don't think "all art is of the same value" for instance - that's an extremist reduction of the view that "artistic value" is a concept that only makes sense when it is placed into context by human observation and evaluation.


What is the "context of human observation and evaluation"? What would "artistic value," or any sort of value, mean _outside_ a context of human evaluation? Is there some other context, or is there more than one sense in which art could be said to have value? I detect here another closed circle, dependent on particular definitions, and it seems to me that your argument, as presented, does indeed necessitate the conclusion that "all art is of the same value." It leaves us with no way of understanding why one symphony is generally recognized as a masterpiece of structure and imagination and another as merely competent hack work.



> I don't really like the "objectivist"/"subjectivist" labels (hence the scare quotes) because it makes it too easy to ascribe extremist positions to people who don't actually hold those positions.


We agree in this.


----------



## Woodduck

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


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Woodduck: *"It leaves us with no way of understanding why one symphony is generally recognized as a masterpiece of structure and imagination and another as merely competent hack work."


When we are forced to invoke "generally recognized" as the clincher for an argument for trans-individual excellence in the arts, that is a sign of, again, subjectivism being inaccurately labeled as objectivism. And I think we can all think of examples of group-admired works (how big is the group, and does that matter?) that we believe are empty and boring, and other works that are forgotten--nay, never even recognized--yet which have all the hallmarks of our personal sublime.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> ^ I agree the Beatles didn't know a whole lot of formal music theory. They couldn't even read music scores, afaik. But there is no doubt they were influenced by traditional British folk songs as well as (African-) American rock 'n' roll. As well as many other American and British popular music genres and traditional classical music. That eclecticism served them well and enabled them to stand apart from those who were merely trying to imitate Elvis.


merely trying to imitate Elvis.

People say that, but who was trying to imitate Elvis? Maybe Pat Boone, maybe the Everly Brothers, but do you have better examples? Maybe Cliff Richard, I don't know, I never cared for what I heard from any skittle-ers before the Fab 4. The songs were childish for me as an adolescent.
Elvis was imitating the Black blues singers, (not consciously). The White singers (producers) wanted the wider audience (but oops, they faded as crooning styles changed with the upcoming youth with some discretionary income). The early Beatles with their 'natural' voices continued the trend. Frank Sinatra and the like were a little angry.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> When we are forced to invoke "generally recognized" as the clincher for an argument for trans-individual excellence in the arts, that is a sign of, again, subjectivism being inaccurately labeled as objectivism. And I think we can all think of examples of group-admired works (how big is the group, and does that matter?) that we believe are empty and boring, and other works that are forgotten--nay, never even recognized--yet which have all the hallmarks of our personal sublime.


I intend, and need, no "clincher." I'm just being a good scientist and asking why the phenomenon of general recognition (near-universal in innumerable cases) exists. I've also asked other questions in the same post, but you're quite selective in picking out the one for which you can misinterpret my intentions. And then of course, you trot out the old "people disagree," as if it were an argument for something.

Snooze.


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> I can't avoid the feeling that this argument, if it is one, is a closed circle. "Things like beauty, profundity, etc." are simply defined outright as being entirely products of "sympathy or affinity" on the part of the "sympathetic listener." Left unaddressed are questions of how the listener becomes sympathetic to aesthetic values in the first place, how his sympathies can evolve, enlarge, and change, and how he can recognize and acknowledge high aesthetic quality in work for which he has little sympathy or affinity (as I can, for example, in music of Stravinsky).


I wouldn't say they are "entirely products of sympathy or affinity", though they depend on them. They are, I think the result of an interaction between the listener and the art. Both sides are necessary. How we actually learn affinity for a genre is a process I'm probably unqualified to answer - it's almost certainly a combination of many things, from experience/immersion with the artform/genre, to our own discovery of our aesthetic preferences, to deliberate attempts to expand our aesthetic senses outside our own zones of comfort and experience. 

As for your second point, a single listener doesn't constitute a single frame of reference. Listeners can, and I think - frequently do - unconsciously view works with multiple frames of reference when listening - which is why we can separate things like a "pure" sense of "does this art give me pleasure", with theoretically-informed appreciation of the work's form, to knowledge of the work's historical context and influence, and even more purely extra-musical frames like say, someone trying to reconcile loving the music of The Magic Flute while being conscious that they find the work morally objectionable. Which is how we can get statements like "I see what the composer was trying to do, but I think this sounds just terrible". It's because we're able, without even consciously trying, to view art through multiple framings at once.


----------



## SanAntone

fbjim said:


> How we actually learn affinity for a genre is a process I'm probably unqualified to answer - it's almost certainly a combination of many things


Why do we have favorite colors or foods? I think it is a personality trait more than anything else. I know I can't explain why I like earth tones more than primary colors in watercolors, but then like primary colors in a collage.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> When we are forced to invoke "generally recognized" as the clincher for an argument for trans-individual excellence in the arts, that is a sign of, again, subjectivism being inaccurately labeled as objectivism. And I think we can all think of examples of group-admired works (how big is the group, and does that matter?) that we believe are empty and boring, and other works that are forgotten--nay, never even recognized--yet which have all the hallmarks of our personal sublime.


Who are in these groups you reference? The average human? I'm just curious what you're thinking about. You've probably said already...
To me, it's a very curious mechanism for finding works to learn about. For just listening, i'm sure it's fine.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> merely trying to imitate Elvis.
> 
> People say that, but who was trying to imitate Elvis? Maybe Pat Boone, maybe the Everly Brothers, but do you have better examples? Maybe Cliff Richard, I don't know, I never cared for what I heard from any skittle-ers before the Fab 4. The songs were childish for me as an adolescent.
> Elvis was imitating the Black blues singers, (not consciously). The White singers (producers) wanted the wider audience (but oops, they faded as crooning styles changed with the upcoming youth with some discretionary income. The early Beatles with their 'natural' voices continued the trend. Frank Sinatra and the like were a little angry.


This is getting off topic, I'm afraid. I could name other Elvis imitators, but I was really paraphrasing something Paul McCartney said in an interview, with which I happen to agree. My point was, the Beatles were very clever and creative in adopting and combining a wide range of earlier styles ranging from skiffle, delta blues, tin pan alley and traditional British folk to classical Indian sitar and European classical within the general context of American rock 'n' roll to create something people found new and exciting. Beethoven adopted and built on the styles of Bach and Handel, and more immediately, Haydn and Mozart, also to create something people found new and exciting.
Either way, you can't evaluate the skills of Beethoven or the Beatles without putting them in the proper context of their styles. If all you can hear is the "crooning" singing style of Sinatra as opposed to the 'natural' singing style of the Beatles, you are missing a lot.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> You can mark me down as an extreme subjectivist who has never left the field. I assert forcefully that every individual's connection to/with art is unique, valid, and personal. There arise clusters of like-minded souls who gravitate together to sing of the glories of their chosen shared enthusiasm, but never, ever share everything within any given genre, let alone multiple genres. This disposes of any notion of there being immeasurable but "real", objective art criteria above and beyond group sharing of such criteria specific to the work or genre being discussed; said criteria being the coalesced subjective opinions of the cluster members.


And this, ladies and gentlemen is, in a nutshell, the simplistic position of the arch, extreme subjectivist. The entire belief-system is there, which for some reason, required repetition in dozens of posts to say essentially the same thing. I understand the attraction to this position: one doesn’t have to think very far beyond it; it is all about subjectivity, polling and popularity.

Sadly, in giving the sole power of judgment of any artist and quality of any artistic creation thereof to any individual, regardless of experience or education, the skill of any artist is consigned to the lowest common denominator of ignorance. On the other hand, the fact is that, in the arts, humans tend to have the ability to recognize the ability of some individuals to create at a level beyond that of others and that is where elements of objectivity lie. Leonardo da Vinci created works that have stood the test of time for objective reasons. Beethoven composed music that has stood the test of time for objective reasons.

Within the various genres of the arts, some artists have stood above others since time immemorial. There are some here who like to raise the popularity argument by comparing say, a rapper with a classical music artist. There are those here who like to repeat that this is all about polling. There are those here who like to point out how small the classical music audience is compared to other music genres. There are those here who continually bring up exceptions as if they prove the rule. Sadly (again), not only are these arguments irrelevant, but they ignore the fact that the very development of and the existence of classical music, a form of art at the highest level, over centuries and the fact that there were individuals with unique skills who were born at a time that allowed those skills to flourish is nothing short of miraculous. To lay this all at the feet of simple subjectivity is to diminish and dismiss the miracle.


----------



## hammeredklavier

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


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> you have a recent hate-on for Mozart


Is pointing out that there can be differing opinions on Mozart an act of hating him? Is objectivist thinking really this one-dimensional?


----------



## fbjim

SanAntone said:


> Why do we have favorite colors or foods? I think it is a personality trait more than anything else. I know I can't explain why I like earth tones more than primary colors in watercolors, but then like primary colors in a collage.


Sure, but I think we do have the ability to expand our comfort zones to an extent. Not just as a phenomenon where our tastes change as our life experiences and selves change over time, but as a deliberate action to immerse ourselves in things we may find repelling on the surface. 

Worked with me and coffee, anyway.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> This is getting off topic, I'm afraid. I could name other Elvis imitators, but I was really paraphrasing something Paul McCartney said in an interview, with which I happen to agree. My point was, the Beatles were very clever and creative in adopting and combining a wide range of earlier styles ranging from skiffle, delta blues, tin pan alley and traditional British folk to classical Indian sitar and European classical within the general context of American rock 'n' roll to create something people found new and exciting. Beethoven adopted and built on the styles of Bach and Handel, and more immediately, Haydn and Mozart, also to create something people found new and exciting.
> Either way, you can't evaluate the skills of Beethoven or the Beatles without putting them in the proper context of their styles. If all you can hear is the "crooning" singing style of Sinatra as opposed to the 'natural' singing style of the Beatles, you are missing a lot.


I agree with all that. It's the consensus view and I think it's correct.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> Leonardo da Vinci created works that have stood the test of time for objective reasons. Beethoven composed music that has stood the test of time for objective reasons.


And whatabout Pachelbel's canon? Is it somehow "popular" in a "different way"?


hammeredklavier said:


> _Who_ made up the rules that Bach, Mozart, Beethoven must be considered as "musical equivalents" of the David, the Mona Lisa, and the Sistine Chapel, and not just some popular "music-makers" (popular today for a variety of reasons described in #383). _You._


----------



## SanAntone

fbjim said:


> Sure, but I think we do have the ability to expand our comfort zones to an extent. Not just as a phenomenon where our tastes change as our life experiences and selves change over time, but as a deliberate action to immerse ourselves in things we may find repelling on the surface.
> 
> Worked with me and coffee, anyway.


Yes, I've deliberately immersed myself in music that I initially considered uninteresting or even bothersome, if I thought it was a worthwhile endeavor. Wagner's operas, e.g. And eventually, after 50 years, I grew to enjoy them and even came to understand why so many consider them great works.

But this kind of thing is nothing like those works for which I felt an immediate attraction, and which have remained among my most treasured music.


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> And this, ladies and gentlemen is, in a nutshell, the simplistic position of the arch, extreme subjectivist. The entire belief-system is there, which for some reason, required repetition in dozens of posts to say essentially the same thing. I understand the attraction to this position: one doesn’t have to think very far beyond it; it is all about subjectivity, polling and popularity.
> 
> Sadly, in giving the sole power of judgment of any artist and quality of any artistic creation thereof to any individual, regardless of experience or education, the skill of any artist is consigned to the lowest common denominator of ignorance. On the other hand, the fact is that, in the arts, humans tend to have the ability to recognize the ability of some individuals to create at a level beyond that of others and that is where elements of objectivity lie. Leonardo da Vinci created works that have stood the test of time for objective reasons. Beethoven composed music that has stood the test of time for objective reasons.
> 
> Within the various genres of the arts, some artists have stood above others since time immemorial. There are some here who like to raise the popularity argument by comparing say, a rapper with a classical music artist. There are those here who like to repeat that this is all about polling. There are those here who like to point out how small the classical music audience is compared to other music genres. There are those here who continually bring up exceptions as if they prove the rule. Sadly (again), not only are these arguments irrelevant, but they ignore the fact that the very development of and the existence of classical music, a form of art at the highest level, over centuries and the fact that there were individuals with unique skills who were born at a time that allowed those skills to flourish is nothing short of miraculous. To lay this all at the feet of simple subjectivity is to diminish and dismiss the miracle.


Well stated, I agree. Humans will always be subjective because subjectivity throws a wider net during the continuous act of survival. It's crass I know to bring this up.
If the group you're referencing is in your peer group then you're probably going to get 'good' answers and save time and feel included, psychologically. This is so easy to see in groups of teens. They would much rather listen to their peers, about anything. "Don't trust anyone over 30." used to be a biting quip.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> And whatabout Pachelbel's canon? Is it somehow "popular" in a "different way"?


What exactly is your point in constantly bringing up that piece? Is it popular? Yes. Does that mean it's bad? No. You're always bringing it up as if it's some kind of gotcha.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> Is pointing out that there can be differing opinions on Mozart an act of hating him? Is objectivist thinking really this one-dimensional?


Why is there a consensus opinion on Mozart? "It's all about 'popularity' and dictionaries and Rosen.." Is subjectivist thinking really that one-dimensional?


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> Why is there a consensus opinion on Mozart?


that he sounds more "youthful" than Bach?


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> that he sounds more "youthful" than Bach?


No, that his entire body of work is excellent overall.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> I intend, and need, no "clincher." I'm just being a good scientist and asking why the phenomenon of general recognition (near-universal in innumerable cases) exists. I've also asked other questions in the same post, but you're quite selective in picking out the one for which you can misinterpret my intentions. And then of course, you trot out the old "people disagree," as if it were an argument for something.
> 
> Snooze.


General recognition? Near universal? People do disagree over almost everything. Here is an example where everyone in direct contact with the phenomenon agrees--water at STP is seen to boil at 100 degrees C; and that, with the exception of a brain or nervous system lesion, everyone will feel horrible pain if their hand is immersed in such water. The presumed objective wonderfulness of our favorite works of art should exert its powerful influence over all who perceive it. But it doesn't.


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> Who are in these groups you reference? The average human? I'm just curious what you're thinking about. You've probably said already...
> To me, it's a very curious mechanism for finding works to learn about. For just listening, i'm sure it's fine.


I do not understand your post.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> ... The presumed objective wonderfulness of our favorite works of art should exert its powerful influence over all who perceive it. But it doesn't.


Ultimately what difference does it make? It's not going to convince me that Bach is "no better than" Anton Rubinstein; it's not going to make the statement "Bach was a bad composer" true. What has to be explained is why so many have a similar reaction to his and other music. Merely restating the obvious as "clusters", "popularity" and "polling" is no explanation.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> General recognition? Near universal? People do disagree over almost everything. Here is an example where everyone in direct contact with the phenomenon agrees--water at STP is seen to boil at 100 degrees C; and that, with the exception of a brain or nervous system lesion, everyone will feel horrible pain if their hand is immersed in such water. The presumed objective wonderfulness of our favorite works of art should exert its powerful influence over all who perceive it. But it doesn't.


An extreme example of irrefutable objective perception of extreme heat does not prove anything except the fixed headset of someone who can’t recognize objectivity unless it is at a level of the capacity to scald.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *DaveM: *'And this, ladies and gentlemen is, in a nutshell, the simplistic position of the arch, extreme subjectivist. The entire belief-system is there, which for some reason, required repetition in dozens of posts to say essentially the same thing. I understand the attraction to this position: one doesn’t have to think very far beyond it; it is all about subjectivity, polling and popularity."


"Some men you just can't reach." I repeat my koan like a Zen master striking his pupil again and again to help the pupil obtain Understanding. I will continue to do so.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> Ultimately what difference does it make? It's not going to convince me that Bach is "no better than" Anton Rubinstein; it's not going to make the statement "Bach was a bad composer" true. What has to be explained is why so many have a similar reaction to his and other music. Merely restating the obvious as "clusters", "popularity" and "polling" is no explanation.


I beg to differ. Clusters, popularity, and polling are what esthetics is all about. And why does not every auditor of a piece of music immediately recognize its excellence exactly as all other auditors?


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> No,


How come you always disagree on the part [he sounds more "youthful" than Bach]? It's also part of that general consensus. Are you cherry-picking? One can think Mozart is excellent and still think like Guy B: 

Guy A: "With his mastery over Italian melody and German harmony, Mozart rose above both nations, just as Rossini said."
Guy B: "which makes him a useful companion when I'm in the mood for skittles."
Guy A: "Skittles?! Surely, his music has more nutrition than that! "The purity of his soul was absolute", just as Tchaikovsky said."
Guy B: "Isn't it more like, the scatology was absolute."
Guy A: ""The boy is moreover handsome, vivacious, graceful and full of good manners; and knowing him, it is difficult to avoid loving him." -Adolf Hasse, on the young Mozart."
Guy B: "Just like his music, which is full of unabashed politeness and inoffensiveness."
Guy A: "..." (* shocked *)
Guy B: "What's the matter? I like his music."


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> How come you always disagree on the part [he sounds more "youthful" than Bach]? It's also part of that general consensus. Are you cherry-picking? ...


I couldn't care less about "youthful". You're trying really hard for some "gotcha" moment as a bearer of some kind of objective truth. What if to me and millions of others Mozart is one of the greatest musical minds ever? What is it to you if we don't adore Michael Haydn? I thought these subjective opinions were supposed to be respected and here all you do on this forum is try to convince everyone of the objective equality of Michael Haydn. Incoherent, regardless of the effort in dredging up months-old comments on a forum.


Strange Magic said:


> I beg to differ. Clusters, popularity, and polling are what esthetics is all about. ...


No it isn't. It's the effect of aesthetic characteristics. The clustering, popularity and high polling are around an object, be it a piece of music, a building, a statue, whatever. There is an observer and a thing observed. Now that is a very convenient way to categorize Beethoven with Elvis, or with my banging randomly on a piano keyboard, and I suspect that leveling is the real motivation here. But in the end it doesn't make any difference. The hierarchies are still there, whether you want to dismiss them as "clusters" or whatever.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> I beg to differ. Clusters, popularity, and polling are what esthetics is all about. And why does not every auditor of a piece of music immediately recognize its excellence exactly as all other auditors?


Mr. Zen Master, does every single auditor have to recognize the excellence of a piece of music before it can be considered excellent?


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> ...And why does not every auditor of a piece of music immediately recognize its excellence exactly as all other auditors?


The question is why do so many recognize it as such.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> The question is why do so many recognize it as such.


you still don't understand me. Please go through my comments again (you can do it easily by the function "show only this user" in the topright of each post) Of course some things attract a lot of people who'll become their dedicated fans and defend them against all criticisms. Does that mean what these people say is unquestionable objective truth? Don't you know what "argumentum ad populum" is?


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> ...Does that mean what they say is unquestionable objective truth? ...


I've never said that it does. Is it an objective truth that Michael Haydn is no worse than Franz Joseph?


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> General recognition? Near universal? People do disagree over almost everything. Here is an example where everyone in direct contact with the phenomenon agrees--water at STP is seen to boil at 100 degrees C; and that, with the exception of a brain or nervous system lesion, everyone will feel horrible pain if their hand is immersed in such water. The presumed objective wonderfulness of our favorite works of art should exert its powerful influence over all who perceive it. But it doesn't.


Of course people do have substantial disagreements, as well as substantial agreements, in all but the most baby-simple of matters. Easily understood phenomena are clearly to your taste, but - I hate to break it to you so late in life - art isn't one of them. Informed valuation - recognition of differences in quality - in the arts is both general and meaningful among people who have a significant level of exposure to it and interest in it, both as individuals and as social groups. "Canons" and other indicators of rating and ranking, though neither precise nor fixed, are not accidents. The enduring and special impact of select works of art from around the world is not an accident. The ability of people to apply the mental faculties involved in comprehending their own most familiar kinds of art to art of multiple and completely dissimilar traditions is not an accident. There is art, still esteemed for its aesthetic qualities and still inspiring delight and wonder, that dates back about as far into prehistory as art has been known to exist. On the other hand, variations in appraisal among perceivers of a painting or symphony - the mere fact that not everyone will have precisely the same response - tells us nothing about the qualities of the work, and the notion that it somehow proves that there is nothing objectively valid about the artistic response is without foundation and lacking even in common sense.

Your endless evocation of the crude facts of physics as a way of downplaying or dismissing the infinite subtleties of art and its perception is incredibly puerile, obtuse and ignorant. You have conspicuously not attempted to support the validity of the comparison, except with the general proposition that everything in the universe must be understood in terms of physical science. That is purely an article of faith. Slathering the sugary frosting of "subjectivity" over everything that art is and does evidently makes you feel secure in your "sovereign individuality," but it explains absolutely nothing about art and the aesthetic response. It's as unscientific a perspective on a central phenomenon of human nature and human life as I can imagine - but then, who should be surprised? Art is a phenomenon of, by and for consciousness, and you materialists have never had one single plausible thing to say about the nature and origins of awareness in a universe of fire and rock.

In trying to reduce and argue away the complexities of the aesthetic experience and avoid any consideration of the way the mind works in apprehending art, you're a mere ideologue and quite out of your depth. Others, groping for truths while admitting that there's much we either don't know or don't have adequate language for, are at least trying to meet art on its own terms rather than explain it away.


----------



## Woodduck

dissident said:


> Ultimately what difference does it make? It's not going to convince me that Bach is "no better than" Anton Rubinstein; it's not going to make the statement "Bach was a bad composer" true. What has to be explained is why so many have a similar reaction to his and other music. Merely restating the obvious as "clusters", "popularity" and "polling" is no explanation.


That's one of the most attractive of the straws being grasped at in lieu of explanations.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> "Some men you just can't reach." I repeat my koan like a Zen master striking his pupil again and again to help the pupil obtain Understanding. I will continue to do so.


Maybe you're the one in ignorance. I haven't seen much to justify that kind of arrogance.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> ... Don't you know what "argumentum ad populum" is?


By the way, yes I do, hammered. I'm not saying X is great because so many say X is; I'm asking _why_ so many think X is great.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Mr. Zen Master, does every single auditor have to recognize the excellence of a piece of music before it can be considered excellent?


If the wonderfulness is as real and demonstrable as the objectivists claim, then, like my water example, it should be equally perceived by all. The usual exception for those with either a brain disease or loss of a sense or senses.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> If the wonderfulness is as real and demonstrable...


The fact that so many sense wonderfulness is real and demonstrable, and you can't explain it except by circular arguments. Not even an attempt. It's popular because it's popular just doesn't sound very profound. And that's been your little koan this whole time while upbraiding me for not producing a multi-paragraph "thesis". You could learn a little rhetorical economy and keep it brief.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Woodduck: *"Of course people do have substantial disagreements, as well as substantial agreements, in all but the most baby-simple of matters. Easily understood phenomena are clearly to your taste, but - I hate to break it to you so late in life - art isn't one of them. Informed valuation - recognition of differences in quality - in the arts is both general and meaningful among people who have a significant level of exposure to it and interest in it, both as individuals and as social groups."


Pot calleth kettle black. You also repeat _ad nauseum_ your responses to my extraordinarily simple thesis, and do so with your gift for preferring a gentle and understandable but constant vilification to directly addressing my argument. It doesn't work with me. At least DaveM and dissident are relatively brief.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> The fact that so many sense wonderfulness is real and demonstrable, and you can't explain it except by circular arguments. Not even an attempt. It's popular because it's popular just doesn't sound very profound. And that's been your little koan this whole time while upbraiding me for not producing a multi-paragraph "thesis". You could learn a little rhetorical economy and keep it brief.


That so many sense wonderfulness is an objective fact. What are we to make of those not sensing the wonderfulness? Are they diseased? Immoral? And I do keep it brief. I'll bet you find wonderful everything you like.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> I thought these subjective opinions were supposed to be respected and here all you do on this forum is try to convince everyone of the objective equality of Michael Haydn.


Now you're making groundless accusations just cause you can't refute my argument logically. I've never agreed with the objectivist argument from the start, and Haydn (a neglected composer of characteristics such as chromaticism, fluid vocal writing, instrumental melody like Mozart's) just happens to be a fine example I can use to refute it.
99.99% of people in the world today have no interest in Bach, Mozart, Beethoven (aside from a few selected hits, maybe). For them, it's nothing more than a niche interest of little nerdy circles (Let's face it). _I thought the subjective opinion was supposed to be respected._ You can always say that it's simply because they're ignorant, but so are you, of Haydn. Just cause you can't refute this logically, it doesn't mean you can resort to your favorite accusation tactics.


hammeredklavier said:


> "What if an artist *didn't want to be known* to the posterity, and *didn't have his work published*? What if he's not widely known today because of that? What did composers/musicians of the past who *actually knew both* of their (Haydn's and Mozart's) work, for instance, Schubert, Weber, Bruckner, say/think about them? (Schubert, who had known Haydn's music intimately since his days as a chorister in Vienna, said that he wanted to be like Haydn, not Mozart.)" Where is this "cumulative collection of informed opinions" that specify "Mozart was better than Haydn"?


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> If the wonderfulness is as real and demonstrable as the objectivists claim, then, like my water example, it should be equally perceived by all. The usual exception for those with either a brain disease or loss of a sense or senses.


Do you have any idea how extreme and ultimately ridiculous that is? Well let’s see where that leaves us: No artist can create a work that can justifiably be deemed remarkable. There is no basis for works being justifiably given a place of excellence in the canon. And there are no great composers or great works. What a pile of horse-puckey.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> By the way, yes I do, hammered. I'm not saying X is great because so many say X is; I'm asking _why_ so many think X is great.


What if they were taught in school to think like


hammeredklavier said:


> How exactly? For example, are these people, mikeh375, tdc, Kreisler jr, doing exactly what you describe, with Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Bach?
> 
> mikeh375: "I too think Mozart is overrated. Imv, he is too easy to listen to with 21stC hindsight and I feel that music these days has more traits worth exploring than immediacy of appeal. Don't shout at me though, I mean, I am an owner of the complete Phillips Edition. It's just that he is relegated these days to background whilst playing Scrabble in my household....uh oh.....sorry Mozart fans.
> OK maybe that's too harsh when I think of his perfection and some of his glorious work, so I'll rescind a little.... "
> 
> tdc: "I respect Haydn for his innovations and musical influence, but I would not rank him as a top ten composer, the only reason I rate him at all, is because of his inventiveness with form and because many others whose opinions I respect, do. I don't listen to his music, because I find it dull and with respect to dissonance, impotent. He uses dissonance, but not effectively in my view. It is like food without spice. His music strikes me as the kind of thing a man would write who has never himself experienced anything in life one could call 'deep' or 'profound'. It seems he resorts to humor, because there is nothing else of substance he has to say."
> 
> tdc: "Beethoven's sense of vertical harmony leaves me underwhelmed, so his longer musical paragraphs, although groundbreaking in form, don't help in redeeming his music for me. They actually make it worse.
> For me it is like listening to someone who is chatty but doesn't have anything that meaningful to say. Or someone that is telling me a boring story, but they try to spice it up by being over dramatic.
> I acknowledge his greatness, virtuosity and genius in form but that is how his music subjectively impacts me."
> 
> Kreisler jr: I grant all kinds of technical contrapuntal wizardry singling Bach out but I don't see how even a rather modest Telemann cantata like "Du aber Daniel gehe hin" or the choruses from the Passion section of Messiah (to stick with the best known, there are plenty of other examples) are not in the same range of expression and gravitas (or Schütz for music 100 years earlier). Of course, unlike inverted triple mirror fugues, "emotional depth" or gravitas are rather vague attributes.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> I beg to differ. Clusters, popularity, and polling are what esthetics is all about. And why does not every auditor of a piece of music immediately recognize its excellence exactly as all other auditors?


In any culture that lasts multiple generations, cultural values, including aesthetic values, are developed and taught to children and otherwise reinforced, often by formal institutions, so they persist for many generations, often centuries. Then there are community and family values, and, finally, individual values. The more values we have in common, the more predisposed we likely are to react similarly to similar music. You and I both like the music of Prokofiev. That is not a purely random event. As subjective as our aesthetics tastes are, it would be naive to think they are perfectly independent of our cultural and social environment, which have many common elements.

The nutty thing would be to claim that there is something inherent in the music of Prokofiev that results in us both finding it aesthetically pleasing. The truth is exactly the opposite. Prokofiev, with his excellent training in and profound understanding of a specific, highly developed and long celebrated western music tradition, was able to use his mastery of that tradition to innovate and build on it in an exciting and compelling way. By his time an enormous population throughout much of the world embraced that culture and that musical tradition, thanks mainly to the huge colonial expansion of certain European powers. 

That's why both of us, inheritors to a significant though doubtless not identical extent of that tradition from our families, our communities, and our culture generally, share a taste for Prokofiev. Without that longstanding and widespread tradition, Prokofiev would be whistling in the dark. He and all great composers are acutely aware of the tradition they come from and how they believe they can contribute to it. Some, arguably including Arnold Schoenberg, misjudge the degree to which, or the way in which, they will contribute to existing tradition. IMO, Schoenberg's greatest innovation was to encourage composers to accept the idea that there were alternatives to the diatonic scale and traditional western harmony. The particular alternative championed by Schoenberg was never universally or even mostly accepted, to his bitter disappointment. But history and consensus are the judges, not the artist.

No doubt we can study great music from other cultures and come to appreciate it to a greater or lesser extent. But freeing ourselves completely and absolutely from our own cultural heritage and individual backgrounds would be a very tall order.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> What if they were taught in school to think like


What if they weren't?


hammeredklavier said:


> Now you're making groundless accusations just cause you can't refute my argument logically. ..


I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm asking you why, on your new subjectivist crusade, you can't accept the subjective consensus on your hero Michael Haydn. Is there something objective there in his music that people are missing out on?


Strange Magic said:


> That so many sense wonderfulness is an objective fact.


True. Why is that?


> What are we to make of those not sensing the wonderfulness?


That's not the question.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> Now you're making groundless accusations just cause you can't refute my argument logically. I've never agreed with the objectivist argument from the start and Haydn (a neglected composer of characteristics such chromaticism, vocal writing, instrumental melody like Mozart's) just happens to be a fine example I can use to refute it...


Speaking of a logical argument: So there is nothing significant about your arguments that Michael Haydn has been unfairly ignored. A significant argument requires at least some objective evidence to give it significance. If you reject the fact that there is any significant evidence that elevates a given composer equal to or above another, then you have been wasting your time with all these M. Haydn related posts.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> you can't accept the subjective consensus on your hero Michael Haydn.


Prove to me your subjective view is insightful:


hammeredklavier said:


> O RLY? Then let's see how many you can identify :


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> Prove to me your subjective view is insightful:


Hang on...who said a subjective view has to be insightful?


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> That so many sense wonderfulness is an objective fact. What are we to make of those not sensing the wonderfulness? Are they diseased? Immoral? And I do keep it brief. I'll bet you find wonderful everything you like.


The exception doesn’t prove the rule. Ignorance abounds. There are some people who think that Roe vs Wade had something to do with a boxing match.


----------



## fbjim

There seems to be a strange assumption of burden of proof being raised all of a sudden. If someone can not "explain" why a work of art is popular, I certainly do not see why the stance-until-proven-otherwise is that such works have some sort of objective value separate from human observation.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> There seems to be a strange assumption of burden of proof being raised all of a sudden. If someone can not "explain" why a work of art is popular, I certainly do not see why the stance-until-proven-otherwise is that such works have some sort of objective value separate from human observation.


Presumably you have some experience with classical music. Are you not able to ‘explain‘ why certain works are popular? Do I have to take you by the hand and explain why Mozart’s Le Nozze di Figaro or Beethoven’s 9th is popular?


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Pot calleth kettle black. You also repeat _ad nauseum_ your responses to my extraordinarily simple thesis, and do so with your gift for preferring a gentle and understandable but constant vilification to directly addressing my argument. It doesn't work with me. At least DaveM and dissident are relatively brief.


You are uniquely "kettlesome" among all who have entered these conversations. If you'd actually make a reasonable attempt to address questions or objections posed to you, rather than simply repeat a simple - simple-minded - assertion, others wouldn't have to pose them repeatedly. We keep challenging you to do that, and you keep sidestepping and circling back in a process you yourself have characterized as "battering" others in hopes that they'll attain "enlightenment." It's ludicrous. Your "argument" was easily grasped and directly addressed ages ago, and it's clear that you're trapped by its inability to say anything about art - its nature, history or perception- that isn't understood by the proverbial man on the street who "knows what he likes." Well, bully for you, knowing what you like.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> There seems to be a strange assumption of burden of proof being raised all of a sudden. If someone can not "explain" why a work of art is popular, I certainly do not see why the stance-until-proven-otherwise is that such works have some sort of objective value separate from human observation.


The only "strange assumption of burden of proof" so far has been from hyper-subjectivists demanding scientific proof that the Mass in B Minor is "great". I'm just asking why so many have thought it is great.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Clusters, popularity, and polling are what esthetics is all about.


It's no longer possible even to laugh about such a statement. One just glazes over with mouth hanging open, trying to formulate a response, or not.



> And why does not every auditor of a piece of music immediately recognize its excellence exactly as all other auditors?


Why doesn't everyone recognize anything that not everyone recognizes? And why should everyone value anything at all in exactly the same way? Where is the strawman you're trying to torch, or the windmill you're tilting at?


----------



## Woodduck

dissident said:


> The only "strange assumption of burden of proof" so far has been from hyper-subjectivists demanding scientific proof that the Mass in B Minor is "great". *I'm just asking why so many have thought it is great.*


 One question worth a thousand repetitions of "consult the polls."


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> The only "strange assumption of burden of proof" so far has been from hyper-subjectivists demanding scientific proof that the Mass in B Minor is "great". I'm just asking why so many have thought it is great.


If the thesis is that there are inherent aspects internal to the work _which exist regardless of human perception _which make the work "great", or at least "popular", asking what those aspects are is a reasonable question.

This is _especially_ true if the implication of these aspects being "objective" and "inherent" mean they hold true for every listener and every frame-of-view, meaning I should be compelled to acknowledge these aspects regardless of my personal tastes regarding Bach. If that's the case, I certainly would like to know what those aspects are!


----------



## 59540

Woodduck said:


> One question worth a thousand repetitions of "consult the polls."


Yeah, it's because people think it's great. It's only because it's popular. A cluster finds it appealing. And chicken-and-egg ad infinitum.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> An extreme example of irrefutable objective perception of extreme heat does not prove anything except the fixed headset of someone who can’t recognize objectivity unless it is at a level of the capacity to scald.


Temperature is a description of a phenomenon which exists regardless of human perception. It's entirely reasonable to point out that this is not something which maps well to aesthetics.


----------



## Woodduck

dissident said:


> Yeah, it's because people think it's great. It's only because it's popular. A cluster finds it appealing. And chicken-and-egg ad infinitum.


It isn't even "it's great because people think it's great." It's "people think it's great because they do."

If I recall rightly, that was considered the epitome of rationality when I was around three years old, give or take a year.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> If the thesis is that there are inherent aspects internal to the work _which exist regardless of human perception _which make the work "great", or at least "popular", asking what those aspects are is a reasonable question.
> 
> This is _especially_ true if the implication of these aspects being "objective" and "inherent" mean they hold true for every listener and every frame-of-view, meaning I should be compelled to acknowledge these aspects regardless of my personal tastes regarding Bach. If that's the case, I certainly would like to know what those aspects are!


That sounds like something along the lines of the tree falling in the forest. Does it make an objective sound apart from the human brain? None of us can speak to anything apart from human perception.

By the way, no, I think that question is an important one to answer for both sides regardless, rather than relying on "it's great because people think it's great" or "because a Viennese publisher in eighteen-something liked it." Well, duh. That runs up against the same problems that the Bernstein-made-Mahler-popular hypothesis does.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> That sounds like something along the lines of the tree falling in the forest. Does it make an objective sound apart from the human brain? None of us can speak to anything apart from human perception.
> 
> By the way, no, I think that question is an important one to answer for both sides regardless, rather than "it's great because people think it's great". Well, duh.


We can describe, in very specific terms, the phenomenon of sound and how it works separate from human observation. In fact this is a pretty good clue as to whether an aspect you're dealing with is objective or subjective. Temperature, as in the energy of molecules in an object, does not depend on human observation, and is objective. Concepts of "Hot" and "Cold" depend on human observation and are subjecitve. 

Also I have repeatedly provided my own model for why I ascribe capital-G Greatness to certain composers. However, I don't believe my model is somehow "correct".


----------



## 59540

> We can describe, in very specific terms, the phenomenon of sound and how it works separate from human observation.


I can do the same thing with musical tones. So?


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> The nutty thing would be to claim that there is something inherent in the music of Prokofiev that results in us both finding it aesthetically pleasing.


Why? I would call it nutty to think that there is NOTHING inherent the music of Prokofiev to make it pleasing to two different people, or to millions. You might as well say that there is nothing inherent in art itself to make most of mankind virtually obsessed with it. Rhythmic energy, vivid and evocative colors, striking shifts and contrasts of texture, original melodic and harmonic turns that surprise us yet seem right... Something there for almost everyone, wouldn't you say? Something "inherent," something for the mind and body to resonate with?


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> I can do the same thing with musical tones. So?


I can describe temperature in objective terms. I can not describe whether 73F is "hot" or "cold" in objective terms.

To map this to art, there are many objective ways to describe a piece, down to the actual sound-wave that a performance of it produces. To ascribe value to this, however, requires humans- either via aesthetic terms like beauty, or concepts which depend on the context of the work, like originality, influence, popularity.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> Hang on...who said a subjective view has to be insightful?


Whatabout the subjective views of majority of people in the world, who have no interest in Bach, Mozart, Beethoven?



dissident said:


> The only "strange assumption of burden of proof" so far has been from hyper-subjectivists demanding scientific proof that the Mass in B Minor is "great". I'm just asking why so many have thought it is great.


(Oh, no.. Not that again..)
Isn't the popularity of the mass pretty much a modern phenomenon?

On Bach
By Hector Berlioz (1803–1869)
From Berlioz’s Autobiography
bartleby.com/library/prose/692.html
Every one follows the words on the book with his eyes; not a movement among the audience, not a murmur of praise or blame, not a sound of applause; they are listening to a solemn discourse, they are hearing the gospel sung, they are attending divine service rather than a concert. And really such music ought to be thus listened to. They adore Bach, and believe in him, without supposing for a moment that his divinity could ever be called into question. A heretic would horrify them, he is forbidden even to speak of him. God is God and Bach is Bach.

For although (as he told me himself) he would every now and then play piano fugues by Bach when he was alone, he always felt that the latter's cantatas and major vocal works were "real classical bores" en.tchaikovsky-research.net/pages/Johann_Sebastian_Bach


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> It isn't even "it's great because people think it's great." It's "people think it's great because they do."
> 
> If I recall rightly, that was considered the epitome of rationality when I was around three years old, give or take a year.


More accurately, it's that "great", or aesthetic value generally, is not a concept that makes sense without some kind of value system being imposed by a human listener (or, more broadly, a society).


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> I can describe temperature in objective terms. I can not describe whether 73F is "hot" or "cold" in objective terms.
> ...


Well, you're describing objective data in subjective terms.


hammeredklavier said:


> Whatabout the subjective views of majority of people in the world, who have no interest in Bach, Mozart, Beethoven?


I don't care. The question was about those who do.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> Temperature is a description of a phenomenon which exists regardless of human perception. It's entirely reasonable to point out that this is not something which maps well to aesthetics.


Well that’s enlightening, but unresponsive.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> Well, you're describing objective data in subjective terms.


Ascribing subjective and aesthetic concepts to objects is something we love to do, hence art. 

Now - what if someone insisted that "hot" and "cold" were objective concepts which existed outside of human observation, and as proof, raised the point that 99% of people would consider 87F to be "hot"?


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> If the thesis is that there are inherent aspects internal to the work _which exist regardless of human perception _which make the work "great", or at least "popular", asking what those aspects are is a reasonable question.


This is semantically problematic. What does it mean for art to "exist regardless of human perception"? Does it mean merely to be a piece of paper with squiggles of ink on it? And since every work of art is perceived by at least one person, does the artist count?



> This is _especially_ true *if* the implication of these aspects being "objective" and "inherent" mean they hold true for every listener and every frame-of-view, meaning I should be compelled to acknowledge these aspects regardless of my personal tastes regarding Bach. If that's the case, I certainly would like to know what those aspects are!


If a composer has utilized the materials of his particular art in a way that's masterful, and if people who have a grasp of the characteristics of that sort of art and can divine the composer's artistic intent can recognize his work as masterful, whence comes the assumption that all listeners, regardless of their musical understanding and taste, must be able to recognize the mastery? Strange Magic keeps asserting this notion, and I keep challenging it, and I get no answer.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> (Oh, no.. Not that again..)
> Isn't the popularity of the mass pretty much a modern phenomenon?


What difference does it make? I can probably find a few dozen pro's to match your Berlioz con.


----------



## Strange Magic

The World thinks that Beethoven's 9th is his greatest.
_No, the World doesn't think that._
Well then, all music lovers think Beethoven's 9th is his greatest.
_No. All music lovers do not think that._
But you must admit that all classical music lovers think that the 9th is his greatest.
_No. We all know that such is not the case.._
Surely you admit that every Beethoven fan thinks the 9th is his greatest!
_No. But I am sure that all Beethoven enthusiasts who think the 9th is his greatest, curiously think the 9th is his greatest.
A case can be made that some find the 9th is a curate's egg of a symphony--some parts of it are excellent, in their opinion. No accounting for taste--you heard it here first._


----------



## 59540

Woodduck said:


> This is semantically problematic. What does it mean for art to "exist regardless of human perception"?


 Exactly.


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> More accurately, it's that "great", or aesthetic value generally, is not a concept that makes sense without some kind of value system being imposed by a human listener (or, more broadly, a society).


Imposed? Sure, there's much to that. But where do humans get their "value systems"? Where do the specific elements that people value in their art come from? What makes something "artistic" or "aesthetic" - or "beautiful" - in the first place? Why isn't it satisfactory to humans to design everything for simple utility? The questions proliferate, and pure subjectivism is proving not only feeble in addressing them, but disinclined - for obvious reasons, I think - even to ask them, if it thinks of them at all.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> The World thinks that Beethoven's 9th is his greatest.
> _No, the World doesn't think that._
> Well then, all music lovers think Beethoven's 9th is his greatest.
> _No. All music lovers do not think that._
> ...


But nobody's asking about them, but about the ones that do. Those who know anything about the ninth at all and who find it a curate's egg are a distinct minority. The question concerned the majority.


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> If a composer has utilized the materials of his particular art in a way that's masterful, and that people who have a grasp of the characteristics of that sort of art and can divine the composer's artistic intent can recognize as masterful, whence comes the assumption that all listeners, regardless of their musical understanding and taste, must be able to recognize the mastery? Strange Magic keeps asserting this notion, and I keep challenging it, and I get no answer.


In loose terms, what you're describing is a value system, and a group of people who share that value system. 

SM can say what SM wants - my position is that if one's value system raises the concept of craftsmanship (to reduce "utilizing the materials of art in a masterful way" to a single term) as the _acme_ of art, this value system is not something which must hold for all listeners, and that while one can insist all they want that someone recognize great craftsmanship, one can't insist that someone else _value_ it a certain way. 

If someone's value system thinks originality and spontaneity are more valuable in art than craftsmanship, who is correct?


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> But nobody's asking about them, but about the ones that do. Those who know anything about the ninth at all and who find it a curate's egg are a distinct minority. The question concerned the majority.


If 90% of people think a car going 76mph is "fast", is it necessary that I explain the reason that there is consensus on this before it's accepted that "fast" is a subjective term?


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> It's no longer possible even to laugh about such a statement. One just glazes over with mouth hanging open, trying to formulate a response, or not.
> 
> Why doesn't everyone recognize anything that not everyone recognizes? And why should everyone value anything at all in exactly the same way? Where is the strawman you're trying to torch, or the windmill you're tilting at?


I'd like to see a photo of the glazed look with open mouth--a little levity perhaps. My dream is that someday understanding will come to those treading in darkness. I think I'll watch somebody plunge their hand into boiling water and pronounce it refreshing.

If excellence is not in the object--and it isn't--then the enormous variables of perception and experience, and neurology account fully for the lack of agreement among perceivers. These are the same perceivers who we are reassured will see the objective excellence uniformly--they won't? Why on Earth not?, just as they watch the water boil at 100 degrees and all agree on what they saw. I am not drooling over others' inability to grasp my argument, but just watching and wondering. My conclusion? The wrenching is too great to bear.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> Speaking of a logical argument: So there is nothing significant about your arguments that Michael Haydn has been unfairly ignored.


_unfairly_ _ignored_? I didn't say that. I just said he's _ignored_, and I used the phenomenon as an example to explain my views of people's conception of greatness or profundity. It makes us question what is inherent in Mozart's music that objectively sets him apart from Haydn.
Of course I myself will always root for Mozart, but I'm not the kind to indulge in "blind idolatry" so I can't help but thinking - what if people were taught from youth to think subjectively that—
-In terms of dissonance, chromaticism, and vocal-writing, Mozart isn't really that special.
-Haydn's requiem of 1771 isn't sketchy like Mozart's (which gets disappointing with its jubilant Sanctus and all the parts "not sounding like Mozart"), the structure of Haydn's Dies irae, which incorporates the Confutatis and Lacrimosa, is dramatic in a way Mozart's is not.
-At least Haydn didn't write fluff like Cosi fan tutte, and "potboiler" concert pieces of Alberti bass.
-Mozart's early works can't match Haydn's in terms of harmony and counterpoint,
etc.


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> my position is that if one's value system raises the concept of craftsmanship (to reduce "utilizing the materials of art in a masterful way" to a single term) as the _acme_ of art, this value system is not something which must hold for all listeners, and that while one can insist all they want that someone recognize great craftsmanship, one can't insist that someone else _value_ it a certain way.
> 
> If someone's value system thinks originality and spontaneity are more valuable in art than craftsmanship, who is correct?


Neither is correct or incorrect. Different works are good in different ways, and different listeners are entitled to value one thing more than another. We're incorrect only if we make judgments based on a failure to appreciate achievement. For example, I appreciate the brilliance - both the originality and the skill - of Stravinsky's Violin Concerto. I simply don't care for it. My personal taste is neither correct nor incorrect, but I would be incorrect to deny Stravinsky's accomplishment as the creator of fresh, intelligent, interesting and effective music.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> It isn't even "it's great because people think it's great." It's "people think it's great because they do."
> 
> If I recall rightly, that was considered the epitome of rationality when I was around three years old, give or take a year.


It is great. We all say so, so it must be true. (Actually we don't all say so. I learned that at the age of three.)


----------



## hammeredklavier

Red Terror said:


> Decades of marketing/brainwashing have convinced some of you that Bach can never be equaled. However, to my ears (and many others), Zelanka was every bit the composer Bach was.





Tasto solo said:


> A lot of very subjective contributions to this thread - how on earth can you rationally define a composer's "level" or "genius"? It is always going to be a matter of taste and I fully respect those who are touched more by Rameau or Monteverdi as I respect those for whom there is no "equal" to Bach. What I dislike, and thankfully this thread has generally steered clear, is the Bach cult which try to beatify this composer (ironically the worst thing he could imagine happening after his death judging by his piety) with their "Bach is God speaking through music" nonsense. Bach was a very clever composer and I adore a lot of his music. But I see too much the pattern and repetition in his music to be deeply moved by it. I am much more strongly moved by the music of Zelenka and Graupner who, like Bach, developed very unique personal styles, but could employ counterpoint with a more human touch and (especially in Graupner's case) orchestrated much better than Bach and achieved a much broader range of tone colours. They also developed their styles considerably in their later life whereas Bach, Handel and others basically stayed in their box. So these two composers are generally above Bach's "level" for me, if we want to speak in these simplistic and subjective terms!





Tasto solo said:


> I still stand wholeheartedly by what I wrote: The b minor mass is over-hyped in my view. Many people who talk with hyperbole about Bach's mass have never heard a note of Heinichen, Zelenka, Ristori, Hasse etc, composers who worked in the location and context for which Bach composed the initial Kyrie-Gloria and quite probably the remaining sections over a decade later. The b minor mass has some wonderful moments but for me it does not have the impact of some of the great masses of the composers I mentioned. I find Bach's approach to assemble a mass by recycling movements from various Lutheran cantatas is inferior to the holistic approach, especially of Zelenka, who clearly composed his masses from scratch and often has recurring themes... See e.g. the Missa Divi Xaverii which is quite a good example of that.


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> Neither is correct or incorrect. Different works are good in different ways, and different listeners are entitled to value one thing more than another. We're incorrect only if we make judgments based on a failure to appreciate achievement. For example, I appreciate the brilliance - both the originality and the skill - of Stravinsky's Violin Concerto. I simply don't care for it. My personal taste is neither correct nor incorrect, but I would be incorrect to deny Stravinsky's accomplishment as the creator of fresh, intelligent, interesting and effective music.


I've said similar things, in fact. Like I said - "Meyerbeer was a better composer than Wagner" is a question of taste and can't be proven correct or incorrect until the listener makes it clear _why_ they think he is "better". "Meyerbeer was a better composer than Wagner because his works were more influential and have remained popular through the years" is outright wrong, and that's because that statement implies a specific value system to evaluate two bodies of work by.

The fact that we can value different aspects of art differently, or not value them at all is in fact the lynchpin of my model of aesthetic subjectivity. None of this is to try to diminish works, achievements, craftsmanship, etc - only to say that the greatness of art must be understood within certain subjective value systems.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> But nobody's asking about them, but about the ones that do. Those who know anything about the ninth at all and who find it a curate's egg are a distinct minority. The question concerned the majority.


You polled! You found a majority. Elvis is cast down from his throne. I thought polling was a bad thing.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> If 90% of people think a car going 76mph is "fast", is it necessary that I explain the reason that there is consensus on this before it's accepted that "fast" is a subjective term?


Why don’t you commit yourself instead of asking irrelevant questions. Do you or do you not think there are any objective parameters that have distinguished some composers and their works over others over decades and/or centuries. Because so far, in spite of your recent post saying that no one here (or almost no one if memory serves) is taking extreme positions, your position appears to be that of SM‘s extreme subjectivity.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> I'd like to see a photo of the glazed look with open mouth--a little levity perhaps. My dream is that someday understanding will come to those treading in darkness. I think I'll watch somebody plunge their hand into boiling water and pronounce it refreshing.
> 
> If excellence is not in the object--and it isn't--then the enormous variables of perception and experience, and neurology account fully for the lack of agreement among perceivers. These are the same perceivers who we are reassured will see the objective excellence uniformly--they won't? Why on Earth not?, just as they watch the water boil at 100 degrees and all agree on what they saw. I am not drooling over others' inability to grasp my argument, but just watching and wondering. My conclusion? The wrenching is too great to bear.


I asked a question: *why should everyone perceive or value anything at all in exactly the same way?* Who is "reassuring" you that everyone will "see objective excellence uniformly"? I want to know where you get this idea. Find me someone who has denied that individual perspective and preference plays a role - a significant role - in our response to art. The only thing I'm denying, glazed over and slack-jawed in either exasperation or amazement, is your contention that subjective preference is the whole of aesthetics. And yes, you did say that, lest anyone forget what we're dealing with.

So how about it? Take another shot at actually answering a question asked?


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> Imposed? Sure, there's much to that. But where do humans get their "value systems"? Where do the specific elements that people value in their art come from? What makes something "artistic" or "aesthetic" - or "beautiful" - in the first place? Why isn't it satisfactory to humans to design everything for simple utility? The questions proliferate, and pure subjectivism is proving not only feeble in addressing them, but disinclined - for obvious reasons, I think - even to ask them, if it thinks of them at all.


Studying the nature of aesthetic reactions themselves strikes me as a really important aspect of what has been called "subjectivity". In fact, it's attempts to reduce aesthetics to inherent, objective features in the work that seem less inclined with the listener. If a model exists that can prove "beauty" objectively, the listener doesn't matter at all. Rather than look at why people have the reactions they do, we simply suppose that David found the secret chord that praised the Lord.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> I asked a question: *why should everyone perceive or value anything at all in exactly the same way?* Who is "reassuring" you that everyone will "see objective excellence uniformly"? I want to know where you get this idea. Find me someone who has denied that individual perspective and preference plays a role - a significant role - in our response to art. The only thing I'm denying, glazed over and slack-jawed in either exasperation or amazement, is your contention that subjective preference is the whole of aesthetics. And yes, you did say that, lest anyone forget what we're dealing with.
> 
> So how about it? Take another shot at actually answering a question asked?


Simplicity itself. Objective truths, facts, data are those that are perceived by all not suffering from a brain lesion or, in this case, in the grip of a powerful ideology that holds some in bands of steel. Water does boil under STP at 100 degrees. Everybody in the class saw the same thing.


----------



## fbjim

Lack of unanimity is less important than the idea that objective facts exist _regardless_ of human perception.

To take things to an admitted absurdity, if 100% of people think 400F is "hot", this is still not proof that "hot" is an objective concept.


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> Studying the nature of aesthetic reactions themselves strikes me as a really important aspect of what has been called "subjectivity". In fact, it's attempts to reduce aesthetics to inherent, objective features in the work that seem less inclined with the listener. If a model exists that can prove "beauty" objectively, the listener doesn't matter at all. Rather than look at why people have the reactions they do, we simply suppose that David found the secret chord that praised the Lord.


The idea of a "model" for beauty is an immediate simplification, and thus falsification, of how art works. It's looking in the wrong places. And, again, it's a semantic problem; the word has more than one meaning. I think this is a pitfall and problem of all these attempts to talk about art.


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> The idea of a "model" for beauty is an immediate simplification, and thus falsification, of how art works. It's looking in the wrong places. And, again, it's a semantic problem; the word has more than one meaning. I think this is a pitfall and problem of all these attempts to talk about art.


Well, I certainly don't believe such a model exists!

To put it another way, statements that our reactions to art are simply observations of inherent aspects of the art that we passively take in, at least to me, constitutes an attempt to write the listener out of the equation. If these aspects are inherent and undeniable, we don't have to consider listeners at all. This is attractive in itself because listeners are so unpredictable. 

For me, this isn't how I believe art works - I view it as an active interaction between a listener and a work - or, to be romantic, a dialogue between audience and artist.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> Presumably you have some experience with classical music. Are you not able to ‘explain‘ why certain works are popular? Do I have to take you by the hand and explain why Mozart’s Le Nozze di Figaro or Beethoven’s 9th is popular?


Sure, go ahead, but why is it always long works like the B minor mass, or 1~3 hour long operas, symphonies that are described in this way in threads like this? Look at how _Pachelbel's canon_ has spoken to so many people. pure and simple.


----------



## Strange Magic

fbjim said:


> Well, I certainly don't believe such a model exists!
> 
> To put it another way, statements that our reactions to art are simply observations of inherent aspects of the art that we passively take in, at least to me, constitutes an attempt to write the listener out of the equation. If these aspects are inherent and undeniable, we don't have to consider listeners at all. This is attractive in itself because listeners are so unpredictable.
> 
> For me, this isn't how I believe art works - I view it as an active interaction between a listener and a work - or, to be romantic, a dialogue between audience and artist.


Once a piece leaves the composer's hands, there is more of a mirrored monologue than a dialogue in my view.. The art object either mirrors some or all of the individual's expectations projected onto it, or it doesn't..


----------



## fbjim

Strange Magic said:


> Once a piece leaves the composer's hands, there is more of a mirrored monologue than a dialogue in my view.. The art object either mirrors some or all of the individual's expectations projected onto it, or it doesn't..


It's a metaphor and not a literal statement, but I do sometimes ask myself things like "what is this work _saying_". It's a model, but a pretty useful one for me.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> But nobody's asking about them, but about the ones that do. Those who know anything about the ninth at all and who find it a curate's egg are a distinct minority. The question concerned the majority.


It depends on what you mean by "to know". Of course so many people in the world have heard the symphony at least once in their lives and still don't care about it. Last time I checked you said you were sickened by the overexposure.


----------



## hammeredklavier

.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> Sure, go ahead, but why is it always long works like the B minor mass, or 1~3 hour long operas, symphonies that are described in this way in threads like this? Look at how _Pachelbel's canon_ has spoken to so many people. pure and simple.


You must have an interesting CM playlist: Works such as Pachelbel’s Canon from a ‘Classical Music for Beginners’ cd.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Simplicity itself. Objective truths, facts, data are those that are perceived by all not suffering from a brain lesion or, in this case, in the grip of a powerful ideology that holds some in bands of steel. Water does boil under STP at 100 degrees. Everybody in the class saw the same thing.


Thank you.This is an example of "proof by definition." As you know, words have connotations as well as definitions, and the connotations can be alternative definitions. If "objective" means only what you define it as, then it might seem to make sense to say that objectively bad music must be perceivable as equally bad by every normal brain. But what if art is just something too complex for "every normal brain" to process equally well? The boiling point of water is comprehensible to the brain of a child, but even your beloved sciences present ideas much older normal brains have difficulty with. Is special relativity an objective description of the universe? Quantum mechanics? The big bang theory of where I and my consciousness came from? I for one have never seen evidence of any of them, and can only accept their validity provisionally, unlike the validity of the statement "Bach was musical genius," which I can easily experience first hand. But perhaps it's best not to seem to want to perpetuate spurious comparisons between art and science...

By a less narrow conception of "objective," the question for art is whether it makes sense to evaluate a piece of art at all. If "bad" music, for example, can mean music that evinces mediocrity of inspiration and technique - music that falters by the criteria implicit in its own clearly expressed aesthetic frame - then it makes no difference to its incompetence whether a given individual can hear its faults or not. Indeed, it would be surprising if every individual could. It's very largely by criteria manifested internally by the work, with reference to a stylistic frame embodied in its structures, that we recognize the exceptional achievements of artists we judge as great, and recognize differences in the magnitude of creative intellect exhibited by different artists and different works in all fields, even in styles of art for which we have little sympathy. A major criterion of excellence in art (at least art intended purely to be experienced for its own sake) is that it make sense in terms of its own content, which sounds simple but is not. The wastebaskets of artists everywhere are full of work that's bursting with interesting ideas but simply fails to sustain its own argument, and even a lot of music that escaped the circular file leaves us thinking, "Well, I'm glad his E-flat symphony isn't as meandering, repetitive and bombastic as the one in D minor, and that the movements sound more like parts of the same work. Experience obviously taught him something." Such judgments of compositional mastery are accurate and quite easily made by many, and whether they match the scientific idea of "objectivity" is really uninteresting.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> You must have an interesting CM playlist: Works such as Pachelbel’s Canon from a ‘Classical Music for Beginners’ cd.


So Mozart is often described as "too accessible"; he must be not great.
What do you think of Forster's comment: "it's a curious paradox that we (sorry, "some of us") like to feel that we're in the avant-garde, smarter than the average bear, but, simultaneously, want to be in the big gang that recognises the same tastes, thereby validating our own."


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> To put it another way, statements that our reactions to art are simply observations of inherent aspects of the art that we passively take in, at least to me, constitutes an attempt to write the listener out of the equation. If these aspects are inherent and undeniable, we don't have to consider listeners at all. This is attractive in itself because listeners are so unpredictable.
> 
> For me, this isn't how I believe art works - I view it as an active interaction between a listener and a work - or, to be romantic, a dialogue between audience and artist.


It's already been said or implied many times, I think, but no one has proffered the idea of art perception which you're arguing against. No one claims that "our reactions to art are simply observations of inherent aspects of the art that we passively take in," and I don't see anything "attractive" about such a notion. One of the fascinations of enjoying art is trying to discern what the artist intends and holding our suppositions about the work in mind as we experience our own personal take on it. Of course it's also rewarding to try to divest ourselves of our usual prejudices and put ourselves behind the ears or eyes of the artist or his contemporary audience. This can never be absolutely successful, but can yield interesting and worthwhile dividends, especially when allied with scholarship as in the "HIP" early music movement.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> So Mozart is often described as "too accessible"; he must be not great..


Show me where Mozart is often described as ‘too accessible’. And feel free to judge greatness on whatever thin, irrelevant, superficial parameters you wish.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Woodduck: *"But what if art is just something too complex for "every normal brain" to process equally well? The boiling point of water is comprehensible to the brain of a child, but even your beloved sciences present ideas much older normal brains have difficulty with. Is special relativity an objective description of the universe? Quantum mechanics? The big bang theory of where I and my consciousness came from? I for one have never seen evidence of any of them, and can only accept their validity provisionally, unlike the validity of the statement "Bach was musical genius," which I can easily experience first hand. But perhaps it's best not to seem to want to perpetuate spurious comparisons between art and science...


Love the first quoted "question" above. Art is definitely for the Few, the Proud, the Good Genes (abnormal brains). Babbittry again. As to the sciences, you will enjoy reading the book I mentioned previously, _The Scientific Sublime_ by Alan Gross. Gross points out what many writers about science know, that, whether we fully understand a theory or not, the ones you mention above have met every test of validity asked of them and made predictions that have been proven correct, as have evolution, plate tectonics, and the expanding universe. The validity of Bach (bless him!) being a musical genius is sustained aloft by the fact that many people think he is--a different kettle of fish entirely.

To yet again restate my position, I postulate A) that all esthetics are personal, subjective, valid, unique, and B) that art does not rise to profundity in the sense of piercing through a myriad welter of seemingly unconnected phenomena to reveal an integrating, overarching truth binding those phenomena together. Or equaling the profundity of the questions addressed by science. Or equaling the profundity of the solutions to those questions.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> That so many sense wonderfulness is an objective fact. What are we to make of those not sensing the wonderfulness? Are they diseased? Immoral? And I do keep it brief. I'll bet you find wonderful everything you like.


Why doesn't everyone 'sense' the great achievements in the sciences? We could all list the reasons.


----------



## BachIsBest

fbjim said:


> Lack of unanimity is less important than the idea that objective facts exist _regardless_ of human perception.


But nobody has written "Bach's artistic greatness is an objective fact in the sense that it exists independently of human perception", so I'm not sure what the point is?

I would also like to point out that the only way we arrive at "objective facts" is through "human perception", so to then claim that these facts exists regardless of human perception seems to put you in a bit of an epistemological pickle.


----------



## Luchesi

BachIsBest said:


> But nobody has written "Bach's artistic greatness is an objective fact in the sense that it exists independently of human perception", so I'm not sure what the point is?
> 
> I would also like to point out that the only way we arrive at "objective facts" is through "human perception", so to then claim that these facts exists regardless of human perception seems to put you in a bit of an epistemological pickle.


You're right, but I think we must assume we're talking about humans and the human world of experience.


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> Why doesn't everyone 'sense' the great achievements in the sciences? We could all list the reasons.


Not everyone is presented with the findings of science, though a good scientifically-oriented writer or teacher can provide the material for such understanding. Unhappily, certain ideologies render some incapable of accepting scientific proofs. I thought this up while getting my second COVID booster and wondering if the Earth was really only 6,000 years old.


----------



## Strange Magic

BachIsBest said:


> But nobody has written "Bach's artistic greatness is an objective fact in the sense that it exists independently of human perception", so I'm not sure what the point is?
> 
> I would also like to point out that the only way we arrive at "objective facts" is through "human perception", so to then claim that these facts exists regardless of human perception seems to put you in a bit of an epistemological pickle.


Did the dinosaurs exist? Did the moon exist prior to somebody seeing it? Bishop Berkeley, watch out! Help is on the way.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> Not everyone is presented with the findings of science, though a good scientifically-oriented writer or teacher can provide the material for such understanding. Unhappily, certain ideologies render some incapable of accepting scientific proofs. I thought this up while getting my second COVID booster and wondering if the Earth was really only 6,000 years old.


A very few people are privy to a good musical education. What's been yours?


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Love the first quoted "question" above. Art is definitely for the Few, the Proud, the Good Genes (abnormal brains). Babbittry again. As to the sciences, you will enjoy reading the book I mentioned previously, _The Scientific Sublime_ by Alan Gross. Gross points out what many writers about science know, that, whether we fully understand a theory or not, the ones you mention above have met every test of validity asked of them and made predictions that have been proven correct, as have evolution, plate tectonics, and the expanding universe. The validity of Bach (bless him!) being a musical genius is sustained aloft by the fact that many people think he is--a different kettle of fish entirely.
> 
> To yet again restate my position, I postulate A) that all esthetics are personal, subjective, valid, unique, and B) that art does not rise to profundity in the sense of piercing through a myriad welter of seemingly unconnected phenomena to reveal an integrating, overarching truth binding those phenomena together. Or equaling the profundity of the questions addressed by science. Or equaling the profundity of the solutions to those questions.


Art neither equals nor fails to equal science in "profundity," since art doesn't do what science does. The word is applied in different senses, and so comparison has no meaning. You're merely expressing a personal feeling disguised as an argument (a genuinely subjectivist thing to do, I guess).

Similarly, the dismissal of the possibility of inherent aesthetic values based on the fact that our way of perceiving art is different in some ways from our way of perceiving the physical world relies on a spurious comparison and impresses only those whom it impresses. It impresses only the "right people," the members of the Subjectivist Brotherhood, the Aristocracy of Metaphysical Bean Counters. Working artists through the ages, who know a hawk from a handsaw - or a brilliant manuscript from kindling - just shrug.


----------



## Forster

Woodduck said:


> What does it mean for art to "exist regardless of human perception"? Does it mean merely to be a piece of paper with squiggles of ink on it? And since every work of art is perceived by at least one person, does the artist count?
> [...]


Did this get answered? In fbjim's statement, It isn't the 'art' that exists regardless of human perception, but the inherent aspects of the art that define it as good/great (etc).



Woodduck said:


> Why? I would call it nutty to think that there is NOTHING inherent the music of Prokofiev to make it pleasing to two different people, or to millions. You might as well say that there is nothing inherent in art itself to make most of mankind virtually obsessed with it. *Rhythmic energy, vivid and evocative colors, striking shifts and contrasts of texture, original melodic and harmonic turns that surprise us yet seem right.*.. Something there for almost everyone, wouldn't you say? Something "inherent," something for the mind and body to resonate with?


I'll not speak for SM, but here's an example where the pursuit of two different goals is evident, partly explaining why some members are "talking past each other". Woodduck offers criteria to form the basis of an evaluation of the work of Prokofiev. Each might need some separate examination (especially that final 'seem right'), but let's just accept them at face value for now. They work as an evaluation for Woodduck of the worth of whichever of SP's work he had in mind (though I daresay more than one). Another listener, equally competent to judge, may not hear any of these things; may indeed hear dull, colourless, sluggish, familiar melodies.

However, my point is that such evaluations may be acceptable as stand-alone judgements for individual works, or even composers, but not for comparative and superlative judgements that lead to such decisions as "LvB's 9th is the greatest symphony ever written."

I'm not sure why this debate persists if most members entering it all agree that we can evaluate a piece of music on its own terms, and the supposed "extreme objectivist" position (that, for example, it can be shown without reference to polling or to subjective responses that LvB's 9th is the greatest symphony) doesn't actually exist here Let's not worry about the wider world). I know SM has simultaneously stated that he does assume the extreme subjectivist stance that all art is of equal merit, and yet that he nevertheless rates some music higher than others, so I'm not sure that he is quite as extreme as he claims.

I'm sure a poll, setting out the different degrees of objectivity/subjectivity that we might subscribe to would at least settle the question, "Are there really extremes of these positions actually held by anyone posting here?" but not being a fan of polls, I'm disinclined to set one out.


----------



## Forster

Regardless of my liking for polls, I've attempted to rough out 5 different positions. You are welcome to suggest ways to improve on the wording, and on the number of positions.


Extreme subjective: All music is of equal merit because all evaluations of music depend on subjective responses, not on any inherent attributes of the music. I do not rank music, I merely listen to it and enjoy what I will.
Subjective: All music is of equal merit because all evaluations of music depend on subjective responses, not on any inherent attributes of the music. But I nevertheless evaluate what I enjoy and in doing so, rank some musical works higher than others.
Balanced: Can see both sides of the argument, but remain uncommitted to either.
Objective: Not all music is of equal merit. The test of time has clearly established that some composers have created works that can be shown to be ‘great’. However, it’s not clear what the inherent attributes of that music are that make it ‘great’.
Extreme Objective: Not all music is of equal merit. The test of time has clearly established that some composers have created works that can be shown, by reference to inherent attributes in them, to be not only great, but superior to others. The merit of such works is evident, regardless of whether it is evident to all.


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> A very few people are privy to a good musical education. What's been yours?


College texts and independent reading. Many decades listening if that counts. I never took a course in sea kayaking but have written and edited many articles about it neither as professional nor educator. And I have led hundreds of SK trips. Loving CM and knowing a bit about it plus a little about logic and evidence accounts perhaps for my bizarre (to some) views. How many TC members are professional musicians (he wondered)? Is CM mostly for them?


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> Show me where Mozart is often described as ‘too accessible’.


For example,


hammeredklavier said:


> How exactly? For example, are these people, mikeh375, tdc, Kreisler jr, doing exactly what you describe, with Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Bach?
> 
> mikeh375: "I too think Mozart is overrated. Imv, he is too easy to listen to with 21stC hindsight and I feel that music these days has more traits worth exploring than immediacy of appeal. Don't shout at me though, I mean, I am an owner of the complete Phillips Edition. It's just that he is relegated these days to background whilst playing Scrabble in my household....uh oh.....sorry Mozart fans."


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Forster: *
> 
> Extreme subjective: All music is of equal merit because all evaluations of music depend on subjective responses, not on any inherent attributes of the music. I do not rank music, I merely listen to it and enjoy what I will.
> Subjective: All music is of equal merit because all evaluations of music depend on subjective responses, not on any inherent attributes of the music. But I nevertheless evaluate what I enjoy and in doing so, rank some musical works higher than others


I like your breakdown! Nicely summarized. I would say that your position #1 applies only to robots. Everybody ranks music--can't help it. Your #2 category, like #1, repeats the language that all music is of equal value. To a robot, yes. To a committed subjectivist and individualist, the concept of an extra-human, extra-personal attribute of either equality or inequality is not even a dot on the horizon, as both these concepts presuppose a view of art "from the outside". No such thing. #3, #4, and #5 ultimately rely upon individual and shared opinion (polling) to establish whatever ranking is given to art objects, all statements to the contrary set aside as not demonstrable. Art objects just are.

So I'll accept a stance as a modified second position listener. 😇


----------



## hammeredklavier

BachIsBest said:


> But nobody has written "Bach's artistic greatness is an objective fact in the sense that it exists independently of human perception", so I'm not sure what the point is?


What if we use the term "glorified" instead of "great" in all cases, eg. "an objectively glorified composer", "A is a more objectively glorified work than B"? What would be the objection to this?


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> But nobody's asking about them, but about the ones that do. Those who know anything about the ninth at all and who find it a curate's egg are a distinct minority. The question concerned the majority.


"Stravinsky was never moved by the choral finale to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, which he thought a hopelessly banal tune affixed to Schiller's mighty ode of liberation and brotherhood"
books.google.ca/books?id=RidJh6eQNEkC&pg=PA3

Beethoven's Ninth: Reactions vary over the centuries
oregonlive.com/classicalmusic/2008/09/beethovens_ninth_kicks.html

"The fourth movement is, in my opinion, so monstrous and tasteless and, in its grasp of Schiller's 'Ode,' so trivial that I cannot understand how a genius like Beethoven could have written it. I find in it another proof of what I had already noted in Vienna, that Beethoven was wanting in aesthetic feeling and in a sense of the beautiful." -Louis Spohr

"The alpha and omega is Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, marvelous in the first three movements, very badly set in the last. No one will ever approach the sublimity of the first movement, but it will be an easy task to write as badly for voices as in the last movement. And supported by the authority of Beethoven, they will all shout: "That's the way to do it..."" -- Giuseppe Verdi, 1878

+Ravel would have had similar views


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> I couldn't care less about "youthful".


It's something even Mozart's detractors agree about him. You're still cherry-picking; only accepting things about the general consensus that suit your position.

"It is not true that he is the worst of all composers; his prodigious technical skills developed by age six. Sometimes it is not so great to be a prodigy,- I often feel his emotional and dramatic palette is set at the same age. Rather he is the most overrated composer of them all. The difference between the (mediocre) quality of his music and the (celestial) reverance he is accorded is a gulf simply beyond belief.
And they told me: “Listen to the pieces, usually also in minor, where you can hear a contained smoldering prefiguring the romantic era”. Those excerpts do indeed exist, but they actually are the most convincing passages of the fact that the emperor has no clothes, as Mozart always follows them with silly kid-stuff. It is like topping off a fresh-herb flavored veal scallopine with Ready Whip." -Composer Arnold Rosner (sequenza21.com/rosner.html)


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> Regardless of my liking for polls, I've attempted to rough out 5 different positions. You are welcome to suggest ways to improve on the wording, and on the number of positions.
> 
> 
> Extreme subjective: All music is of equal merit because all evaluations of music depend on subjective responses, not on any inherent attributes of the music. I do not rank music, I merely listen to it and enjoy what I will.
> Subjective: All music is of equal merit because all evaluations of music depend on subjective responses, not on any inherent attributes of the music. But I nevertheless evaluate what I enjoy and in doing so, rank some musical works higher than others.
> Balanced: Can see both sides of the argument, but remain uncommitted to either.
> Objective: Not all music is of equal merit. The test of time has clearly established that some composers have created works that can be shown to be ‘great’. However, it’s not clear what the inherent attributes of that music are that make it ‘great’.
> Extreme Objective: Not all music is of equal merit. The test of time has clearly established that some composers have created works that can be shown, by reference to inherent attributes in them, to be not only great, but superior to others. The merit of such works is evident, regardless of whether it is evident to all.


Interesting. According to you I am an Objectivist since I do not believe that all music is of equal value (but I don't recognize this difference in value concerning genres). 

Where your description does not describe me is that I also believe that we respond to and rank music subjectively. At the same time, I am aware of and accept the historical consensus concerning the greatness of certain works and composers separate from my own ranking and preferences. However, the issue of greatness does not influence, nor even factor into, my day-to-day experience of music.

The canon is a historical fact, much like the date of the storming of the Bastille. But historical facts aren't important, unless I happen to be playing Jeopardy!


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> But nobody has written "Bach's artistic greatness is an objective fact in the sense that it exists independently of human perception", so I'm not sure what the point is?
> 
> I would also like to point out that the only way we arrive at "objective facts" is through "human perception", so to then claim that these facts exists regardless of human perception seems to put you in a bit of an epistemological pickle.


I think it plain that the phrase "human perception" stands for the response of any individual listener, not an abstract concept.

I see no pickle.

As for what may or may not have been written about Bach (Anywhere? Here at TC? Or just in this thread?) I recognise the statement as the kind of claim that has been made about Bach, and about other CM composers too.


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> Regardless of my liking for polls, I've attempted to rough out 5 different positions. You are welcome to suggest ways to improve on the wording, and on the number of positions.
> 
> 
> Extreme subjective: All music is of equal merit because all evaluations of music depend on subjective responses, not on any inherent attributes of the music. I do not rank music, I merely listen to it and enjoy what I will.
> Subjective: All music is of equal merit because all evaluations of music depend on subjective responses, not on any inherent attributes of the music. But I nevertheless evaluate what I enjoy and in doing so, rank some musical works higher than others.
> Balanced: Can see both sides of the argument, but remain uncommitted to either.
> Objective: Not all music is of equal merit. The test of time has clearly established that some composers have created works that can be shown to be ‘great’. However, it’s not clear what the inherent attributes of that music are that make it ‘great’.
> Extreme Objective: Not all music is of equal merit. The test of time has clearly established that some composers have created works that can be shown, by reference to inherent attributes in them, to be not only great, but superior to others. The merit of such works is evident, regardless of whether it is evident to all.


4. Subjective: Not all music is of equal merit. The test of time has clearly established that some composers have created works that can be shown to be 'great'. However, the 'test of time' means a long-term consensus of numerous subjective opinions that have resulted in a system of subjective aesthetic values with which music can be evaluated and its greatness measured. It is reasonably clear which inherent attributes of music make it great: those inherent attributes that enable the music to fulfill the criteria of the subjective aesthetic value system being used to evaluate the music.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> _unfairly_ _ignored_? I didn't say that. I just said he's _ignored..._


Okay, I guess I misunderstood all those posts of yours that almost screamed (figuratively) that M.Haydn was unfairly ignored. My apologies, you meant he was fairly ignored.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> For example,
> How exactly? For example, are these people, mikeh375, tdc, Kreisler jr, doing exactly what you describe, with Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Bach?
> 
> mikeh375: "I too think Mozart is overrated. Imv, he is too easy to listen to with 21stC hindsight and I feel that music these days has more traits worth exploring than immediacy of appeal. Don't shout at me though, I mean, I am an owner of the complete Phillips Edition. It's just that he is relegated these days to background whilst playing Scrabble in my household....uh oh.....sorry Mozart fans."


So that is supposed to prove that Mozart is _often said_ to be too accessible?


----------



## BachIsBest

Forster said:


> As for what may or may not have been written about Bach (Anywhere? Here at TC? Or just in this thread?) I recognise the statement as the kind of claim that has been made about Bach, and about other CM composers too.


I meant in this thread, as (believe it or not) I have not checked all of TC or everywhere. Perhaps you could point me to where someone claims "Bach's artistic greatness is an objective fact in the sense that it exists independently of human perception" since you recognise it as the sort of claim that has been made about Bach?


----------



## fbjim

BachIsBest said:


> I meant in this thread, as (believe it or not) I have not checked all of TC or everywhere. Perhaps you could point me to where someone claims "Bach's artistic greatness is an objective fact in the sense that it exists independently of human perception" since you recognise it as the sort of claim that has been made about Bach?


That's the implication that I draw from the idea that aesthetics are inherent features of objects, and not ascribed by humans.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> My apologies, you meant he was fairly ignored.


No, just "ignored". Please stop misrepresenting/misinterpreting what I said about him. You got to stop thinking of it in terms of "fairness" and "unfairness", cause they're subjective.
It's the objectivists who are unable to explain the difference between "the greatly regarded" and "the popular" objectively.


hammeredklavier said:


> "Strawberry tastes better than cheese" is a subjective statement, whereas "strawberry tastes more like raspberry than cheese" is an objective statement. There's an uncanny relationship between Mozart and the forgotten composer, in stylistic intricacies and angularities of chromaticism, and mercurial qualities in instrumental melody and vocal writing, like how strawberry tastes like raspberry. I believe the existence of this relationship to be more "objective" than anything.


I see these 18th century composers in terms of styles; for instance, there's a reason why Mozart's style of harmony and orchestration was once seen as "grating", and the style of Una cosa rara was seen as more desirable than that of Le nozze di Figaro. (See the 1789 review in Cramer's magazine, of the dissonance quartet). criteria for judging artistry aren't absolute/universal; they change with place, time, perspective.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> By the way, yes I do, hammered. I'm not saying X is great because so many say X is; I'm asking _why_ so many think X is great.


Maybe because X is superficially appealing, sentimental, or over the top, or have attractive concepts (eg. "avantgardists of their time", "tortured artists", "musical philosophers", "masters of universal laws of complexity/simplicity") etc?
But the dedicated fans who would defend X against all criticisms at all costs will always say otherwise.
Btw, not to discredit Beethoven in any way, I find it a bit funny the objectivists always avoid directly addressing or answering any questions about the objectivity of Beethoven's late fugal writing, for example.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> So that is supposed to prove that Mozart is _often said_ to be too accessible?


So what's your point? Are you saying there's a fundamental difference between how the Queen of the Night aria, for example, is popular, and how Pachelbel's canon is?


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> So what's your point? Are you saying there's a difference between how the Queen of the Night aria, for example, is popular, and how Pachelbel's canon is?


My point is that you said it is often said that Mozart is too accessible and when I asked you to show me where that is _often said_ you gave me only one example which raises the question about what you consider to be ‘_often_’. Nice try changing the subject.


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> I meant in this thread, as (believe it or not) I have not checked all of TC or everywhere. Perhaps you could point me to where someone claims "Bach's artistic greatness is an objective fact in the sense that it exists independently of human perception" since you recognise it as the sort of claim that has been made about Bach?


Well I looked across TC and found a thread discussing this exact point.









Is JS Bach the greatest composer of all time?


While JS Bach is not the 'favourite' composer of everybody, many still consider him the greatest composer of all time. I saw a reply on a thread saying something like "Music is not a competition, but if it was, JS Bach would win". Do you consider hime to be the 'greatest composer' and if so...




www.talkclassical.com





At least one member makes a case for Bach being the greatest, and not on a purely subjective basis.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> I'd like to see a photo of the glazed look with open mouth--a little levity perhaps. My dream is that someday understanding will come to those treading in darkness. I think I'll watch somebody plunge their hand into boiling water and pronounce it refreshing.
> 
> If excellence is not in the object--and it isn't--then the enormous variables of perception and experience, and neurology account fully for the lack of agreement among perceivers. These are the same perceivers who we are reassured will see the objective excellence uniformly--they won't? Why on Earth not?, just as they watch the water boil at 100 degrees and all agree on what they saw. I am not drooling over others' inability to grasp my argument, but just watching and wondering. My conclusion? The wrenching is too great to bear.


Actually, there is a term for the misconception that some here can't seem to free themselves from: the essentialist fallacy. One can read some well-known essays on this from the 1950s, including those of William Kennick (who happens to have been one of my teachers) and Morris Weitz. But they are really expounding on ideas expressed by Ludwig Wittgenstein, as in his Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Beliefs, taken from lectures given in 1938-1942, which I quoted from earlier. You can see the root of these principles much earlier, for example in the Discourses on Art of Sir Joshua Reynolds, which date from 1769 to 1790, and most significantly in David Hume's On The Standard Of Taste of 1757. Basically, once a few powerful religious institutions lost or abandoned the authority to dictate aesthetic standards, very much including musical ones, some profound thinkers, especially British ones, started thinking about what makes good art good, and ultimately, what makes art, art. Today, the debate has moved far beyond the sort of thing discussed in this and other threads here. But back in the 1950s, there was still some debate on topics like the essentialist fallacy. 
By the way, Wittgenstein was very interested and knowledgeable in traditional western classical music such as that of Beethoven and Brahms. Many of his examples and hypotheticals refer to classical music.


----------



## fbjim

I'm now having acid flashbacks to some extremely bad threads with the namedrop of Sir Joshua Reynolds....


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> I'm now having acid flashbacks to some extremely bad threads with the namedrop of Sir Joshua Reynolds....


Never mind the TC threads of banned posters past, look into Hume and Reynolds yourself.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Regardless of my liking for polls, I've attempted to rough out 5 different positions. You are welcome to suggest ways to improve on the wording, and on the number of positions.
> 
> 
> Extreme subjective: All music is of equal merit because all evaluations of music depend on subjective responses, not on any inherent attributes of the music. I do not rank music, I merely listen to it and enjoy what I will.
> Subjective: All music is of equal merit because all evaluations of music depend on subjective responses, not on any inherent attributes of the music. But I nevertheless evaluate what I enjoy and in doing so, rank some musical works higher than others.
> Balanced: Can see both sides of the argument, but remain uncommitted to either.
> Objective: Not all music is of equal merit. The test of time has clearly established that some composers have created works that can be shown to be ‘great’. However, it’s not clear what the inherent attributes of that music are that make it ‘great’.
> Extreme Objective: Not all music is of equal merit. The test of time has clearly established that some composers have created works that can be shown, by reference to inherent attributes in them, to be not only great, but superior to others. The merit of such works is evident, regardless of whether it is evident to all.


Thanks for the effort to make this list.

According to your list I see that I’m an extreme objectivist. I'm the same in science and the arts.

If someone isn't going to use the objective facts that they can see in scores in their lives, for a deeper appreciation of the achievements, for their continuing education, for an enduring interest far into their retirement years, then I would say that they’re content to be a subjectivist. I understand that very few people who can devote the time to learn the technical side of music. It’s a pity. They don't know what they're missing … and it's the same in all the fields of science. The more you know the more you might be interested, in fact you might end up completely fascinated (changing your life, now that everything’s at a press of a button).

Of course I understand that there are other ways to appreciate things in the sciences and the arts. But nobody has said why I should care about other people's opinions. I'm a research meteorologist and if someone with very little idea about meteorology has a very strong opinion about something I just handle them with kid gloves. I'm not rude, I'm very understanding, as it were. If they want help, I help. 

There's no difference for me in music, I don't know much about painting or architecture (my son's an architect) or dance etc..


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> So what's your point? Are you saying there's a fundamental difference between how the Queen of the Night aria, for example, is popular, and how Pachelbel's canon is?


Yes, the aria is an important part of an opera, and the way the canon is played it's a pleasing progression with a pleasing melody, like a good song. I'm much more impressed by the variations I've played for years, than what people generally like about the piece .


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> Thanks for the effort to make this list.
> 
> According to your list I see that I’m an extreme objectivist. I'm the same in science and the arts.
> 
> If someone isn't going to use the objective facts that they can see in scores in their lives, for a deeper appreciation of the achievements, for their continuing education, for an enduring interest far into their retirement years, then I would say that they’re content to be a subjectivist. I understand that very few people who can devote the time to learn the technical side of music. It’s a pity. They don't know what they're missing … and it's the same in all the fields of science. The more you know the more you might be interested, in fact you might end up completely fascinated (changing your life, now that everything’s at a press of a button).
> 
> Of course I understand that there are other ways to appreciate things in the sciences and the arts. But nobody has said why I should care about other people's opinions. I'm a research meteorologist and if someone with very little idea about meteorology has a very strong opinion about something I just handle them with kid gloves. I'm not rude, I'm very understanding, as it were. If they want help, I help.
> 
> There's no difference, for me in music, I don't know much about painting or architecture (my son's an architect) or dance etc..


I've studied music theory quite a bit, including in music school. I know the difference between diatonic and modal harmony. I know what a half-diminished 7th chord is, and the difference between a rondo, a minuet and a scherzo. I know what a fugue is and how it differs from a canon. I've played in orchestras, bands and chamber music groups and sung in choruses. I can read scores, including orchestral scores. In fact, I can sight sing rather well, or at least could when I was in practice. I could play for you the entire first movement exposition of the Brahms violin concerto or Schubert's Death and the Maiden quartet from memory right now, and I don't even play the violin.
But I am a subjectivist. Go figure.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> ..Btw, not to discredit Beethoven in any way, I find it a bit funny the objectivists always avoid directly addressing or answering any questions about the objectivity of Beethoven's late fugal writing, for example.


I find it funny that subjectivists always avoid directly addressing or answering any questions about the objectivity of Englebert Humperdinck‘s Hansel and Gretel. What are they trying to hide?


----------



## EdwardBast

hammeredklavier said:


> Would you say the same about EB's thoughts on Bruckner's music — that it is meaningless series of sequences and repeititions that go nowhere, and cheap bombastic orchestral sounds?


I didn't write that. That's your inept paraphrase.


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> I didn't write that. That's your inept paraphrase.


Ok, it's just how I interpreted


EdwardBast said:


> In my view it's not primarily different techniques that are at issue or that differentiate their styles. First, and most obviously, Brahms mastered all instrumental genres, Bruckner was a narrow specialist. The implications of this for his understanding of instrumentation and orchestration are apparent in the superiority of Brahms's orchestration and his writing for solo instruments. Brahms's fluent harmonic language, especially his use of modal mixture and his extension of Schubert's language in that regard is more interesting to me than Bruckner's. Brahms was a great melodist. Bruckner … wasn't. Brahms was a master of variations. Bruckner … wasn't. Brahms had a thorough command of structure and his music always knows where it's going. Bruckner didn't and his music doesn't. Brahms doesn't tend to engage in long, sequential repetitions of trivial ideas. Bruckner … .
> 
> So, for me, it's not so much about employing different techniques, it's about my appraisal of their relative mastery of every compositional technique I care about.
> 
> In more general terms, making superficially impressive sounding music for large orchestra always struck me as relatively easy and cheap compared to writing good chamber music.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> I've studied music theory quite a bit, including in music school. I know the difference between diatonic and modal harmony. I know what a half-diminished 7th chord is, and the difference between a rondo, a minuet and a scherzo. I know what a fugue is and how it differs from a canon. I've played in orchestras, bands and chamber music groups and sung in choruses. I can read scores, including orchestral scores. In fact, I can sight sing rather well, or at least could when I was in practice. I could play for you the entire first movement exposition of the Brahms violin concerto or Schubert's Death and the Maiden quartet from memory right now, and I don't even play the violin.
> But I am a subjectivist. Go figure.


Interesting. How would you describe yourself as a subjectivist? Do your likes and dislikes change every year, every decade? Are you somehow swayed by other people's opinions, likes and dislikes? 
You think polls can help you?
What do you base your likes and dislikes upon (in the scores), if you can say?

I’ve been told I’m weird. I look at a 3-D weather diagram/profile (not the TV weather displays) and I'm fascinated by it, as if I was looking at a score, because it's out there in all its beauty and it's moving, having effects, it’s coming at us or going away. It's very very real. Vibrant, real life experiencing, which can all be reduced to objective facts, because we fully understand the mechanisms. No one's opinions make it better or worse.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> Interesting. How would you describe yourself as a subjectivist? Do your likes and dislikes change every year, every decade? Are you somehow swayed by other people's opinions, likes and dislikes?
> You think polls can help you?


No. It's just that I understand that Mozart and Beethoven, and Chopin and Schumann, and Debussy and Stravinsky, etc., all are masters of specific styles. And as impressively complex and sophisticated as those styles may be, and as much skill as those composers showed in mastering them, there is no objectively verifiable validity to them or to any style. Other very different styles are possible, and indeed do exist, and there is no objective way to establish the superiority of one over another. Art, and aesthetics generally, is not a science.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Well I looked across TC and found a thread discussing this exact point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is JS Bach the greatest composer of all time?
> 
> 
> While JS Bach is not the 'favourite' composer of everybody, many still consider him the greatest composer of all time. I saw a reply on a thread saying something like "Music is not a competition, but if it was, JS Bach would win". Do you consider hime to be the 'greatest composer' and if so...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkclassical.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least one member makes a case for Bach being the greatest, and not on a purely subjective basis.


As an extreme objectionist myself, I think the achievements of Bach and Mozart and Schubert and Beethoven and Chopin and Brahms etc. were mostly all different. As happened in the other arts. Is this a contradiction? I don't see why it would be. The effectiveness on us humans is the relevant measure for me, and each composer/artist could use the tools available to them to create the artistically constrained ambiguity which stirs, enlivens/excites us (due to our long natural history).


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> I find it funny that subjectivists always avoid directly addressing or answering any questions about the objectivity of Englebert Humperdinck‘s Hansel and Gretel. What are they trying to hide?


What does this post mean? The objective data about Humperdinck and _Hansel and Gretel_ are doubtless easy to find and quote: when it was created, its reception then and now, how long it is, how many performances it has had over X number of years, who owns the manuscript score now, who was the librettist, what size paper was the score set down on, how many notes, who gave the first performance. It would be very tedious to look up all these objective data points, and I will leave that chore to others. Somebody must have liked the opera if we are still talking about it.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> What does this post mean? The objective data about Humperdinck and _Hansel and Gretel_ are doubtless easy to find and quote: when it was created, its reception then and now, how long it is, how many performances it has had over X number of years, who owns the manuscript score now, who was the librettist, what size paper was the score set down on, how many notes, who gave the first performance. It would be very tedious to look up all these objective data points, and I will leave that chore to others. Somebody must have liked the opera if we are still talking about it.


My very first opera, as a very young child. Too much sugar, even then.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> What does this post mean? The objective data about Humperdinck and _Hansel and Gretel_ are doubtless easy to find and quote: when it was created, its reception then and now, how long it is, how many performances it has had over X number of years, who owns the manuscript score now, who was the librettist, what size paper was the score set down on, how many notes, who gave the first performance. It would be very tedious to look up all these objective data points, and I will leave that chore to others. Somebody must have liked the opera if we are still talking about it.


The post was totally facetious purposely designed to be as ridiculous as possible. Did you not notice the post it was in response to?


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> No. It's just that I understand that Mozart and Beethoven, and Chopin and Schumann, and Debussy and Stravinsky, etc., all are masters of specific styles. And as impressively complex and sophisticated as those styles may be, and as much skill as those composers showed in mastering them, there is no objectively verifiable validity to them or to any style. Other very different styles are possible, and indeed do exist, and there is no objective way to establish the superiority of one over another. Art, and aesthetics generally, is not a science.


Styles are good for effectiveness, as long as the creator understands enough about his intended audience, of their time, or the near future. 

IIRC according Bernstein, aesthetics is a 'science', but I'm not going to try to defend a statement which he probably intended as merely a teachable moment.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> No. It's just that I understand that Mozart and Beethoven, and Chopin and Schumann, and Debussy and Stravinsky, etc., all are masters of specific styles. And as impressively complex and sophisticated as those styles may be, and as much skill as those composers showed in mastering them, there is no objectively verifiable validity to them or to any style. Other very different styles are possible, and indeed do exist, and there is no objective way to establish the superiority of one over another. Art, and aesthetics generally, is not a science.


You seem to be positioning yourself as a subjectivist with respect to the "validity" of styles - whatever that means (I don't understand that use of the term "validity") - but something of an objectivist in judging the work of individual composers. You begin by saying that Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Schumann, Debussy and Stravinsky are "masters of specific styles." How do you arrive at a definition of the style that any of them is a master of, or what mastery of it consists of? How, except by looking at the work of composers you consider exemplary? Doesn't that land you in a circular argument?


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Btw, not to discredit Beethoven in any way, I find it a bit funny the objectivists always avoid directly addressing or answering any questions about the objectivity of Beethoven's late fugal writing, for example.


I can't speak for "the objectivists," I offer no assurances concerning my expertise in "the objectivity of fugal writing" (whatever that is), and I may regret getting involved to any extent at all, but... What are the questions that those irresponsible objectivists always avoid directly addressing or answering? And what is it about Beethoven's fugal writing in particular? Is someone losing sleep over the fact that Beethoven doesn't sound like Buxtehude?


----------



## hammeredklavier

--------


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> Sorry, it's just a pattern I've observed.





hammeredklavier said:


> Ok, it's just how I interpreted


So you just distort what people say and make stuff up.


----------



## hammeredklavier

--------


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> No. It's just that I understand that Mozart and Beethoven, and Chopin and Schumann, and Debussy and Stravinsky, etc., all are masters of specific styles. And as impressively complex and sophisticated as those styles may be, and as much skill as those composers showed in mastering them, there is no objectively verifiable validity to them or to any style. Other very different styles are possible, and indeed do exist, and there is no objective way to establish the superiority of one over another. Art, and aesthetics generally, is not a science.


Just a second - you're mixing your judgements. Keep separate the concepts of mastery and superiority: they are not the same, and it's where confusion arises about what subjectivists/objectivists think.



Woodduck said:


> I can't speak for "the objectivists," I offer no assurances concerning my expertise in "the objectivity of fugal writing" (whatever that is), and I may regret getting involved to any extent at all, but... What are the questions that those irresponsible objectivists always avoid directly addressing or answering? And what is it about Beethoven's fugal writing in particular? Is someone losing sleep over the fact that Beethoven doesn't sound like Buxtehude?


Here's a question that hasn't been answered (I don't think) by an extreme objectivist: how can Luchesi tell from comparing scores which music is the greater? It might not be an important point in the overall thrust of this debate, but he does put it as his first point in declaring his extreme objectivity.


----------



## BachIsBest

Forster said:


> Well I looked across TC and found a thread discussing this exact point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is JS Bach the greatest composer of all time?
> 
> 
> While JS Bach is not the 'favourite' composer of everybody, many still consider him the greatest composer of all time. I saw a reply on a thread saying something like "Music is not a competition, but if it was, JS Bach would win". Do you consider hime to be the 'greatest composer' and if so...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkclassical.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least one member makes a case for Bach being the greatest, and not on a purely subjective basis.


I already stated, in the very post you quoted, that my claim was in relation to this particular thread. Even still, making a case for Bach on not a purely subjective basis is a far cry from making a case Bach is the greatest composer independent of human perception.


----------



## BachIsBest

fbjim said:


> That's the implication that I draw from the idea that aesthetics are inherent features of objects, and not ascribed by humans.


To start, I don't know about you, but when I speak I simply assume my words will be understood in relation to humans and human perception; I have no idea, nor do I care, what mantis shrimp think of Bach.

To address your actual claim, I think this is a false dichotomy. To see this, consider human perception of colour with the caveat that, in the modern era we can, of course, define colour in terms of the wavelength of light. However, what we see in our brain is a sort of "reconstruction" of the light that enters our eyes, so when I say "the grass is green", I am not, at least not when speaking colloquially, saying that the grass reflects wavelength of a certain wavelength, but rather identifying that the grass has a certain property that causes humans to observe it as green. Colour, at least as human's perceive, is not a property of objects independent of human perception; going back to our friends the mantis shrimps, studies have been done on neural responses of mantis shrimps and they likely perceive different wavelengths of light in a manner radically different, and far more sophisticated, from humans and as a result, perceive colour in a radically different manner. If we take the dichotomy you have presented, then we must conclude that "greenness" is not a property of the grass. Personally, I would hold this as an obvious absurdity.


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> I already stated, in the very post you quoted, that my claim was in relation to this particular thread. Even still, making a case for Bach on not a purely subjective basis is a far cry from making a case Bach is the greatest composer independent of human perception.


A short step I'd say, not a far cry at all.

Anyway, I'm satisfied that the "*kind of claim*" (my words) that Bach is the greatest, objectively so, is one that has been made, if not in this particular thread.


----------



## fbjim

BachIsBest said:


> If we take the dichotomy you have presented, then we must conclude that "greenness" is not a property of the grass. Personally, I would hold this as an obvious absurdity.


It's not obvious at all. The wavelength of light reflecting off objects is an objective, measurable quantity, but the concept of "green" depends on that light being perceived by our eyes and brain.

This is not to mention that many cultures, particularly in Asia, do not consider "green" and "blue" to be explicitly different colors, but rather shades of each other, which raises questions of its own. In fact the topic of which, if any, universals in the concepts of color extend across all human cultures is the subject of a great deal of debate.

You _are_ correct that in everyday language we ascribe properties to objects which are in fact products of our perception, because this is how our minds make sense of the world, and how we express it.


To bring this back to art, it is entirely true that we, in everyday language ascribe things to art, nature, events, etc- which are in fact the result of our perceptions. "Beauty" being an obvious answer that is frequently applied to art and nature, but someone awed at the sight of a mountain might call it "profound". This is not, however, proof that the things we ascribe to art are actually inherent to the art in a way which does not depend on human perception (e.g. "objectivity").


----------



## Woodduck

Forster said:


> Regardless of my liking for polls, I've attempted to rough out 5 different positions. You are welcome to suggest ways to improve on the wording, and on the number of positions.
> 
> 
> Extreme subjective: All music is of equal merit because all evaluations of music depend on subjective responses, not on any inherent attributes of the music. I do not rank music, I merely listen to it and enjoy what I will.
> Subjective: All music is of equal merit because all evaluations of music depend on subjective responses, not on any inherent attributes of the music. But I nevertheless evaluate what I enjoy and in doing so, rank some musical works higher than others.
> Balanced: Can see both sides of the argument, but remain uncommitted to either.
> Objective: Not all music is of equal merit. The test of time has clearly established that some composers have created works that can be shown to be ‘great’. However, it’s not clear what the inherent attributes of that music are that make it ‘great’.
> Extreme Objective: Not all music is of equal merit. The test of time has clearly established that some composers have created works that can be shown, by reference to inherent attributes in them, to be not only great, but superior to others. The merit of such works is evident, regardless of whether it is evident to all.


As someone with a strong Aristotelian streak in my makeup, I enjoy this sort of effort to classify things. There's a pleasant sense of power that comes with reinventing the universe, or a least the wheel. The trick is in separating fundamental distinctions from incidental ones, or else the wheel is apt to give us a bumpy ride. With your classifications I had the immediate frustration of not recognizing myself in any of the categories. I'll take you up on your invitation and suggest the following divisions:

1. *Total subjectivist. *The Total Subjectivist holds that any evaluation of music which attributes any kind of excellence or value to it is entirely an importation or imposition of ideas by the evaluator, attributed for any reason and not necessarily related in any demonstrable way to the content of the work. There is no such thing as intrinsic excellence manifested by the work itself, and no opinion concerning its merits which is worth more than any other. To paraphrase Hamlet, nothing in music is good or bad but thinking makes it so. To paraphrase myself, there is no music that deserves to be called "great," and no exercise produced by a first-year theory student that is inherently inferior to the music of Bach, Beethoven Brahms, et al.

2. *Qualified Subjectivist.* The Qualified Subjectivist is not essentially different from the Total Subjectivist. He is merely a Subjectivist who has a hard time actually feeling - as opposed to theoretically believing - that young Jeremy in Counterpoint 101 is producing fugues with as much skill and artistic merit as the fugues of old Johann Sebastian. We can forgive him this spiritual frailty, because he's only human. (I find a parallel between Total and Qualified Subjectivists and atheists and agnostics. The atheist simply rejects the existence of God as undemonstrated and implausible. The agnostic can't disagree in theory, but hopes he might be wrong. Bach can't actually be a gobsmacking genius who composed masterworks, but gee whiz he sure sounds like one.)

3. *Total Objectivist. *The Total Objectivist believes that artistic merit exists in music in specific, precisely measurable, completely describable kinds and quantities. Consequently, musical works can be definitively rated and ranked according to the presence of these definable intrinsic qualities. People may have subjective responses to music that have nothing to do with the objective merits of the work, but such responses are an irrelevant distraction and need to be identified and pulled like weeds from the garden of objectivity. This requirement assumes that people have, or can have, a perfect ability to distinguish relevant from irrelevant responses to music.

4. *Qualified Objectivist. *The Qualified Objectivist believes that differences in artistic merit exist in musical works and can be perceived, but are neither precisely measurable nor completely describable. He also allows for the fact that his responses to music are not pure, unmodified reactions to intrinsic qualities in a work but are colored by his own personal experiences and expectations. He may, if he cares to, distinguish these purely personal reactions from his assessment of a work's qualities with more or less insight and precision. The Qualified Objectivist might thus be considered, to some extent, a subjectivist, but he's committed to judging things as objectively as a given case allows, attaching great importance to identifying the intrinsic qualities in music that inspire his admiration and enjoyment.

Most musicians, I think, are Qualified Objectivists.

I don't see your "balanced" classification as a real category. Not having a position is not having a position. You can't balance the indeterminate. My suspicion is that most of the "balanced" people just enjoy music and don't worry about this sort of thing. Lucky souls.


----------



## mikeh375

Woodduck said:


> ....................Most musicians, I think, are Qualified Objectivists.


yep.


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> 1. *Total subjectivist. *The Total Subjectivist holds that any evaluation of music which attributes any kind of excellence or value to it is entirely an importation or imposition of ideas by the evaluator, attributed for any reason and not necessarily related in any demonstrable way to the content of the work. There is no such thing as intrinsic excellence manifested by the work itself, and no opinion concerning its merits which is worth more than any other. To paraphrase Hamlet, nothing in music is good or bad but thinking makes it so. To paraphrase myself, there is no music that deserves to be called "great," and no exercise produced by a first-year theory student that is inherently inferior to the music of Bach, Beethoven Brahms, et al.


I'm debating between stating my position again, or pounding down a shot of bourbon and declaring myself an extremist in a fit of drunken chutzpah. Or maybe it's because I'm one of those people who overthinks specific word choices. ("deserves to be called 'great'"? When did "deserving" come into this? Is "deserving" an objective quality?").

More seriously, I think you are making the idea that artistic value is a concept that only makes sense within a value system to be far more arbitrary than it really is. In fact, it borders on a tautology. I'm certainly curious as to how a first year theory student's fugue can be declared worse than Bach without the imposition of at least _some_ kind of value system. Forget art - I'm not even sure if "superior" or "inferior" are words which make any sense to use if there is no value system to use them in.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Woodduck said:


> Most musicians, I think, are Qualified Objectivists.


Most people are, unless they have read three books of the wrong kind (the kind of books that claim "consciousness is an illusion" whithout realizing that the concept illusion presupposes something like consciousness).


----------



## hammeredklavier

So by what objective criteria should we evaluate something like this?




Sebastian's way? (Again, I don't mean to discredit Beethoven, by this)


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> Most people are, unless they have read three books of the wrong kind (the kind of books that claim "consciousness is an illusion" whithout realizing that the concept illusion presupposes something like consciousness).


I don't think Woodduck, (who, when discussing objectivity, often talks like "However, when we listen to a Bach concerto or mass, we are not making comparisons but rather simply delighting in the musical inventiveness and mastery on display, and if comparisons come to mind they might simply be a thought such as "This is absolutely incredible!" or "I've never heard the like of this!" or - if we have the context of knowledge - "Telemann is great, but he doesn't achieve this level of either contrapuntal or expressive richness." Haydn, on hearing selections from Bach's Mass in b-minor, is said to have exclaimed, "We shall never compose anything as great as this!"" and imposes this thinking as a condition for 'proper knowledge of objective greatness'), would ever put you in the "Qualified Objectivists" category, if you hold the opinion—

"I grant all kinds of technical contrapuntal wizardry singling Bach out but I don't see how even a rather modest Telemann cantata like "Du aber Daniel gehe hin" or the choruses from the Passion section of Messiah (to stick with the best known, there are plenty of other examples) are not in the same range of expression and gravitas (or Schütz for music 100 years earlier). Of course, unlike inverted triple mirror fugues, "emotional depth" or gravitas are rather vague attributes.

And while this is a bit of negative cherry picking, I think it is odd that the same Bach who supposedly puts deeply symbolic and profound text exegesis into music is let away with the most blatant parodies from totally different texts in the Xmas oratorio (some work better than others, but a few like "Ich will nur dir zu Ehren leben" or that Echo thing I find rather bizarre). Sure, this is baroque as usual but this is precisely the point: Quite a bit of Bach is baroque as usual and not on a lofty higher level of profundity. (Not going into authenticity questions because I don't think this concerns any major works although I have seen a professional organist claim that a third or so of Bach's organ works would have to be counted as dubious.)

Bach is overall mostly contemplative, even in the passions very little is dramatic (it's a few short passages that together amount to 5, at most 10 min. in a 2-3 hours long work, the one or two dramatic arias in an earlier version of the St. John were later cut); there is a whole dimension of dramatic characterization one finds in the best opera (such as Handel and Rameau) that is absent because Bach didn't do opera (neither quasi-operatic oratorios with characters like Saul or Theodora). This is not a "fault" but I think it is just ignored by people who claim that Bach could of course have easily written a great opera. (The point is _not_ that the two Bach passions might be overall better than most or all baroque operas; I would agree with that if I granted that they were easily comparable.)

I also think that in some other works the focus on the concertato style makes some pieces dragged out and less effective. E.g. in the b minor mass the choir is often treated like a concerto soloist. This is of course often to good effect, if it concerns only one 5-8 min. choir like the first of a cantata, but to have a two minute slow instrumental ritornello in the Kyrie I, then basically the same music by the choir and so on is overdoing it a bit.
Even some of the fast/happy choruses lose effect because Bach has to get in 20 bars of instrumental introduction to conform to that concertato style. Or, if Bach apparently realized that this would weaken the effect and starts with the choir (as in "Et resurrexit") one gets a ritornello put in later on during the piece."


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> My point is that you said it is often said that Mozart is too accessible and when I asked you to show me where that is _often said_


I had given you plenty of examples already (What is "Profundity"?--Revisited!)


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> Just a second - you're mixing your judgements. Keep separate the concepts of mastery and superiority: they are not the same, and it's where confusion arises about what subjectivists/objectivists think.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a question that hasn't been answered (I don't think) by an extreme objectivist: how can Luchesi tell from comparing scores which music is the greater? It might not be an important point in the overall thrust of this debate, but he does put it as his first point in declaring his extreme objectivity.


No, I'm one of the few here who isn't mixing mastery and superiority. Mastery of a style is possible and objectively demonstrable. Superiority in terms of inherent value is not. We can only talk about superiority if we take a set of subjective aesthetic values as given.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> Styles are good for effectiveness, as long as the creator understands enough about his intended audience, of their time, or the near future.
> 
> IIRC according Bernstein, aesthetics is a 'science', but I'm not going to try to defend a statement which he probably intended as merely a teachable moment.


Excellent point in your first sentence. But as Wittgenstein said in a famous line I quoted earlier, the idea that aesthetics is a science is "too ridiculous for words".


----------



## Woodduck

mikeh375 said:


> yep.


Spoken like a true musician (and a damn good one too, if I may offer a not particularly qualified objective opinion.)


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> *I'm certainly curious as to how a first year theory student's fugue can be declared worse than Bach without the imposition of at least some kind of value system.* Forget art - I'm not even sure if "superior" or "inferior" are words which make any sense to use if there is no value system to use them in.


Why "imposition"? Of course some criteria are assumed in any question of quality. The first place to look is to the nature of the object and the intentions it embodies, with the assumpion that things that succeed in being what they're evidently intended to be are better than things that fail. Someone whose subjectivism extends to all values (including the non-aesthetic) can (and at some point probably will) argue that success is not intrinsically superior to failure, since "superior" assumes...well, you know. That's when I roll my eyes and find something more rewarding to do. In fact I think there's another singer face-off happening on the opera forum right now. Those present delightful opportunities to compare subjective impressions of individual singers while using others' objective knowledge of singing to increase and refine our own.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> In fact I think there's another singer face-off happening on the opera forum right now. Those present delightful opportunities to compare subjective impressions of individual singers while using others' objective knowledge of singing to increase and refine our own.


When it comes to 'performance of compositions', there's a definite truth of "what is objectively correct"; how the composer intended his compositions to sound. Beethoven is dead now and we can't ask him today if Karajan performed the Beethoven symphonies correctly according to Beethoven's wishes, and there can be some 'controversies' today resulting from our limitations of knowledge of what the composer intended, but the fact remains that at some point in history, ie. during Beethoven's lifetime, people would have known, by consulting him. And by the principle, "we must respect the composer's intentions", there is still an objective truth today how a composition must be performed and is supposed to sound, we just aren't sure of every single little detail because it's lost in history.
The same can't be said about 'artistic creativity of compositions'.


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> 3. *Total Objectivist. *The Total Objectivist believes that artistic merit exists in music in specific, precisely measurable, completely describable kinds and quantities. Consequently, musical works can be definitively rated and ranked according to the presence of these definable intrinsic qualities. People may have subjective responses to music that have nothing to do with the objective merits of the work, but such responses are an irrelevant distraction and need to be identified and pulled like weeds from the garden of objectivity. This requirement assumes that people have, or can have, a perfect ability to distinguish relevant from irrelevant responses to music.
> 
> 4. *Qualified Objectivist. *The Qualified Objectivist believes that differences in artistic merit exist in musical works and can be perceived, but are neither precisely measurable nor completely describable. He also allows for the fact that his responses to music are not pure, unmodified reactions to intrinsic qualities in a work but are colored by his own personal experiences and expectations. He may, if he cares to, distinguish these purely personal reactions from his assessment of a work's qualities with more or less insight and precision. The Qualified Objectivist might thus be considered, to some extent, a subjectivist, but he's committed to judging things as objectively as a given case allows, attaching great importance to identifying the intrinsic qualities in music that inspire his admiration and enjoyment.


I seem to fit somewhere between the Qualified and Total Objectivist, perhaps more former than latter. Maybe an Eclectic Objectivist.


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> I seem to fit somewhere between the Qualified and Total Objectivist, perhaps more former than latter. Maybe an Eclectic Objectivist.


"Somewhere" and "perhaps" are definitely qualifying language. Total objectivism is a theoretical position which I doubt many people actually espouse.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> When it comes to 'performance of compositions', there's a definite truth of "what is objectively correct"; how the composer intended his compositions to sound. Beethoven is dead now and we can't ask him today if Karajan performed the Beethoven symphonies correctly according to Beethoven's wishes, and there can be some 'controversies' today resulting from our limitations of knowledge of what the composer intended, but the fact remains that at some point in history, ie. during Beethoven's lifetime, people would have known, by consulting him. And by the principle, "we must respect the composer's intentions", there is still an objective truth today how a composition must be performed and is supposed to sound, we just aren't sure of every single little detail because it's lost in history.
> The same can't be said about 'artistic creativity of compositions'.


I think most composers expect performances of their works to vary, and even welcome ideas performers may have that they themselves might not have thought of. Wagner wrote to his friend August Roeckel that great art may contain meanings which even the creator hasn't considered. Contrary to your opinion, I think an assessment of a composition's quality _as a composition_ may be more objective than an assessment of a performance. It may even be a testament to a composition's soundness that it "works" in a wide variety of performances, although works vary in the specificity of their expressive intent and, accordingly, in the interpretations they will accommodate.


----------



## BachIsBest

Forster said:


> A short step I'd say, not a far cry at all.
> 
> Anyway, I'm satisfied that the "*kind of claim*" (my words) that Bach is the greatest, objectively so, is one that has been made, if not in this particular thread.


Well, the distance probably depends greatly on the definition of subjective being used, and I would suspect this where our difference in opinion comes in. Regardless, this horse has left the stable and been beaten to death, so it might be best not go down this rabbit hole.


----------



## Kreisler jr

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't think Woodduck, (who, when discussing objectivity, often talks like "However, when we listen to a Bach concerto or mass, we are not making comparisons but rather simply delighting in the musical inventiveness and mastery on display, and if comparisons come to mind they might simply be a thought such as "This is absolutely incredible!" or "I've never heard the like of this!" or - if we have the context of knowledge - "Telemann is great, but he doesn't achieve this level of either contrapuntal or expressive richness." Haydn, on hearing selections from Bach's Mass in b-minor, is said to have exclaimed, "We shall never compose anything as great as this!"" and imposes this thinking as a condition for 'proper knowledge of objective greatness'), would ever put you in the "Qualified Objectivists" category, if you hold the opinion—


What's your point? You think I don't worship Bach sufficiently, therefore I cannot hold an objectivist position?
I don't see the necessary connection, only that you apparently are obsessed with quoting me from old threads where you disagree on some very specific things that have nothing to with the philosophical points (to which you have rarely contributed anything, AFAIK).

To get back to the topic. I think as I have said many times elsewhere that the objectivity of aesthetics is similar to ethics, laws and language. Of course, there is some dependence on human history and perceptive abilities etc. (But it is not at all unlikely that the same is the case for actual as opposed to ideal physics). But I think that conventional systems or systems that have conventions as presuppositions admit objective truth or evaluation. Fairly simple examples are orthography and grammar, more complex ones are systems of law. To find out if a word is spelled correctly or a sentence grammatically correct is IMO far closer to finding out some truth of physics that a preference for vanilla vs. strawberry icecream (that's why I refuse to reserve objectivity only for physics, and of course we don't know how dependent physics might actually be on our cognitive faculties and thus not "absolutely objective" either). And I think aesthetics is another one of such systems, although obviously different again in many aspects.

Laws and systems of jurisdictions are not perfect, they are up for revision, but these revisions work along similar principles and ways of thinking that informed the older versions (such as extension of certain rights to more groups of people etc.), i.e. they are in a way revisions "from within". Similarly, aesthetics is dependent on history and changes with history and specific evaluative criteria can change but these changes are also informed by general principles (as in law). It is hard to explicitly formulate such principles and if one does so, they might seem trite but candidates are probably a balance between "symmetry and surprise", "variety and unity" etc. There is also "emotional depth" (which some call profundity, I guess), Edward Bast described elsewhere how this can be understood in music because certain musical processes are perceived as analoguous to emotional and even physiological ones (like sighing, breathing, bodily movements etc.). Because creativity is far more important in art than in law or grammar, the analogy to these fields (where most people will concede they are not just "subjective") imperfect and it is hard to be precise about the tension/balance between "rule following" and creative deviations.


----------



## BachIsBest

fbjim said:


> It's not obvious at all. The wavelength of light reflecting off objects is an objective, measurable quantity, but the concept of "green" depends on that light being perceived by our eyes and brain.
> 
> This is not to mention that many cultures, particularly in Asia, do not consider "green" and "blue" to be explicitly different colors, but rather shades of each other, which raises questions of its own. In fact the topic of which, if any, universals in the concepts of color extend across all human cultures is the subject of a great deal of debate.


This is a difference in language and translation, not in perception. As far as I know, there is no evidence Asian's peoples eyes work fundamentally differently from the eyes of Englishmen.



fbjim said:


> You _are_ correct that in everyday language we ascribe properties to objects which are in fact products of our perception, because this is how our minds make sense of the world, and how we express it.


Okay, the grass is green is only a subjectively true statement that is a product of our perception and if someone else said that the grass was orange, this person would just be proposing his own, equally valid, perception. Does this really make sense to you? Do you need to have any idea about wavelengths to know this is preposterous?



fbjim said:


> To bring this back to art, it is entirely true that we, in everyday language ascribe things to art, nature, events, etc- which are in fact the result of our perceptions. "Beauty" being an obvious answer that is frequently applied to art and nature, but someone awed at the sight of a mountain might call it "profound". This is not, however, proof that the things we ascribe to art are actually inherent to the art in a way which does not depend on human perception (e.g. "objectivity").


I agree this isn't proof "that the things we ascribe to art are actually inherent to the art in a way which does not depend on human perception", but I'm not sure why you would think that I think it is, since the entire point of my argument was to demonstrate that there are properties of an object that probably partly depended on human perception, or are at least defined in terms of human perception.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> What's your point?


I'll be simple and concise; as in the other thread, you seem to think there's no disagreement at all between you and Woodduck, but the reality is, as long as you think the likes of Handel, Telemann aren't objectively inferior in artistic achievement to Bach, you'll never be in agreement with him in his main points - what he means by "qualified objectivists". I'm sorry if I appeared to be "obsessive", but I think I'm just being realistic about what's really going on and helping us to get straight to the point.



Kreisler jr said:


> old threads where you disagree on some very specific things that have nothing to with the philosophical points (to which you have rarely contributed anything, AFAIK).


Those comments of yours I've quoted are your comparisons of Bach with his contemporaries; there's nothing philosophical whatsoever about them. And why am I suppose to contribute anything about philosophical points? This is a music forum. You once said you "lacked the capability to evaluate harmony" or something like that. That's far more important than any quantities of wordy pretentious paragraphs on philosophy here.


----------



## SanAntone

My wife and I often disagree on whether something is green or blue. Not the royal blue or bright green. The teals and gray toned versions of each color.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> To get back to the topic. I think as I have said many times elsewhere that the objectivity of aesthetics is similar to ethics, laws and language. Of course, there is some dependence on human history and perceptive abilities etc. (But it is not at all unlikely that the same is the case for actual as opposed to ideal physics). But I think that conventional systems or systems that have conventions as presuppositions admit objective truth or evaluation. Fairly simple examples are orthography and grammar, more complex ones are systems of law. To find out if a word is spelled correctly or a sentence grammatically correct is IMO far closer to finding out some truth of physics that a preference for vanilla vs. strawberry icecream (that's why I refuse to reserve objectivity only for physics, and of course we don't know how dependent physics might actually be on our cognitive faculties and thus not "absolutely objective" either). And I think aesthetics is another one of such systems, although obviously different again in many aspects.


This is obviously not the entirety of (not even close to) what Woodduck means by "qualified objectivists" or what me and Woodduck disagree on; why are you saying this to me? Of course a talented clown has to do his things flawlessly to please his audiences; we all know that. _What's your point?_


----------



## fbjim

Human societies have shared definitions of what colors are (and Asian societies frequently considering blue/green to be different shades of the same color is more a difference with what these concepts _are_ than just simple translation). This is where we get into concepts of intersubjectivity, which isn't something I feel qualified to go into detail about - but disagreements on what color (or flavor, or taste) something is exists less in the field of what is objectively correct/incorrect and more about a failure to agree with a socially-accepted concept. In practice, humans in shared societies tend not to disagree much about broad categories of color, but may disagree on other properties- especially so once we get into something as loose as aesthetics.

This is not to mention infamous cases like "dressgate" where there was serious disagreement on the color of an image. Many people were incredulous that others could perceive something as a different color, because a) in most cases, humans in a shared society have relatively consistent definitions of color, meaning that disagreement is very rare, and b) since we ascribe "color" to objects in our minds, the conclusion was that people who disagreed were objectively incorrect in their perception.

This is a bit off topic, but the concept of intersubjectivity (which very loosely can be mapped to "common sense" - emphasis on _common_) does come up, at least indirectly, a lot in music. When someone says "anyone can see that me mashing on the keyboard is worse classical music than Bach, it's common sense", it's an appeal to generally shared aesthetic principles among relatively similar groups of listeners (e.g. classical music aficionados). Notably, these shared principles are not embodied in the music itself, but in shared senses of values (which are frequently inconsistent, even among like-minded individuals).


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> Why "imposition"? Of course some criteria are assumed in any question of quality. The first place to look is to the nature of the object and the intentions it embodies, with the assumpion that things that succeed in being what they're evidently intended to be are better than things that fail. Someone whose subjectivism extends to all values (including the non-aesthetic) can (and at some point probably will) argue that success is not intrinsically superior to failure, since "superior" assumes...well, you know. That's when I roll my eyes and find something more rewarding to do. In fact I think there's another singer face-off happening on the opera forum right now. Those present delightful opportunities to compare subjective impressions of individual singers while using others' objective knowledge of singing to increase and refine our own.


"Imposition" is maybe coming across as more pejorative than intended. 

When we look at any piece of music, the criterion of "does it succeed on its own terms" is not contained within the object entirely. It depends on shared knowledge and experience about the context of form and genre. If I happen to know, via a combination of contextual knowledge and aesthetic evaluation that a piece of classical music is a Viennese waltz, for example, I can take my knowledge and experience of Viennese waltzes to conclude for myself that it would be silly to criticize it for not being particularly profound or dramatic, because these are typically not artistic goals of waltzes. 

The point is that "success" and "failure" only exist in a certain framework that is not just derived from the form of the music, but from cultural aesthetic concepts, personal taste and knowledge/experience. One can only know if a piece succeeds or fails at being a waltz by "imposing" the concept of "waltz" on the music. 

This has been brought up a few times to demonstrate that aesthetic evaluation is highly dependent on external context - it would be silly to complain that a Mahler symphony is not particularly good at being dance music - and if this sounds like a ridiculous thing nobody would do, I'll point to old posts stating that hip-hop is objectively bad because it lacks melody- something which is not at all an aesthetic tenet of that form.


----------



## 59540

SanAntone said:


> My wife and I often disagree on whether something is green or blue. Not the royal blue or bright green. The teals and gray toned versions of each color.


Defer to your wife. They have a better eye.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> ...When someone says "anyone can see that me mashing on the keyboard is worse classical music than Bach, it's common sense", it's an appeal to generally shared aesthetic principles among relatively similar groups of listeners (e.g. classical music aficionados). Notably, these shared principles are not embodied in the music itself, but in shared senses of values (which are frequently inconsistent, even among like-minded individuals).


I don't see how the differences aren't embodied in the music itself when that's how we differentiate between smashing randomly on a keyboard and Bach. If it's merely "shared values" -- all in the head and not in the music -- we could all create aesthetically pleasing stuff at will.


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> When we look at any piece of music, the criterion of "does it succeed on its own terms" is not contained within the object entirely. It depends on shared knowledge and experience about the context of form and genre.


This is quite true. Does it matter? The fact is that composer and listener both understand the "rules of the game" and can judge pretty well what's been made of them. Every "game" - even the most objective - has "rules."



> If I happen to know, via a combination of contextual knowledge and aesthetic evaluation that a piece of classical music is a Viennese waltz, for example, I can take my knowledge and experience of Viennese waltzes to conclude for myself that it would be silly to criticize it for not being particularly profound or dramatic, because these are typically not artistic goals of waltzes.


Agree completely.



> The point is that "success" and "failure" only exist in a certain framework that is not just derived from the form of the music, but from cultural aesthetic concepts, personal taste and knowledge/experience. One can only know if a piece succeeds or fails at being a waltz by "imposing" the concept of "waltz" on the music.


Nothing is being imposed. The term is prejudicial. A waltz is a waltz is a waltz, whether it's Chopin, Strauss or Ravel. Oom pah pah and variants thereof.



> This has been brought up a few times to demonstrate that aesthetic evaluation is highly dependent on external context - it would be silly to complain that a Mahler symphony is not particularly good at being dance music - and if this sounds like a ridiculous thing nobody would do, I'll point to old posts stating that hip-hop is objectively bad because it lacks melody- something which is not at all an aesthetic tenet of that form.


All knowledge - perceptual and conceptual - is "highly dependent on external context."


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> I don't see how the differences aren't embodied in the music itself when that's how we differentiate between smashing randomly on a keyboard and Bach. If it's merely "shared values" -- all in the head and not in the music -- we could all create aesthetically pleasing stuff at will.


"Common sense", emphasis on "common". It's probably easy to create things that please ones self at will, but much harder to create things which will please everyone, or a certain population - even if one knows what that population likes. I may know that rock listeners like catchy riffs, but that doesn't mean I can knock out a catchy riff off the top of my head. 

More to the point, this is less about evaluating music within a certain group of criteria and more about how within a genre, among listeners who have affinity for that genre, there is at least agreement on what those criteria should be - _very_ broadly speaking, anyway.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> "Common sense", emphasis on "common". It's probably easy to create things that please ones self at will...


I'd have to stop right there and say no it isn't. Again one thing that's missing in these threads is the notion of "talent" or "genius". From a subjectivist standpoint I don't see how there's such a thing.


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> This is quite true. Does it matter? The fact is that composer and listener both understand the "rules of the game" and can judge pretty well what's been made of them. Every "game" - even the most objective - has "rules."
> 
> All knowledge - perceptual and conceptual - is "highly dependent on external context."


Kinda what I've been saying. These expectations/"rules" are not embodied in the work - they are a context within which the work exists, which is why I think it's a mistake to consider a concept like "does the work succeed or fail on its own terms" to literally mean that we are _solely_ considering inherent features of the work. 


One thing that's been brought up and that listeners frequently say is that they try to "look at things objectively" - in practice what this tends to mean is that a listener attempts to set aside their personal taste in favor of attempting to see if a work succeeds or fails based on shared aesthetic criteria on what that work "should" be accomplishing. "Looking at it objectively" is a useful way to put it that we all probably understand, but what it amounts to is swapping one external context (whether the work pleases us) for another (how well the work adheres to a certain set of aesthetic principles). Both of these contexts are external.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> I'd have to stop right there and say no it isn't.


OK, probably true. The point is more that knowing the criteria of what is accepted as "good art" does not constitute having a formula for creating it.


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> Kinda what I've been saying. These expectations/"rules" are not embodied in the work - they are a context within which the work exists, which is why I think it's a mistake to consider a concept like "does the work succeed or fail on its own terms" to literally mean that we are examining the work without any external context.


What does the word "embodied" mean to you? I don't think anyone imagines that, say, the emotions associated with tragic, unfulfilled passion exist literally in the prelude to _Tristan und Isolde_, but in the work's languid melodic lines, restless chromatic harmony, relentlessly renewing forward pressure, mounting climaxes and disintegrating denouement those emotions are "embodied" with striking clarity.



> One thing that's been brought up and that listeners frequently say is that they try to "look at things objectively" - in practice what this tends to mean is that a listener attempts to set aside their personal taste in favor of attempting to see if a work succeeds or fails based on shared aesthetic criteria on what that work "should" be accomplishing. "Looking at it objectively" is a useful way to put it that we all probably understand, but what it amounts to is swapping one external context (whether the work pleases us) for another (how well the work adheres to a certain set of aesthetic principles). Both of these contexts are external.


I don't know what an "out-of-context" understanding would mean. All contexts, for understanding anything, are external. We can't even isolate a physical object for identification except in the context of a larger perceptual field. Art is about something and represents something, even abstract art which doesn't depict objects (which is the case with most music).


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> What does the word "embodied" mean to you? I don't think anyone imagines that, say, the emotions associated with tragic, unfulfilled passion exist literally in the prelude to _Tristan und Isolde_, but in the work's languid melodic lines, restless chromatic harmony, relentlessly renewing forward pressure, mounting climaxes and disintegrating denouement those emotions are "embodied" with striking clarity.
> 
> I don't know what an "out-of-context" understanding would mean. All contexts, for understanding anything, are external. We can't even isolate a physical object for identification except in the context of a larger perceptual field. Art is about something and represents something, even abstract art which doesn't depict objects (which is the case with most music).


You‘re doing a good enough job responding to posts that I have no patience for, but I would like to add a response to the following:


fbjim said:


> ..listeners frequently say is that they try to "look at things objectively" - in practice what this tends to mean is that a listener attempts to set aside their personal taste in favor of attempting to see if a work succeeds or fails based on shared aesthetic criteria on what that work "should" be accomplishing. "Looking at it objectively" is a useful way to put it that we all probably understand, but what it amounts to is swapping one external context (whether the work pleases us) for another (how well the work adheres to a certain set of aesthetic principles). Both of these contexts are external.


The intent of the above seems to be that ‘external context’ is somehow, in the end, related to subjective aesthetics. How that is used above would suggest that there are no reliable definitions or understanding across a given population (in this case, listeners, musicologist, musicians and composers of the CP era) of types of music or what music might be trying to convey.

Take Beethoven’s 6th Symphony which he named the Pastoral or Recollections of Country Life. Did he compose the music hoping that individuals here and there would happen to interpret it, based on some subjective aesthetic, as a country scene, or did he do so _assuming_ that the music would tell the story he intended to audiences of many people? Is the fact that almost anybody within the population mentioned above who has heard this symphony can almost immediately recognize the musical markers of a country scene not objective evidence of a significant work well-named?


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> Why "imposition"? Of course some criteria are assumed in any question of quality. The first place to look is to the nature of the object and the intentions it embodies, with the assumpion that things that succeed in being what they're evidently intended to be are better than things that fail. Someone whose subjectivism extends to all values (including the non-aesthetic) can (and at some point probably will) argue that success is not intrinsically superior to failure, since "superior" assumes...well, you know. That's when I roll my eyes and find something more rewarding to do. In fact I think there's another singer face-off happening on the opera forum right now. *Those present delightful opportunities to compare subjective impressions of individual singers while using others' objective knowledge of singing to increase and refine our own.*


"Those present delightful opportunities to compare subjective impressions of individual singers while using others' objective knowledge of singing to increase and refine our own."

This is the same in any topic, art or science or basketball. Does anyone disagree with this? 

I still have questions. And I'm no longer so sure of myself. Is it just that teachers have different goals with objective facts/material than music fans..


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> What does the word "embodied" mean to you? I don't think anyone imagines that, say, the emotions associated with tragic, unfulfilled passion exist literally in the prelude to _Tristan und Isolde_, but in the work's languid melodic lines, restless chromatic harmony, relentlessly renewing forward pressure, mounting climaxes and disintegrating denouement those emotions are "embodied" with striking clarity.


"Embodied" to me in a _literal_ sense means that it exists in the work independent of human cognition. That's different than the metaphorical sense that I (and many others) often use in everyday conversation about art, though.

I don't think anyone really believes in some form of Catholic transubstantiation where aspects of a work literally turn into emotions in the way the Eucharist purportedly turns into the flesh of Christ. To me, saying that a work embodies an emotion is another way of saying, perhaps to a stronger/more emphatic degree than normal, that a listener is ascribing emotions to the work.

As you say - especially when we have a formal knowledge, or experience in examining form, we may be able to point to specific techniques that inspire these emotions in us. This is a case where I'm having a hard time identifying specifically where the disagreement lies, or whether it's even particularly relevant. I suppose the fact that artistic understanding and evaluation is dependent on external context and cognition is sufficient for me to say that aesthetics can not be said to objectively exist _internally_ in a work, while others would disagree.



DaveM said:


> The intent of the above seems to be that ‘external context’ is somehow, in the end, related to subjective aesthetics. How that is used above would suggest that there are no reliable definitions or understanding across a given population (in this case, listeners, musicologist, musicians and composers of the CP era) of types of music or what music might be trying to convey.
> 
> Take Beethoven’s 6th Symphony which he named the Pastoral or Recollections of Country Life. Did he compose the music hoping that individuals here and there would happen to interpret it, based on some subjective aesthetic, as a country scene, or did he do so _assuming_ that the music would tell the story he intended to audiences of many people? Is the fact that almost anybody within the population mentioned above who has heard this symphony can almost immediately recognize the musical markers of a country scene not objective evidence of a significant work well-named?


"Subjective" does not mean "entirely arbitrary", "random" nor "impossible to predict". In this sense, what it means is that it is the product of (shared) human belief and cognition. In fact - one context above is defined _as_ a shared sense of aesthetic values among like-minded listeners within a culture, which is nearly the opposite of saying there is no understanding across a given population.

Also given that Beethoven wrote that work as an explicitly programmatic piece, that's a really bad example. If he assumed anyone would get the story without some sort of contextualization, why bother naming the work, and giving explicit program notes for each movement at all?


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> OK, probably true. The point is more that knowing the criteria of what is accepted as "good art" does not constitute having a formula for creating it.


No??? Shucks.


----------



## fbjim

fluteman said:


> No??? Shucks.


Well, there _was_ this....


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manual



Which is pretty clearly a satirical (and very bitter) work, but is also pretty entertaining reading.



> There is no lost chord. No changes untried. No extra notes to the scale or hidden beats to the bar. There is no point in searching for originality. In the past, most writers of songs spent months in their lonely rooms strumming their guitars or bands in rehearsals have ground their way through endless riffs before arriving at the song that takes them to the very top. Of course, most of them would be mortally upset to be told that all they were doing was leaving it to chance before they stumbled across the tried and tested. They have to believe it is through this sojourn they arrive at the grail; the great and original song that the world will be unable to resist.
> 
> So why don't all songs sound the same? Why are some artists great, write dozens of classics that move you to tears, say it like it's never been said before, make you laugh, dance, blow your mind, fall in love, take to the streets and riot? Well, it's because although the chords, notes, harmonies, beats and words have all been used before their own soul shines through; their personality demands attention. This doesn't just come via the great vocalist or virtuoso instrumentalist. The Techno sound of Detroit, the most totally linear programmed music ever, lacking any human musicianship in its execution reeks of sweat, sex and desire. The creators of that music just press a few buttons and out comes - a million years of pain and lust.


----------



## BachIsBest

fbjim said:


> Human societies have shared definitions of what colors are (and Asian societies frequently considering blue/green to be different shades of the same color is more a difference with what these concepts _are_ than just simple translation). This is where we get into concepts of intersubjectivity, which isn't something I feel qualified to go into detail about - but disagreements on what color (or flavor, or taste) something is exists less in the field of what is objectively correct/incorrect and more about a failure to agree with a socially-accepted concept. In practice, humans in shared societies tend not to disagree much about broad categories of color, but may disagree on other properties- especially so once we get into something as loose as aesthetics.


Again, I'm not arguing that there aren't differences in how colours are described across languages and languages. My point only fails if there are actual differences in perception.



fbjim said:


> This is not to mention infamous cases like "dressgate" where there was serious disagreement on the color of an image. Many people were incredulous that others could perceive something as a different color, because a) in most cases, humans in a shared society have relatively consistent definitions of color, meaning that disagreement is very rare, and b) since we ascribe "color" to objects in our minds, the conclusion was that people who disagreed were objectively incorrect in their perception.


You seem to think that disagreement on an objects properties mean that the thing being disagreed upon must be subjective. This is a bit baffling, as there is disagreement on pretty much everything. Ironically enough, if I was going to pick a statement that all English speakers agreed upon, I might go with "the grass is green".

Regardless, the fact that people argue is actually, as you point out, evidence that they tend to side with me on this matter. If they didn't, argument would be entirely stupid; it would be like arguing with your friend over whether or not he likes spaghetti as if you knew better than him whether he liked spaghetti. 

And of course language is imprecise. Pretty much every statement made by everyone who isn't writing a formal logic paper contains a degree of imprecision.



fbjim said:


> This is a bit off topic, but the concept of intersubjectivity (which very loosely can be mapped to "common sense" - emphasis on _common_) does come up, at least indirectly, a lot in music. When someone says "anyone can see that me mashing on the keyboard is worse classical music than Bach, it's common sense", it's an appeal to generally shared aesthetic principles among relatively similar groups of listeners (e.g. classical music aficionados). Notably, these shared principles are not embodied in the music itself, but in shared senses of values (which are frequently inconsistent, even among like-minded individuals).


Yes, but if you write a piece of music within the classical music tradition, and it fails in every sense of the shared values of classical music and by any standards by which the piece itself sets up, then to say it is just as good as Bach's St Anne's fugue is preposterous.


----------



## fbjim

BachIsBest said:


> You seem to think that disagreement on an objects properties mean that the thing being disagreed upon must be subjective. This is a bit baffling, as there is disagreement on pretty much everything.


No-I think that if a property is the creation of our individual or collective minds, it is subjective. Consensus - even universal consensus - isn't the question here. Everyone may agree that a 110F day is "way too hot", and we can point to objective criteria to show why people collectively believe this, but this does not make "way too hot" an objective property which exists without human cognition.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Just a second - you're mixing your judgements. Keep separate the concepts of mastery and superiority: they are not the same, and it's where confusion arises about what subjectivists/objectivists think.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a question that hasn't been answered (I don't think) by an extreme objectivist: how can Luchesi tell from comparing scores which music is the greater? It might not be an important point in the overall thrust of this debate, but he does put it as his first point in declaring his extreme objectivity.


It's endlessly rewarding to look at the sequential development of Mozart's piano concertos, Haydn piano sonatas and Schubert's. Beethoven's Early, Middle, Late periods, the maturing Chopin, early Brahms -> mature Brahms. The scores are a world of exploration for me, but how much can be experienced with just listening... How would we confidently know the trends and differences by just listening? Maybe some people can (but not directly and not all the time (there are clever early works too of course. What are the telltale clues?)). Listening's never been enough for me. I want specifics and to see what the composer did everywhere to reach his goals of expressiveness and effectiveness. It can be a very attractive game, if I'm thinking in those terms (musicians are at play all the time, heh ). 

Some young teenagers eat it up, thoroughly enjoying the challenge. They take it apart, they play the examples, they imitate, they feel the power. 'Not very many, sadly.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> The scores are a world of exploration for me, but how much can be experienced with just listening... How would we confidently know the trends and differences by just listening? Maybe some people can (but not directly and not all the time (there are clever early works too of course. What are the telltale clues?)). Listening's never been enough for me.


More ear training, maybe? I memorize the music I learn before serious work on it begins. I don't keep looking at the scores. And I learn as much or more from listening to recordings as I do from the scores.


----------



## 59540

> Here's a question that hasn't been answered (I don't think) by an extreme objectivist: how can Luchesi tell from comparing scores which music is the greater?


Compare the first 5 Beethoven piano sonatas with the last 5.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> OK, probably true. The point is more that knowing the criteria of what is accepted as "good art" does not constitute having a formula for creating it.


Hmmm. Why not?


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> Hmmm. Why not?


We might have very broadly shared ideas on aesthetic virtues in classical music, but even within these criteria there's no guarantee that each listener values these criteria the same way. Jean-Paul might value melody above all virtues, while Klaus von Schickenbacker may hold that melody is for composers who don't know how to compose counterpoint.

Putting that aside, knowing that certain criteria are important in a given context doesn't give one the key to actually comprising according to those criteria in a way that will be appreciated. What's a "good melody", anyway?


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> Here's a question that hasn't been answered (I don't think) by an extreme objectivist: how can Luchesi tell from comparing scores which music is the greater?
> 
> 
> 
> Compare the first 5 Beethoven piano sonatas with the last 5.
Click to expand...




hammeredklavier said:


> youtube.com/watch?v=FwZsDzGY1XA&t=44m44s


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> (I don't mean to discredit Beethoven in any way, but)


Yeah, you're always saying that and really all you discredit is hammeredklavier the Internet commentator. Now post a couple of measures of soporific Michael Haydn and ask in your most earnest philosophical voice why we prefer Mozart.
As for Op. 106,


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> More ear training, maybe? I memorize the music I learn before serious work on it begins. I don't keep looking at the scores. And I learn as much or more from listening to recordings as I do from the scores.


Yes, I need more and more experience playing by ear. I've always been below average. Our violinist plays so well by ear, but none of the rest of us. I get easily confused without the look of the score to guide me, it's very limiting for me. Bill Evans could 'listen' far ahead. I try to remember that..

I can fake anything familiar, playing along, but it's not very satisfying. As a warm up I improvise through the fifths and the fourths for 15 minutes, until I feel comfortable. There's some good things, but I'm not good at it.

In recent decades I will sit down and play though 10 works or old standards, and then try to play them back from memory. I don't do very well. It's difficult to explain, because I used to have large works memorized note for note. They come back quickly when I pull out the books. I've just become quite lazy, little time for dry memorizing anymore. I tell myself that a poor memory adds to the mystery, so I content myself with that..


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> We might have very broadly shared ideas on aesthetic virtues in classical music, but even within these criteria there's no guarantee that each listener values these criteria the same way. Jean-Paul might value melody above all virtues, while Klaus von Schickenbacker may hold that melody is for composers who don't know how to compose counterpoint.


But...we could still compose music within our own aesthetic boundaries that would appeal not just to us but maybe to at least a handful of others, right? I can't. I don't have _talent_ as a composer. Some of us can though and do have talent, including some contributors on this forum.


----------



## fbjim

That just reminds me that I wish I could draw. Never was able to. I'm pretty sure I only got passing grades in middle school art out of pity.


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> That just reminds me that I wish I could draw. Never was able to. I'm pretty sure I only got passing grades in middle school art out of pity.


I can't either, but I know a good drawing when I see it. You probably do too.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fbjim said:


> Also given that Beethoven wrote that work as an explicitly programmatic piece, that's a really bad example. If he assumed anyone would get the story without some sort of contextualization, why bother naming the work, and giving explicit program notes for each movement at all?


When I look at this, I think of "two people stubbornly acting antagonistically to each other and then eventually reconciling, in bar 129":


hammeredklavier said:


>


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> Now post a couple of measures of soporific Michael Haydn and ask in your most earnest philosophical voice why we prefer Mozart.


Ask in your most earnest philosophical voice why the vast majority of mankind finds Bach, Mozart, Beethoven soporific.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> "Subjective" does not mean "entirely arbitrary", "random" nor "impossible to predict". In this sense, what it means is that it is the product of (shared) human belief and cognition. In fact - one context above is defined _as_ a shared sense of aesthetic values among like-minded listeners within a culture, which is nearly the opposite of saying there is no understanding across a given population.
> 
> Also given that Beethoven wrote that work as an explicitly programmatic piece, that's a really bad example. If he assumed anyone would get the story without some sort of contextualization, why bother naming the work, and giving explicit program notes for each movement at all?


Well no, it’s not a really bad example. It’s only deemed a bad example if one is determined to see virtually everything as subjective. Whereas you see the naming of the symphony and it’s movements as necessary to inform what the music was about otherwise the dummies wallowing in subjectivity at the time wouldn’t have any idea what it was about, I see the naming as setting the bar higher because now that the naming has occurred, there better be some objective evidence in the music that the naming was appropriate.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> Well no, it’s not a really bad example. It’s only deemed a bad example if one is determined to see virtually everything as subjective. Whereas you see the naming of the symphony and it’s movements as necessary to inform what the music was about otherwise the dummies wallowing in subjectivity at the time wouldn’t have any idea what it was about, I see the naming as setting the bar higher because now that the naming has occurred, there better be some objective evidence in the music that the naming was appropriate.


No, that's not how I see the naming of the music at all. 

To your point, no, the fact that the program of the symphony constitutes external context does not mean that there is a lack of shared aesthetic understanding among a population about expression in music. I've said this repeatedly, but within a genre, and among listeners familiar with that genre, there are all sorts of shared principles and conventions surrounding expression in art. The statement that these principles are "subjective" is to say that these principles are the product of human cognition- it does not imply that I think we should throw out everything we know about music because it's actually all non-existent.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> Ask in your most earnest philosophical voice why the vast majority of mankind finds Bach, Mozart, Beethoven soporific.


And in my most earnest, philosophical voice: I don't care, any more than I care about the fact that far more are familiar with Bugs Bunny than King Lear. So what's your point? Trolling?


----------



## fbjim

Like I want to be clear about something - at no point do I think that trying to define skill in composition, great music, expressive devices, or even "genius" is a fool's errand, or is meaningless. It's just to say that we do these things under a set of personal, and shared values. In fact, one reason I think it's useful to discuss music at all is because it not only tells us about music, but helps us examine what those shared aesthetic values actually are, and how they operate.


----------



## 59540

> Like I want to be clear about something - at no point do I think that trying to define skill in composition, great music, expressive devices, or even "genius" is a fool's errand, or is meaningless. It's just to say that we do these things under a set of personal, and shared values.


Well one problem with that is that many of those we now call "genius" gained that label by going beyond those "shared values". They shaped those values.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> Well one problem with that is that many of those we now call "genius" gained that label by going beyond those "shared values". They shaped those values.


Well, "originality" is one of the values that I think is generally considered a virtue in great art (hence "derivative" being a common complaint). I don't think any single principle that someone might value in art gives us a complete picture of it .


----------



## hammeredklavier

Dissident has also talked in another thread about the "myths and half-truths of Beethoven". Is it possible to not think of _Beethoven the tragic, tortured artist_ when we listen to his music? Can we say for sure, _it doesn't affect in any way_, of how much profundity we feel from his music?








I'll be honest, whenever I weep from listening to Mozart, it feels as though I'm _moaning_ for his early demise too.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> So what's your point? Trolling?


Definitely not. What I'm really disturbed by is the mentality in us, _"If you criticize the "gods", you do the time."_


----------



## Woodduck

dissident said:


> Well one problem with that is that many of those we now call "genius" gained that label by going beyond those "shared values". They shaped those values.


Bravo. Critical point. It's impressive the way new, complex, challenging artistic products - let's take Beethoven's _Fifth_, Berlioz's _Symphonie Fantastique_, Wagner's _Tristan_ and Stravinsky's _Sacre_ as famous examples - generally win recognition quickly as exceptional works of genius - as works, in great measure, that define their creators as standing out from the rest. They may not win immediate popularity among general audiences, but general popularity in the short term is dependent on many factors, often superficial, while recognition among musically knowledgeable auditors is dependent more on intimate engagement with musical content. The musical public's "shared values" tend to get unshared - expanded, modified or replaced - fairly quickly in the presence of imaginative new visions brilliantly realized, so that respectable but conservative critics (the Beckmessers of the world) are likely to find themselves eating crow as curious and excited audiences stream past them on the way to the box office, eager to share values they'd never dreamed of before.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Dissident has also talked in another thread about the "myths and half-truths of Beethoven". Is it possible to not think of _Beethoven the tragic, tortured artist_ when we listen to his music? Can we say for sure, _it doesn't affect in any way_, of the profundity we feel from his music?


To the extent that we can be sure of anything psychological, in this case I can say with approximaely 99.99% assurance that Beethoven's mythical reputation for tragedy and torture does not influence my judgment of any of his music. Op. 132 is visionary, _Fidelio_ is imperfect but noble, and _Wellington_ is fluff. I can't remember, and don't care, when he went deaf or what he did to Karl. Neither do I care that Tchaikovsky attempted marriage to a woman, or that Wagner composed while burning incense and wearing silk underpants. We all have our crosses to bear. Meanwhile there's the music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> Wagner composed while burning incense and wearing silk underpants. We all have our crosses to bear. Meanwhile there's the music.


Obviously, we care a lot about the artist (separate from the music), for instance, whether or not he was a "musical philosopher". If music is all that matters, why can't we just care about the music and nothing else. We can't stand it when the artist (not the music) is described in an unfair way, for instance. I'm not trying to derail this thread "what is profundity" into a political one, but remember the thread "Wagner Death", for instance (I agree with everything you said to MR and the others in it, btw).


----------



## Strange Magic

fbjim said:


> Human societies have shared definitions of what colors are (and Asian societies frequently considering blue/green to be different shades of the same color is more a difference with what these concepts _are_ than just simple translation). This is where we get into concepts of intersubjectivity, which isn't something I feel qualified to go into detail about - but disagreements on what color (or flavor, or taste) something is exists less in the field of what is objectively correct/incorrect and more about a failure to agree with a socially-accepted concept. In practice, humans in shared societies tend not to disagree much about broad categories of color, but may disagree on other properties- especially so once we get into something as loose as aesthetics.
> 
> This is not to mention infamous cases like "dressgate" where there was serious disagreement on the color of an image. Many people were incredulous that others could perceive something as a different color, because a) in most cases, humans in a shared society have relatively consistent definitions of color, meaning that disagreement is very rare, and b) since we ascribe "color" to objects in our minds, the conclusion was that people who disagreed were objectively incorrect in their perception.
> 
> This is a bit off topic, but the concept of intersubjectivity (which very loosely can be mapped to "common sense" - emphasis on _common_) does come up, at least indirectly, a lot in music. When someone says "anyone can see that me mashing on the keyboard is worse classical music than Bach, it's common sense", it's an appeal to generally shared aesthetic principles among relatively similar groups of listeners (e.g. classical music aficionados). Notably, these shared principles are not embodied in the music itself, but in shared senses of values (which are frequently inconsistent, even among like-minded individuals).


A monochromator breaks down white light into its various colors quite precisely. One can thus get around confusion over what to name colors by specifying what wavelength along the visual part of the electromagnetic spectrum one wants to draw attention to. This is quite an advance over the Greatness Meters that both KenOC and I independently invented several years ago to precisely measure the excellence of artworks, especially music. They never seemed to work right.


fbjim said:


> Kinda what I've been saying. These expectations/"rules" are not embodied in the work - they are a context within which the work exists, which is why I think it's a mistake to consider a concept like "does the work succeed or fail on its own terms" to literally mean that we are _solely_ considering inherent features of the work.
> 
> 
> One thing that's been brought up and that listeners frequently say is that they try to "look at things objectively" - in practice what this tends to mean is that a listener attempts to set aside their personal taste in favor of attempting to see if a work succeeds or fails based on shared aesthetic criteria on what that work "should" be accomplishing. "Looking at it objectively" is a useful way to put it that we all probably understand, but what it amounts to is swapping one external context (whether the work pleases us) for another (how well the work adheres to a certain set of aesthetic principles). Both of these contexts are external.



I like the keyboard-mashing in the first Rautavaara piano concerto. Bach would hate it. (I do love Bach! he hastened to add.)


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Obviously, we care a lot about the artist separate from the music, for instance, whether or not he was a "musical philosopher". If music is all that matters, why can't we just care about the music and nothing else. We can't stand it when the artist (not the music) is described in an unfair way, for instance. I'm not trying to derail this thread "what is profundity" into a political one, but remember the thread "Wagner Death", for instance (I agree with everything you said to MR and the others in it, btw).


Well, artists are often interesting people, are they not? Who says that music is all that matters? It just doesn't matter, musically, what illnesses they suffered from, how many times they were married, or whether they were customs officers or professors of chemistry on weekdays. (Wagner is a poor example because opera is theater, it has words, and he wrote them and set them to music to say things more explicit and literal than music can say alone.)


----------



## fbjim

Strange Magic said:


> I like the keyboard-mashing in the first Rautavaara piano concerto. Bach would hate it. (I do love Bach! he hastened to add.)


The cadenza in the composer's own recording of "The People United..." is rather well done too.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Well, I remember reading this bit in the program notes of one Chopin recording (I can't remember exactly which one it was); —due to the fact that Chopin was lovesick and had a fatal illness (tuberculosis) his whole life, he was the perfect "tragic hero" (or something to the effect).
When I listen to the heart-wrenching coda of Barcarolle in F#, I can understand that.




But it's also somewhat understandable why dissident has accused the sort of thinking as 'corny sentimentality'.

And there's the God of Cosmic Complexity.





(watch the first few minutes of both of these documentaries)


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> No, that's not how I see the naming of the music at all.
> 
> To your point, no, the fact that the program of the symphony constitutes external context does not mean that there is a lack of shared aesthetic understanding among a population about expression in music. I've said this repeatedly, but within a genre, and among listeners familiar with that genre, there are all sorts of shared principles and conventions surrounding expression in art. The statement that these principles are "subjective" is to say that these principles are the product of human cognition- it does not imply that I think we should throw out everything we know about music because it's actually all non-existent.


Well, all principles about anything are the results of human cognition. The point is that if as you say, ‘_within a genre, and among listeners familiar with that genre, there are all sorts of shared principles and conventions surrounding expression in art.’ _then there can be objective parameters that (in the case of the CP era) a composer has achieved excellence in creating works under the shared principles and conventions.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *DaveM: *"Take Beethoven’s 6th Symphony which he named the Pastoral or Recollections of Country Life. Did he compose the music hoping that individuals here and there would happen to interpret it, based on some subjective aesthetic, as a country scene, or did he do so _assuming_ that the music would tell the story he intended to audiences of many people? Is the fact that almost anybody within the population mentioned above who has heard this symphony can almost immediately recognize the musical markers of a country scene not objective evidence of a significant work well-named?"


I am definitely not "almost anybody" and thus challenge your assertion that without knowing what the symphony was called, "almost anyone" would imagine that it represented a day in the country. _La Mer_ comes down to us as a musical representation of a day on the sea only because of its name. Same holds true for _Nightride and Sunrise, The Little Train of the Caipira, Plnes/Fountains of Rome, _etc. The power of words..Then everybody says "YES! Now I hear it!" This is the real world.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> Well, all principles about anything are the results of human cognition. The point is that if as you say, ‘_within a genre, and among listeners familiar with that genre, there are all sorts of shared principles and conventions surrounding expression in art.’ _then there can be objective parameters that (in the case of the CP era) a composer has achieved excellence in creating works under the shared principles and conventions.


We might call these "objective parameters" (as an example - rules of textbook counterpoint) craftsmanship. Whether or not craftsmanship is a measurable and/or objective thing is not a trivial question, but I'm willing to entertain it - mainly because when we colloquially talk about "listening objectively", it's usually for the purpose of evaluating criteria such as craftsmanship, or other adjacent "formal" crtiteria. The problem is that this only gets one so far. There are many parameters we accept as criteria for evaluating classical music that are clearly not objective (for an obvious example, our own personal reaction to the work), or are clearly dependent on external context to the point that it can not reasonably be said that these parameters are inherent to the work (like I said - the rules of textbook counterpoint, for instance).

Another obvious one is originality. As suggested above, originality is a criterion that is frequently associated with artistic genius - but such a criterion entirely relies on context.

(Ironically, to some extent the popular conception of genius originality almost stands in opposition to craftsmanship - i.e. the romantic notion of "breaking the rules" in the service of Art)


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Well, all principles about anything are the results of human cognition. The point is that if as you say, ‘_within a genre, and among listeners familiar with that genre, there are all sorts of shared principles and conventions surrounding expression in art.’ _then there can be objective parameters that (in the case of the CP era) a composer has achieved excellence in creating works under the shared principles and conventions.


The shared principles and conventions come from where? (he asked). He was told that people, some people, agreed upon what those were and agreed that if somebody met those criteria, they would be considered having attained excellence. This is polling under yet other names. All that consensus in the arts tells us is that groups of individuals find their tastes in certain areas to be congruent. It tells us nothing about the art object itself beyond the clearly objective data points I have enumerated dozens of times previously. Beyond those, all we can say is that X people like some art and that it met their self-generated criteria (or those criteria handed down by authority figures higher up some ladder than they) for excellence. Again, art just is.


----------



## hammeredklavier

"A biography of Mozart, read to him when he was only six, had made an undying impression on him. [...] He was possessed by a sense of the tragedy in Mozart's life, spent 'as if under the vivisector's knife'. His finest works had been written between present exultancy and anxiety about what the next hour might bring. When Wagner saw an Adoration of the Kings in a church in Siena he exclaimed: 'All these signs of honour in childhood, the shepherds and the kings and the angels - where were they later? Mozart suffered the same fate!'"
( Wagner A Biography · Volume 2 / Curt von Westernhagen · 1978 / Pages 81~82 )

"As he put it in an interview in 1892 with a reporter who expressed his surprise that Tchaikovsky could bring himself always to work six hours a day, no matter what: "Young people nowadays wait for inspiration to come to them, but I consider that to be utterly wrong. I mean, would Mozart, who died so young, have managed to write so many wondrous works if he had constantly been waiting for inspiration?" (TH 325). Similarly, the child-like goodness and lack of envy or spite in Mozart's character were qualities which Tchaikovsky himself aspired to, and it is not surprising that he was so interested in reading about Mozart's life, especially in Otto Jahn's famous biography, which, according to Laroche, never left Tchaikovsky's table."


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> *Beethoven's *_*Fifth*_, They may not win immediate popularity among general audiences


That has more views than Eine Kleine Nachtmusik on youtube, btw.


----------



## fbjim

hammeredklavier said:


> That has more views than Eine Kleine Nachtmusik on youtube, btw.


But what about the canon in D????


----------



## hammeredklavier

fbjim said:


> But what about the canon in D????


Too "popular" to be considered objectively "great" or "profound", apparently, according to our "objectivist free-thinkers".


----------



## fbjim

hammeredklavier said:


> Too "popular" to be considered objectively "great" or "profound", apparently, according to our "objectivist free-thinkers".


This is besides the point but I always thought it interesting how certain works became reviled for their popularity among certain elitist-esque opinions. See also: Ravel.

Even Mozart to an extent: for a while you couldn't sneeze without hitting a "anyone think Mozart is overrated" thread on a classical forum. I always thought this was down to that early 90s period where Mozart became a quasi pop culture figure and suddenly CD stores were drowning in Mozart CDs to play in your car, at work, to your baby, to your pet dog, etc


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> Too "popular" to be considered objectively "great" or "profound", apparently, according to our "objectivist free-thinkers".


Has anyone in this thread actually said that the canon is inferior to other works because of its popularity?


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> We might call these "objective parameters" (as an example - rules of textbook counterpoint) craftsmanship. Whether or not craftsmanship is a measurable and/or objective thing is not a trivial question, but I'm willing to entertain it - mainly because when we colloquially talk about "listening objectively", it's usually for the purpose of evaluating criteria such as craftsmanship, or other adjacent "formal" crtiteria. The problem is that this only gets one so far. There are many parameters we accept as criteria for evaluating classical music that are clearly not objective (for an obvious example, our own personal reaction to the work), or are clearly dependent on external context to the point that it can not reasonably be said that these parameters are inherent to the work (like I said - the rules of textbook counterpoint, for instance).
> 
> Another obvious one is originality. As suggested above, originality is a criterion that is frequently associated with artistic genius - but such a criterion entirely relies on context.
> 
> (Ironically, to some extent the popular conception of genius originality almost stands in opposition to craftsmanship - i.e. the romantic notion of "breaking the rules" in the service of Art)


Within the principles and conventions of CM of the CP era evaluating craftsmanship does not ‘only get you so far’. In fact, to say so is nothing more than an attempt to diminish one of the objective parameters distinguishing the great composers and their works. Likewise, saying that ‘_There are many parameters we accept as criteria for evaluating classical music that are clearly not objective._’ is not only hyperbole, but ignores the fact that there are a number of parameters that are objective which is what is of real importance.

It continues to amaze me that posters such as yourself seem to spend a lot of time looking for reasons to minimize accomplishments in CM by placing the appreciation of them at the feet of subjectivity when the wonderment of CM is that composers, using the principles and conventions that developed during the CP era, created works that impacted, in a similar way, a large number of people over decades and centuries. And therein lie the objective reasons for the accomplishment.


----------



## hammeredklavier

4chamberedklavier said:


> Has anyone in this thread actually said that the canon is inferior to other works because of its popularity?





DaveM said:


> You must have an interesting CM playlist: Works such as Pachelbel’s Canon from a ‘Classical Music for Beginners’ cd.


----------



## fbjim

4chamberedklavier said:


> Has anyone in this thread actually said that the canon is inferior to other works because of its popularity?


[/QUOTE]
This is something I've always thought curious- this might be my experience in spaces talking about electronic music, but the veneration of Canon (not the Canon in D) doesn't really map to certain elitist attitudes in other venues of music discussion, where anything venerated by the mainstream press, or- God forbid - the middlebrow press - is worthy of deep suspicion.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> Within the principles and conventions of CM of the CP era evaluating craftsmanship does not ‘only get you so far’. In fact, to say so is nothing more than an attempt to diminish one of the objective parameters distinguishing the great composers and their works. Likewise, saying that ‘_There are many parameters we accept as criteria for evaluating classical music that are clearly not objective._’ is not only hyperbole, but ignores the fact that there are a number of parameters that are objective which is what is of real importance.
> 
> It continues to amaze me that posters such as yourself seem to spend a lot of time looking for reasons to minimize accomplishments in CM by placing the appreciation of them at the feet of subjectivity when the wonderment of CM is that composers, using the principles and conventions that developed during the CP era, created works that impacted, in a similar way, a large number of people over decades and centuries. And therein lie the objective reasons for the accomplishment.


The library of the unplayed classical-era repertoire is full of composers who made textbook-correct music that - perhaps even on an objective level - we can say is well-crafted, and yet nobody particularly cares about anymore. Just as an example, take Cherubini, who has some wonderful, immaculately crafted string quartets that more people should listen to (Melos quartet, Deutsche Grammophon)

Why? Because pure, pedagogical craftsmanship is not the only criterion that listeners look for in art. Was Beethoven popular because he objectively followed the rules, or do we actually venerate him - at least in part - for the exact opposite reason?


----------



## Woodduck

"So-and-so is overrated," which is not a pronouncement about music but about what other people are supposed to think about music, is mainly a way of pretending to be Charles Rosen or Alex Ross for 15 seconds. We can argue seriously about the virtues of composers who have yet to acquire a proper reputation, but arguing about whether Mozart deserves his 200-year-old report card is mainly for fun, and quoting Glenn Gould makes it even more fun (doesn't it, Hammeredklavier?).


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> The library of the unplayed classical-era repertoire is full of composers who made textbook-correct music that - perhaps even on an objective level - we can say is well-crafted, and yet nobody particularly cares about anymore. Just as an example, take Cherubini, who has some wonderful, immaculately crafted string quartets that more people should listen to (Melos quartet, Deutsche Grammophon)
> 
> Why? Because pure, pedagogical craftsmanship is not the only criterion that listeners look for in art. Was Beethoven popular because he objectively followed the rules, or do we actually venerate him - at least in part - for the exact opposite reason?


Who said _pure pedagogical craftsmanship is the only criterion that listeners look for in art._? And, once again, you come out with the hyperbole that ‘nobody cares about composers such as Cherubini‘. Did you take a poll? Besides, exceptions don’t prove the rule.


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> The library of the unplayed classical-era repertoire is full of composers who made textbook-correct music that - perhaps even on an objective level - we can say is well-crafted, and yet nobody particularly cares about anymore. Just as an example, take Cherubini, who has some wonderful, immaculately crafted string quartets that more people should listen to (Melos quartet, Deutsche Grammophon)
> 
> Why? Because pure, pedagogical craftsmanship is not the only criterion that listeners look for in art. Was Beethoven popular because he objectively followed the rules, or do we actually venerate him - at least in part - for the exact opposite reason?


It is absolutely the case that we venerate the rule-breakers when - _but only when - _they prove that there are aesthetic values that lie deeper than the "rules" constituting the then-current list of "shared values." Mere novelty has about the same longevity as mere competence, and maybe less.


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> "So-and-so is overrated," which is not a pronouncement about music but about what other people are supposed to think about music, is mainly a way of pretending to be Charles Rosen or Alex Ross for 15 seconds. We can argue seriously about the virtues of composers who have yet to acquire a proper reputation, but arguing about whether Mozart deserves his 200-year-old report card is mainly for fun, and quoting Glenn Gould makes it even more fun (doesn't it, Hammeredklavier?).


Like I said, with regards to complaints about Mozart, I blame the CD industry. Mozart for relaxing, Mozart for studying, Mozart to play on the beach, to play with in a box, to play with a fox.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> "So-and-so is overrated,"


Friend Woodduck, I'm deep down already scared of how you and the other people would react, as I'm saying these things. I'm not at all suggesting any of these artists is overrated in any way. It's just that I'm asking, what's the point of all this talk of "objective greatness/profundity"? Are we going to put a gun to the heads of people like Kreisler jr, for considering Bach's as not any more significant than Handel's or Telemann's?


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

fbjim said:


> Like I said, with regards to complaints about Mozart, I blame the CD industry. Mozart for relaxing, Mozart for studying, Mozart to play on the beach, to play with in a box, to play with a fox.


"Mozart to make you smarter" might just the worst, perhaps because it somehow suggests that classical listeners listen not because they enjoy it but because it's a means to an end


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Are we going to put a gun to the heads of people like Kreisler jr, for thinking of Bach's as not being any more significant than Handel's or Telemann's?


Hmmm...Never thought of that. Heaviest artillery i can manage is a pea shooter.


----------



## fbjim

hammeredklavier said:


> Friend Woodduck, I'm deep down already scared of how you and other people would react, as I'm saying these things. I'm not at all suggesting any of the artists is overrated in any way. It's just that I'm asking, what's the point of all this talk of "objective greatness/profundity"? Are we going to put a gun to the heads of people like Kreisler jr, for thinking of Bach's as not being any more significant than Handel's or Telemann's?


I think it's worth asking on page 67 what the point of all this is.

These questions are mainly philosophical ones that most listeners find irrelevant (I don't, but I'm weird and like thinking about the nature of art and arguing about it). I severely doubt, for instance, that a "extreme subjectivist" would listen to someone say "This is a beautiful work" and yell "No! It's not! You're ascribing your perceptions of the work as inherent aspects of the work itself, which is not valid!", because a) that would be a very annoying thing to do, and b) ascribing perceptions to things as if they were inherent aspects of the thing is an accepted part of our language.

A lot of the reason this became a heated topic were allegations that one could prove the inherent worth (or lack of worth) of certain musical genres (or modernist music)- that happens to be something I do find objectionable, but if someone thinks that beauty lies in the object and not in the perception thereof- well, I disagree and am willing to argue about it, but it's not something that _upsets_ me. I just find the topic interesting.


----------



## fbjim

4chamberedklavier said:


> "Mozart to make you smarter" might just the worst, perhaps because it somehow suggests that classical listeners listen not because they enjoy it but because it's a means to an end


I like music that makes me dumber. A lot of great dance music is like that.

Come to think of it, I suspect some classical music is like that too, given the adjective "intoxicating" to describe some works.....


----------



## BachIsBest

Woodduck said:


> It is absolutely the case that we venerate the rule-breakers when - _but only when - _they prove that there are aesthetic values that lie deeper than the "rules" constituting the then-current list of "shared values." Mere novelty has about the same longevity as mere competence, and maybe less.


With the "novelty" some artists come up with now, we can only hope and pray for the less option.


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> I think it's worth asking on page 67 what the point of all this is.
> 
> These questions are mainly philosophical ones that most listeners find irrelevant (I don't, but I'm weird and like thinking about the nature of art and arguing about it). I severely doubt, for instance, that a "extreme subjectivist" would listen to someone say "This is a beautiful work" and yell "No! It's not! You're ascribing your perceptions of the work as inherent aspects of the work itself, which is not valid!", because a) that would be a very annoying thing to do, and b) ascribing perceptions to things as if they were inherent aspects of the thing is an accepted part of our language.
> 
> A lot of the reason this became a heated topic were allegations that one could prove the inherent worth (or lack of worth) of certain musical genres (or modernist music)- that happens to be something I do find objectionable, but if someone thinks that beauty lies in the object and not in the perception thereof- well, I disagree and am willing to argue about it, but it's not something that _upsets_ me. I just find the topic interesting.


I think we have different reasons for wanting to debate these issues, and it would be interesting to hear what motivates others. I'm an artist who has always enjoyed observing and trying to understand what's happening in the creative process, and my convictions about what art is rest first and foremost upon my understanding of how it's made, in the brain as well as on the canvas or keyboard. This perspective makes me impatient with the "objective/subjective" arguments that seem fundamental to some people's concerns. What seems mysteriously "subjective" to a listener - the beauty which he feels is there but his friend doesn't - is apt to be very nuts-and-bolts to a composer seeking just the right chord for a crucial moment, knowing that "beauty" is something more "objectively" real than a nice sound or a pleasant feeling, and knowing, if he's a good composer, when he's found the thing he seeks and so allowed his artistic argument to sound forth unimpeded by the vague or awkward choices he entertained but knew he had to discard. For every good choice there are numerous bad ones, and I love Frank LLoyd Wright for saying that his most-used drafting tool was the eraser. Beethoven would have agreed. He and FLLW both used that tool wisely.

It's pretty obvious that others have reasons for talking and arguing about art very unlike mine. Some confessionals might be at least entertaining!


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

I find the objective/subjective issue interesting because I often hear people claim that so-and-so composer, or band, or song, is the "best", so I check them out with high expectations and am let down because they ended up not being as "good" as I thought. (I found that I enjoy music more when my expectations are low.) This talk of objectivity & subjectivity helped me have a more realistic view of how I should temper these expectations.


----------



## Forster

Woodduck said:


> As someone with a strong Aristotelian streak in my makeup, I enjoy this sort of effort to classify things. There's a pleasant sense of power that comes with reinventing the universe, or a least the wheel. The trick is in separating fundamental distinctions from incidental ones, or else the wheel is apt to give us a bumpy ride. With your classifications I had the immediate frustration of not recognizing myself in any of the categories. I'll take you up on your invitation and suggest the following divisions:


Thanks for your response. As you might understand, I wanted to sketch something out briefly, taking into account some of the points of difference that seem to emerge in these threads, rather than detail a more comprehensive or rounded description. However, some of your descriptors are as personal in nature as one might expect from a qualified objectivist (eg "Jeremy" and "first-year theory student"), so there's work to be done in making such a schema more formal.



Woodduck said:


> I don't see your "balanced" classification as a real category. Not having a position is not having a position. You can't balance the indeterminate. My suspicion is that most of the "balanced" people just enjoy music and don't worry about this sort of thing. Lucky souls.


I wanted to allow those who felt they had no leaning one way or the other to find a home (just as you wanted to rewrite so you could recognise yourself). I didn't want to use a potentially negative term like "fence-sitter", and I couldn't see much to describe either, so 'balanced' was as much a place-holder until something else came along. Since then, I was reminded of the four point scale used by the body that inspects state schools in England (known as 'Ofsted') and the descriptors that go with it. Schools used to be judged either Outstanding, Good, Satisfactory or Inadequate (though there have been variations). Some years ago, the great and the good decided that 'satisfactory' was 'not good enough' and replaced it with 'Requires Improvement', and the descriptor that goes with that grade?

"Not yet good".

As a local government education adviser and inspector, once trained to carry out Ofsted inspections, I was not only familiar with their schedule and inspection handbooks, but compiled the local authority's responses to consultations on changes to them. Consequently, this kind of analysis, its application, and its flaws fascinates me. I mention this because, IMO, Ofsted has over the years changed its inspection framework so many times that it has inevitably rendered itself fundamentally flawed. This shows that even those who might be deemed to be able to write such a schema with a degree of objectivity can't manage it. They struggle deciding what activity they will inspect, judging what they see and using language to write their evaluations. They nevertheless proclaim that their decisions are final, irreversible and monumental. Of course, although they were supposed to be independent of government...they weren't and the framework had to be rewritten every time the government (and governments of both colours in the UK have been guilty of this) decided on a different priority (or populist policy). It's now got to the stage where the government asks Ofsted what it should tell Ofsted to inspect!

It's much easier to do this kind of thing for an activity as inconsequential as classical music! I think I'm probably 'balanced' (so I doubtless 'require improvement' for being insufferably moderate) because that's my instinct.


----------



## Forster

5 pages have elapsed since I last posted and having covid at present, I've lost the energy to go back and catch up. So, apologies if any contribution I make from this point forward makes anyone feel "Duh! Didn't you read...?!!" 😉


----------



## Strange Magic

> *Woodduck:* "
> 
> 1. *Total subjectivist. *The Total Subjectivist holds that any evaluation of music which attributes any kind of excellence or value to it is entirely an importation or imposition of ideas by the evaluator, attributed for any reason and not necessarily related in any demonstrable way to the content of the work. There is no such thing as intrinsic excellence manifested by the work itself, and no opinion concerning its merits which is worth more than any other. To paraphrase Hamlet, nothing in music is good or bad but thinking makes it so. To paraphrase myself, there is no music that deserves to be called "great," and no exercise produced by a first-year theory student that is inherently inferior to the music of Bach, Beethoven Brahms, et al."


The definition offered above by Woodduck exactly matches my view of art, but with one crucial difference--an omission of the primacy of the individual perceiver. Art, its perception, its impact, our engagement with it, occurs on an strictly personal basis in practice. True that we perceive art in the context of our entire (unique) existence. Also true that we may experience art in the company of others. Yet we don't reach an opinion about the art acting as more than our one self--the _H0mo gestalt_ of Theodore Sturgeon's SF novel More Than Human notwithstanding. Unique individuals are the essential _sine qua non_ atoms that constitute the building blocks of any theory of art.

As such, individuals have every ability and right to call anything they think great, "great", defining greatness any way they choose. And while there is no exercise produced by that first-year theory student that is *inherently* inferior or superior to the music of Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, et al, there is every opportunity for the individual to imbue a piece of music with his/her *personal* assessment of inferiority or superiority.

This is, as I have remarked, a very big and essential difference between Woodduck's definition of Total Subjectivism and my own. I experience art as an autonomous agent whereas Woodduck experiences it within a web of notions that he has gleaned from the opinions of others, either peers or authority figures. Esthetic notions about art that seek to establish "objective" laws or facts about art are the product of a mingling and merging and summing of separate individual views among like-minded perceivers and then delivered to the rest in the manner of Moses delivering the Ten Commandments. 

A final comment on DaveM's thoughts on the obvious and inherent nature of the associations tendered by hearing the Beethoven 6th as a day in the country: Dorothy in Kansas, upon hearing _La Mer_ for the first time and without its title, or even with it, had no notion of the sea at all, never having seen it. Perhaps a musical evocation of a tornado would be more obvious to her (or maybe not).


----------



## Forster

Strange Magic said:


> [...]I experience art as an autonomous agent whereas Woodduck experiences it within *a web of notions that he has gleaned from the opinions of others*, either peers or authority figures. Esthetic notions about art that seek to establish "objective" laws or facts about art are the product of a mingling and merging and summing of separate individual views among like-minded perceivers and then delivered to the rest in the manner of Moses delivering the Ten Commandments.
> 
> A final comment on DaveM's thoughts on the obvious and inherent nature of the associations tendered by hearing the Beethoven 6th as a day in the country: Dorothy in Kansas, upon hearing _La Mer_ for the first time and without its title, or even with it, had no notion of the sea at all, never having seen it. Perhaps a musical evocation of a tornado would be more obvious to her (or maybe not).


I think we can allow Woodduck his _own _personal response somewhere in the "a web of notions that he has gleaned from the opinions of others". I would also reject the idea that anyone experiences art as a wholly "autonomous agent" since we are all subject at least subconsciously to the "opinions of others". You may consciously choose to declare that you will not bow to anyone else's authority in what you deem worthy, but your choices will nevertheless be affected by all the same influences - open and hidden - that affect us all.


----------



## Strange Magic

Forster said:


> I think we can allow Woodduck his _own _personal response somewhere in the "a web of notions that he has gleaned from the opinions of others". I would also reject the idea that anyone experiences art as a wholly "autonomous agent" since we are all subject at least subconsciously to the "opinions of others". You may consciously choose to declare that you will not bow to anyone else's authority in what you deem worthy, but your choices will nevertheless be affected by all the same influences - open and hidden - that affect us all.


As to your second point, I acknowledged that fact, and actually revel in the uniqueness of each individual's full experientially and neurologically varied context. I also am aware of the opinions of others but my energy in holding to and espousing my viewpoint strongly suggests that I _pay little or no _attention to the views of others in the arts beyond an ordinary and understandable pleasure when there is agreement among otherwise autonomous individuals. Human nature. Or of a desire to pit my ideas against those of others; again human nature.

As to your first point, I will be delighted by a spirited defense by Woodduck of either his affirmation of the mentioned web of notions or of his denial of such a web. The first will affirm my diagnosis; the second will demonstrate my thesis of the primacy of the individual in assessing art.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Some appear to be insecure about their dogmaticism. For instance, they ask


dissident said:


> "how can Luchesi tell from comparing scores which music is the greater"?
> Compare the first 5 Beethoven piano sonatas with the last 5.


I merely show them the score (without commenting on the music whatsoever), only adding a note, "I'm not trying to portray it negatively", to ensure people don't get the wrong idea.
(I might be thinking "it is far too different to be judged by any sort of objective criteria")


hammeredklavier said:


> youtube.com/watch?v=FwZsDzGY1XA&t=44m44s


They reply; "You dare to question the divinity of our God Beethoven... Now post some music by [a mortal], and realize the difference between a heavenly deity and an earthly mortal!"


dissident said:


> Yeah, you're always saying that and really all you discredit is hammeredklavier the Internet commentator. Now post a couple of measures of soporific Michael Haydn and ask in your most earnest philosophical voice why we prefer Mozart.
> As for Op. 106,


And they nitpick about the homophonic rhythm of a chorale (which is supposed to be homophonic) just cause it wasn't written by the "Gods", and accuse the proponents of the other side for letting dogmatism cloud their vision.


hammeredklavier said:


> For instance, have a look at the article <I Believe in Mozart: Symphony No. 41 in C Major> 2013/03/18/i-believe-in-mozart-symphony-41-in-c-major/
> We have been constantly "educated" (or "brainwashed" depending on how you look at it) in this way. _"Thank Bach only, and no one else."_
> What if we had been educated from childhood about, for instance, the complex organ works of Johann Ludwig Krebs and nothing about Bach? Would things have been the same? (I'm just asking).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dissident said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only listened for a few minutes, but that selection to me is _static_.
Click to expand...

Is this what the "Qualified Objectivist" stance is really about? Isn't it more like "Dogmatic Objectivist"? I'm already scared of how they'll react as I'm saying these things.


----------



## 59540

....


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> You're just a troll.


I'm sorry if I appeared to you like that. I do consider you a wonderful member, and I do respect your views, I really do. And I ask; please try not to judge me too harshly for my views.



dissident said:


> Going around posting early Mozart liturgical music all over the place didn't work in gaining enough attention, so then it was posting Michael Haydn all over the place.


Maybe I was at the time trying my best to show you Mozart wasn't just a corny composer of Alberti bass (compared to guys like Haydn, Pasterwitz, Aumann), but you never believed me. But thanks to me doing it, you should have known enough of them already, - Now I ask; how do Mozart's achievements in that field (and German songs and oratorios) objectively compare with Haydn's? Could you take the "test" now?


hammeredklavier said:


> O RLY? Then let's see how many you can identify :





dissident said:


> Neither of those work, so then it's trying to poke holes in "the greats".


Not at all.. Not at all.. I say again; I never think for a moment, any of those awesome artists is overrated in any way. I swear.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm sorry if I appeared to you like that. ...


No you're not. It's how you get attention and why you stay on this forum.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> ...
> I like the keyboard-mashing in the first Rautavaara piano concerto. *Bach would hate it*. (I do love Bach! he hastened to add.)


I don't think we can be too sure about that.


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> I think we have different reasons for wanting to debate these issues, and it would be interesting to hear what motivates others. I'm an artist who has always enjoyed observing and trying to understand what's happening in the creative process, and my convictions about what art is rest first and foremost upon my understanding of how it's made, in the brain as well as on the canvas or keyboard. This perspective makes me impatient with the "objective/subjective" arguments that seem fundamental to some people's concerns. What seems mysteriously "subjective" to a listener - the beauty which he feels is there but his friend doesn't - is apt to be very nuts-and-bolts to a composer seeking just the right chord for a crucial moment, knowing that "beauty" is something more "objectively" real than a nice sound or a pleasant feeling, and knowing, if he's a good composer, when he's found the thing he seeks and so allowed his artistic argument to sound forth unimpeded by the vague or awkward choices he entertained but knew he had to discard. For every good choice there are numerous bad ones, and I love Frank LLoyd Wright for saying that his most-used drafting tool was the eraser. Beethoven would have agreed. He and FLLW both used that tool wisely.
> 
> It's pretty obvious that others have reasons for talking and arguing about art very unlike mine. Some confessionals might be at least entertaining!


To be honest the reason I'm asking is that I don't really want to upset anyone. 

It's been implied and at times explicated that one side has the agenda to Denigrate the Greats, which I don't think is true*, at least not for me, and I wanted to address this because it is clearly upsetting a few people here, and in the past. At the very least I don't want to denigrate their art - I have said, partially in jest that they're all perhaps slightly overrated, but this is less about iconoclasm/"Mozart sucks!" and more a belief that many advancements in history, artistic and otherwise, which are popularly attributed to a single person are more the results of larger trends that one artist happened to exemplify. 

Really it's more that I like viewing The Greats as artists who made great art, and not some sort of demi-god-like Hero Figures - so maybe I do find the veneration of them, marble busts-and-all slightly distasteful. That's as far as I'll really want to go as far as "diminishing" accomplished artists, though. If I'm "leveling" anything, it's not to say that Beethoven was no better than anyone else, it's to say that I like viewing Beethoven primarily as an artist and a musician - a fabulously accomplished one - and not some borderline deity whose work is beyond question. 





*ok except maybe HK but the poor guy just wants more Michael Haydn recordings


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> To the extent that we can be sure of anything psychological, in this case I can say with approximaely 99.99% assurance that Beethoven's mythical reputation for tragedy and torture does not influence my judgment of any of his music. Op. 132 is visionary, _Fidelio_ is imperfect but noble, and _Wellington_ is fluff. I can't remember, and don't care, when he went deaf or what he did to Karl. Neither do I care that Tchaikovsky attempted marriage to a woman, or that Wagner composed while burning incense and wearing silk underpants. We all have our crosses to bear. Meanwhile there's the music.


Not to get confessional, but whether or not my views have been significantly influenced by others is a frequent insecurity of mine when listening to a piece which I know is a canonical masterwork. It's less "Does this work actually suck and I'm being convinced otherwise", and more a wish that I could try to appreciate the work without the baggage of knowing it's something that's "known" to be great. One can try to do the latter, but I'm not sure it's possible to _completely_ set that kind of thing aside, and doing so often results in a sort of detached listening experience.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> Really it's more that I like viewing The Greats as artists who made great art, *and not some sort of demi-god-like Hero Figures* - *so maybe I do find the veneration of them, marble busts-and-all slightly distasteful. *That's as far as I'll really want to go as far as "diminishing" accomplished artists, though. If I'm "leveling" anything, it's not to say that Beethoven was no better than anyone else, it's to say that I like viewing Beethoven primarily as an artist and a musician - a fabulously accomplished one -* and not some borderline deity whose work is beyond question.*


Do you have any idea what average age-group you’re talking to here? Are you confusing us with a bunch of teenagers? You’re drinking HK’s Kool-aid. Maybe it’s time you took a hard look at your own posting content and consider why people would join a CM forum in the first place.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> Do you have any idea what average age-group you’re talking to here? Are you confusing us with a bunch of teenagers? You’re drinking HK’s Kool-aid. Maybe it’s time you took a hard look at your own posting content and consider why people would join a CM forum in the first place.


I'm speaking hyperbolically here, and to a generalized view of the Great Artist that sometimes persists in culture, rather than anything that's specifically been expressed in this thread. 

In fact, I want to make something clear here- I have no intention to diminish the music of classical composers, and I _especially_ have no intention to diminish the listeners of said composers. The reason I dislike that sort of veneration, and all the baggage it comes with, is because I think it can actually harm aesthetic appreciation, and not help it.


----------



## SanAntone

The idea that composers such as Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven are venerated in a way that verges on idolatry is ludicrous, IMO. Classical music listeners rightfully admire the music by these composers, and that is the extent of it.


----------



## fbjim

SanAntone said:


> The idea that composers such as Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven are venerated in a way that verges on idolatry is ludicrous, IMO. Classical music listeners rightfully admire the music by these composers, and that is the extent of it.


This isn't a question of whether or not the music is properly admired, appreciated or, that hated word, "overrated". 

The "marble-bust-view" thing is where - at least to me - the humanity of the artist can sometimes be lost. And though I stress again that I'm not speaking of anyone here, I absolutely have seen artists spoken of in hyperbolic terms like this.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> I don't think we can be too sure about that.


I think a strong positive indicator of Bach's view of key-mashing--forearm and all--would be if he himself engaged in it. And what is "too sure"? How sure are you of Bach's possible endorsement of it? I think my "sure" about Bach is on firmer ground than your cannot be too sure. Is the above quote a struggling to say something rather than let my simple post go unchallenged? We know the answer to that question.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> This isn't a question of whether or not the music is properly admired, appreciated or, that hated word, "overrated".
> 
> The "marble-bust-view" thing is where - at least to me - the humanity of the artist can sometimes be lost. And though I stress again that I'm not speaking of anyone here, I absolutely have seen artists spoken of in hyperbolic terms like this.


So if you’re not speaking of anyone here, why are you posting as if you are? And let’s say occasionally on this forum someone happens to speak with this kind of idolatry, it’s usually someone younger who is experiencing CM for the first time. Are you going to deny them the wonderment that many of us felt when we were starting out?


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> So if you’re not speaking of anyone here, why are you posting as if you are? And let’s say occasionally on this forum someone happens to speak with this kind of idolatry, it’s usually someone younger who is experiencing CM for the first time. Are you going to deny them the wonderment that many of us felt when we were starting out?


Is it really necessary to view everything I post as confrontational or as an accusation? I'm speaking in more general terms because I _don't_ want to upset people, and want to explain where I'm coming from.


----------



## SanAntone

Brahms famously had a bust of Beethoven hanging high on the wall of his apartment overlooking the piano. I believe he was quoted that he never wanted to forget who was looking over his shoulder.


----------



## fbjim

To that point, I think the extraordinarily long gestation time of his First was because he felt compelled to live up to the Beethoven-Ian tradition in a way.

Of course as a highly self-critical creator, the relationship between Brahms and Beethoven is, needless to say, different than my own, as a listener.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> Brahms famously had a bust of Beethoven hanging high on the wall of his apartment overlooking the piano. I believe he was quoted that he never wanted to forget who was looking over his shoulder.


So Brahms was one of those Beethoven ‘marble-bust’ fanboys!


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> Brahms famously had a bust of Beethoven hanging high on the wall of his apartment overlooking the piano. I believe he was quoted that he never wanted to forget who was looking over his shoulder.


I'm not sure what that has to do with anything discussed so far in the thread, but Brahms in 1896 pretty much expressed similar views as tdc (who more or less agrees with me on various 18th century composers about use of vertical harmony) on Beethoven. Again, I'm not trying to denigrate Beethoven, but I think Brahms was contradictory and was somewhat of an "opportunist" in some of his actions (eg. he admired Wagner's music, but mistreated Wagner's followers), he probably wasn't fully sincere in his attitude toward Beethoven, but tried to appear like he was, for most of his life, to support his cause, Neoclassicism.
Brahms, from a conversation with Richard Heuberger, 1896:
"[...] But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven. Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, it was a completely new thing. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony! You couldn't commission great music from Beethoven since he created only lesser works on commission—his more conventional pieces, his variations and the like." (books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA135)
And since Brahms' knowledge of 18th century music was limited in his time, he's not an authority to be relied on unquestioningly, regarding that either. (ie. the "harmonic innovation" of Idomeneo)


----------



## mikeh375

SanAntone said:


> Brahms famously had a bust of Beethoven hanging high on the wall of his apartment overlooking the piano. I believe he was quoted that he never wanted to forget who was looking over his shoulder.


Brahms or Zimmer, composers love their bolt holes.








omposers love their bolt holes.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> The idea that composers such as Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven are venerated in a way that verges on idolatry is ludicrous, IMO. Classical music listeners rightfully admire the music by these composers, and that is the extent of it.


I think it's fair to say that Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, who knew each other and came from roughly the same time, place and social and cultural environment, brought a very specific, highly developed (by them and others) and elaborate style to a high level. The key word there is "style". Until you've considered and analyzed that style in some detail, there isn't much point in undertaking any serious evaluation of those composers. And if you happen not to be interested in that style, there is no point in pursuing that analysis. Their music is not for you. As a musician, I know that you know all that. But the concept seems to elude some people here.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> The definition offered above by Woodduck exactly matches my view of art, but with one crucial difference--an omission of the primacy of the individual perceiver.
> 
> This is, as I have remarked, a very big and essential difference between Woodduck's definition of Total Subjectivism and my own. * I experience art as an autonomous agent whereas Woodduck experiences it within a web of notions that he has gleaned from the opinions of others, either peers or authority figures.* Esthetic notions about art that seek to establish "objective" laws or facts about art are the product of a mingling and merging and summing of separate individual views among like-minded perceivers and then delivered to the rest in the manner of Moses delivering the Ten Commandments.


As usual, when you speak for and about others - which you do with unseemly arrogance and frequency (once is too many times) - you have no ****ing idea what you're talking about. Speak for yourself and leave my name out of your puerile screeds.


----------



## Woodduck

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


----------



## Woodduck

Forster said:


> I think we can allow Woodduck his _own _personal response somewhere in the "a web of notions that he has gleaned from the opinions of others".


Thank you. It's good to know there are adults in the room.


----------



## Forster

fbjim said:


> This isn't a question of whether or not the music is properly admired, appreciated or, that hated word, "overrated".
> 
> The "marble-bust-view" thing is where - at least to me - the humanity of the artist can sometimes be lost. And though I stress again that I'm not speaking of anyone here, I absolutely have seen artists spoken of in hyperbolic terms like this.


That word "overrated" is troublesome, but relevant. Deification of any composer is certainly hyperbolic. I see no reason to avoid the hated word if there is evidence of a gap between what something is intrinsically worth and how it is valued by any given valuer. Calling something overrated is not necessarily to devalue that intrinsic worth.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> As to your first point, I will be delighted by a spirited defense by Woodduck of either his affirmation of the mentioned web of notions or of his denial of such a web. The first will affirm my diagnosis; the second will demonstrate my thesis of the primacy of the individual in assessing art.


I wouldn't stoop to affirming or denying any of your foolish notions about me. I repeat: speak only for yourself.


----------



## fbjim

fluteman said:


> I think it's fair to say that Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, who knew each other and came from roughly the same time, place and social and cultural environment, brought a very specific, highly developed (by them and others) and elaborate style to a high level. The key word there is "style". Until you've considered and analyzed that style in some detail, there isn't much point in undertaking any serious evaluation of those composers. And if you happen not to be interested in that style, there is no point in pursuing that analysis. Their music is not for you. As a musician, I know that you know all that. But the concept seems to elude some people here.


What I'm trying to articulate is something different, though I don't disagree with this.

A lot of my conception of how I like to approach art is to view it as (almost) a conversation, or dialogue between the work/composer and a listener. This is _especially_ true of art with significant depth, which - to take a metaphor perhaps too far, responds well to questions asked of it (I remember a film critic saying that great art is that which gives you more than the effort you put into it). It's a communication of ideas.

This is why I have something of a concern about the "humanity" behind the art, rather than the conception of romantic genius behind it - if art is something that humans do to communicate ideas in the form of aesthetics, then I don't want to listen to the "marble bust" of Beethoven, or the grand ideal of Beethoven. I want to listen to Beethoven, the artist, the man who was trying to communicate things through music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fbjim said:


> I don't want to listen to the "marble bust" of Beethoven, or the grand ideal of Beethoven. I want to listen to Beethoven, the artist, the man who was trying to communicate things through music.


The argument is basically "Brahms admired Beethoven so you should too."
But then again, do we need to care about F.J. Aumann (1729-1797) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Joseph_Aumann in the same way too?
"Aumann's music was a large part of the repertoire at St. Florian in the 19th century, and Anton Bruckner availed himself of this resource for his studies of counterpoint. Bruckner focused a lot of his attention on Aumann's Christmas responsories and an Ave Maria in D major. Bruckner, who liked Aumann's coloured harmony, added in 1879 an accompaniment by three trombones to his settings of Ecce quomodo moritur justus and Tenebrae factae sunt."
Here's a question the "objectivists" can never answer:


hammeredklavier said:


> What if an artist *didn't want to be known* to the posterity, and *didn't have his work published*? What if he's not widely known today because of that?


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> I think it's fair to say that Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, who knew each other and came from roughly the same time, place and social and cultural environment, brought a very specific, highly developed (by them and others) and elaborate style to a high level. The key word there is "style". Until you've considered and analyzed that style in some detail, there isn't much point in undertaking any serious evaluation of those composers. And if you happen not to be interested in that style, there is no point in pursuing that analysis. Their music is not for you. As a musician, I know that you know all that. But the concept seems to elude some people here.


On a forum devoted to Classical music I don't see the point in considering listeners who are not interested in Classical music.


----------



## 59540

fluteman said:


> I think it's fair to say that Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, who knew each other and came from roughly the same time, place and social and cultural environment, brought a very specific, highly developed (by them and others) and elaborate style to a high level. The key word there is "style". Until you've considered and analyzed that style in some detail, there isn't much point in undertaking any serious evaluation of those composers. And if you happen not to be interested in that style, there is no point in pursuing that analysis. Their music is not for you. As a musician, I know that you know all that. But the concept seems to elude some people here.


But that flies in the face of the "all subjective opinions are equally valid" sermons that have been laid out here over and over. Besides I don't think you have to be well-versed in the minutiae of late Classical-early Romantic musical styles to appreciate the work of those 3 composers. That knowledge does enhance appreciation, but it isn't a requirement.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> On a forum devoted to Classical music I don't see the point in considering listeners who are not interested in Classical music.


Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven composed in a specific style of classical music, distinct from that of Palestrina or Shostakovich, and even taking into account that no two composers have absolutely identical styles. The way I am using the word, it would not be correct to say there is one style of classical music, or even one style of western classical music.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> ...
> 
> This is, as I have remarked, a very big and essential difference between Woodduck's definition of Total Subjectivism and my own. *I experience art as an autonomous agent...*


How can you be sure how much of an "autonomous agent" you are? Were you raised by a pack of wolves and only recently emerged out of the tree line?


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> The argument is basically "Brahms admired Beethoven so you should too."
> But then again, do we need to care about F.J. Aumann (1729-1797) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Joseph_Aumann in the same way too?
> "Aumann's music was a large part of the repertoire at St. Florian in the 19th century, and Anton Bruckner availed himself of this resource for his studies of counterpoint. Bruckner focused a lot of his attention on Aumann's Christmas responsories and an Ave Maria in D major. Bruckner, who liked Aumann's coloured harmony, added in 1879 an accompaniment by three trombones to his settings of Ecce quomodo moritur justus and Tenebrae factae sunt."
> Here's a question the "objectivists" can never answer:


You mean subjectivists _can_ answer it? 

Why don't we just venerate equally every composer who ever put pen or pencil to paper (or uses software)? Heck, let's venerate every would-be composer for what they might have composed, had they composed...because we know it wouldn't have been any worse than anything else.


----------



## hammeredklavier

dissident said:


> Why don't we just venerate equally every composer who ever put pen or pencil to paper


Why don't we just let each of us decide for himself, and leave it at that? After all, you said it's not a _zero-sum game_. If someone values Salieri as much as Mozart (as some people in the opera subforum do), I wouldn't need to indulge in the thinking "that person is objectively stupid to be not able to see Mozart's superiority over Salieri."


dissident said:


> (or uses software)?


You said "different genres can't be compared with one another", (which is another argument conveniently used by some here). There has been a comparison of the Benjamin Franklin string quartet to Mozart, but it has only about as much similarity as Bob Dylan does to Mozart.


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven composed in a specific style of classical music, distinct from that of Palestrina or Shostakovich, and even taking into account that no two composers have absolutely identical styles. The way I am using the word, it would not be correct to say there is one style of classical music, or even one style of western classical music.


I agree, there are a number of styles across several periods. And lovers of Classical music do not always enjoy them all equally or even at all. On this forum we are always posting lists of our favorite composers and everyone's is different, although often they overlap.

But I don't see the point in focusing on this aspect of listening to and enjoying Classical music.

There are acknowledged great composers from each period, well, maybe not for the most recent period. But given a sufficient passage of time, every period will have some composers that are considered the best of their time. And this judgment of history is a fact, not an opinion.

It doesn't matter how many Classical lovers list Beethoven, or Mahler, or Shostakovich as their favorites, or those Classical music fans who identify them as composers they consider overrated, or even bad composers. Personal opinions are only really relevant to the person who holds them, and maybe the basis of a lively discussion of our favorite composers.

The history of music contains information thatI think is more important than who likes whom.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> I agree, there are a number of styles across several periods. And lovers of Classical music do not always enjoy them all equally or even at all. On this forum we are always posting lists of our favorite composers and everyone's is different, although often they overlap.
> 
> But I don't see the point in focusing on this aspect of listening to and enjoying Classical music.
> 
> There are acknowledged great composers from each period, well, maybe not for the most recent period. But given a sufficient passage of time, every period will have some composers that are considered the best of their time. And this judgment of history is a fact, not an opinion.
> 
> It doesn't matter how many Classical lovers list Beethoven, or Mahler, or Shostakovich as their favorites, or those Classical music fans who identify them as composers they consider overrated, or even bad composers. Personal opinions are only really relevant to the person who holds them, and maybe the basis of a lively discussion of our favorite composers.
> 
> The history of music contains information thatI think is more important than who likes whom.


All true. But if you go all the way back to KenOC's original post, he asks:

"I occasionally see criticisms that some music, especially baroque instrumental and pre-Ludwig classical, lacks profundity. So I ask, what is profundity? Is it something that actually exists in music? Something that triggers a particular neural or emotional response? How can we recognize it?"

To me, there is no way to begin to approach those questions until you start to think about the Baroque style, or even, the early, middle and late Baroque style, and how it contrasts with the Classical style as exemplified by Haydn and Mozart, and how that in turn contrasts with Beethoven's style. W. Dean Sutcliffe, the musicologist you cited for his Charles Rosen review, studies exactly this kind of question, with a focus on 18th century music. As I mentioned, he recently came out with a book that focuses on the instrumental music of Haydn and Mozart. 

Those like KenOC who keep asking, "What's so great, or profound, about the music of Haydn or Mozart?" should consider reading some books such as those of Rosen and Sutcliffe. The rest of us are under no obligation to do so.


----------



## Woodduck

dissident said:


> How can you be sure how much of an "autonomous agent" you are? Were you raised by a pack of wolves and only recently emerged out of the tree line?


Pithy and perfect. Just for context, the full quote from SM's post was, _"I experience art as an autonomous agent whereas Woodduck experiences it within a web of notions that he has gleaned from the opinions of others, either peers or authority figures. Esthetic notions about art that seek to establish 'objective' laws or facts about art are the product of a mingling and merging and summing of separate individual views among like-minded perceivers and then delivered to the rest in the manner of Moses delivering the Ten Commandments."_

Apparently we're to believe that people who think that Verdi's _Otello_ is in any real sense a superior work of art to Andrew Lloyd Webber's _Jesus Christ Superstar_ couldn't possibly have arrived at that conclusion except by absorbing or consulting the opinions of others. We're also to believe that people who think that all judgments of art are equally legitimate are able to approach art _tabula rasa,_ unbiased and unaffected in their responses by the world in which they've lived all their lives.

In my next life I must try to arrange to be adopted by forest creatures and raised in a cave in order to attain "autonomous agency," although I might run the risk of imagining that Wagner's _Siegfried_ is the only opera that portrays real life.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> I think a strong positive indicator of Bach's view of key-mashing--forearm and all--would be if he himself engaged in it. And what is "too sure"? How sure are you of Bach's possible endorsement of it? I think my "sure" about Bach is on firmer ground than your cannot be too sure. Is the above quote a struggling to say something rather than let my simple post go unchallenged? We know the answer to that question.


I think he meant that Bach would learn the power of modern techniques. He would be up with the cutting edge of such 'progress'.


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> All true. But if you go all the way back to KenOC's original post, he asks:
> 
> "I occasionally see criticisms that some music, especially baroque instrumental and pre-Ludwig classical, lacks profundity. So I ask, what is profundity? Is it something that actually exists in music? Something that triggers a particular neural or emotional response? How can we recognize it?"
> 
> To me, there is no way to begin to approach those questions until you start to think about the Baroque style, or even, the early, middle and late Baroque style, and how it contrasts with the Classical style as exemplified by Haydn and Mozart, and how that in turn contrasts with Beethoven's style. W. Dean Sutcliffe, the musicologist you cited for his Charles Rosen review, studies exactly this kind of question, with a focus on 18th century music. As I mentioned, he recently came out with a book that focuses on the instrumental music of Haydn and Mozart.
> 
> Those like KenOC who keep asking, "What's so great, or profound, about the music of Haydn or Mozart?" should consider reading some books such as those of Rosen and Sutcliffe. The rest of us are under no obligation to do so.


I have never been a fan of comparing one period or style or genre to another since I don't think there are enough common parameters to base a meaningful comparison. Usually it just comes down to people claiming the superiority of the music from a period or style or genre they happen to like more than another. 

I see this wide-ranging subject as having two mutually exclusive aspects: 1) music that has been judged to be the greatest by a consensus over time and 2) the music we enjoy the most. One is important vis a vis music history and the other is important for an individual.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Tchaikovsky had to write that long letter about his fondness of Mozart because there were people around him indifferent or negative in attitude to Mozart, such as Nadezhda von Meck. He starts off (his letter to von Meck, 16/28 March 1878) by saying "Why don't you love Mozart? With regard to him we clearly disagree with one another, my dear friend."
Also, Wagner, who was very much "indoctrinated" from childhood, by having a Mozart biography read to him at the age of 6 —"He worked hard to introduce Mozart to his friends." (Wagner, a biography, volume 2, page 82 / Curt von Westernhagen, 1978). If his friends all knew and liked Mozart, why would he have had to _work hard to introduce_ Mozart to them? It doesn't make sense.
There are Mozart partisans on the net today who copy and paste long compilations of quotes by various historical figures to have us believe everyone in the past 2.5 centuries liked Mozart. But the fact is that the popularity of Mozart actually declined during the 19th century (except in connossieur circles), because they frankly found a lot of the stuff to be "wallpaper music" by the sensibilities of their time, and the treatment of the "welcome old friend" (a.k.a. Papa) by guys like Schumann, Berlioz, Hanslick, etc, was far, far worse. 
"The denigration of Haydn and Mozart drives me mad." -Mendelssohn.
Whether or not to treat the stuff as "ancient relics from the past" is up to each of us to decide.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Tchaikovsky had to write that long letter about his fondness of Mozart because there were people around him indifferent or negative in attitude to Mozart, such as Nadezhda von Meck. He starts off (his letter to von Meck, 16/28 March 1878) by saying "Why don't you love Mozart? With regard to him we clearly disagree with one another, my dear friend."
> Also, Wagner, who was very much "indoctrinated" from childhood, by having a Mozart biography read to him at the age of 6 —"He worked hard to introduce Mozart to his friends." (Wagner, a biography, volume 2, page 82 / Curt von Westernhagen, 1978). If his friends all knew and liked Mozart, why would he have had to _work hard to introduce_ Mozart to them? It doesn't make sense.
> There are Mozart partisans on the net today who copy and paste long compilations of quotes by various historical figures to have us believe everyone in the past 2.5 centuries liked Mozart. But the fact is that the popularity of Mozart actually declined during the 19th century (except in connossieur circles), because they frankly found a lot of the stuff to be "wallpaper music" by the sensibilities of their time, and the treatment of the "welcome old friend" (a.k.a. Papa) by guys like Schumann, Berlioz, Hanslick, etc, was far, far worse.
> Whether or not to treat the stuff as "ancient relics from the past" is up to each of us to decide.


Did all these people who were not fond of Mozart think he was not a fine composer, or did they simply find his sensibility out of tune with their tastes and with the times, which in some cases could have influenced their perception of his art? There's a significant difference. If you have people like Brahms, Wagner and Tchaikovsky on your side, who, aside from her protege, cares what Nadezhda von Meck thinks?


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> I have never been a fan of comparing one period or style or genre to another since I don't think there are enough common parameters to base a meaningful comparison. Usually it just comes down to people claiming the superiority of the music from a period or style or genre they happen to like more than another.
> 
> I see this wide-ranging subject as having two mutually exclusive aspects: 1) music that has been judged to be the greatest by a consensus over time and 2) the music we enjoy the most. One is important vis a vis music history and the other is important for an individual.


The two aren't so mutually exclusive, though. Chances are much of the music you enjoy the most would have disappeared if it hadn't built up a lasting audience somewhere. You like Renaissance music and early blues and jazz, right? Those traditions live on, both in their actual music and in their influence on later styles. Eventually we'll have to concede that blues and jazz are classical musical traditions.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> If you have people like Brahms, Wagner and Tchaikovsky on your side


Sure, they were seduced by "something" in Mozart's music. But do you think that's something that can never be thought as "corny" by anyone, objectively? - this is coming from someone who has wept uncontrollably from listening to the first movement of K.488 concerto.


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> The two aren't so mutually exclusive, though. Chances are much of the music you enjoy the most would have disappeared if it hadn't built up a lasting audience somewhere. You like Renaissance music and early blues and jazz, right? Those traditions live on, both in their actual music and in their influence on later styles. Eventually we'll have to concede that blues and jazz are classical musical traditions.


Yes, and I've always held that the historical consensus is a cumulative collection of subjective responses. However, the same names turn up across multiple periods and audiences no matter how remote their style may be regarding current trends. Over time those consistent responses solidify into something approaching an objective historical fact.

I will note that my favorite composers do not appear on any list of great composers.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Sure, they were seduced by "something" in Mozart's music. But do you think that's something that can never be thought as "corny" by anyone, objectively? - this is coming from someone who has wept uncontrollably from listening to the first movement of K.488 concerto.


The idea that three of the greatest composers of the 19th century held Mozart in great esteem because they were "seduced by something" leaves me positively speechless.

Sorry to disturb your dreams.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> Over time those consistent responses solidify into something approaching an objective historical fact.





hammeredklavier said:


> a certain member in the past made a good point by posting the following in another thread (something for us to think about):
> All of the factors contributing to greatness are interrelated and dependent on each other. For example, one factor mentioned above is the tradition of received wisdom: belief in A's greatness has been passed down from generation to generation, reinforced by music textbooks and concert performances and internet forums, while belief in B's greatness has not. Another factor mentioned above is the test of time: A seems greater than B because the former's music has survived till today while the latter's has not. But these two factors are mutually reinforcing: if music textbooks have chapters on A but not B, then of course the former is going to have a leg up on the latter when it comes to the test of time. Conversely, if A's music is still performed today while B's is not, then of course music textbooks are going to have chapters on the former but not the latter. Likewise, another factor that has been mentioned is influence: A has demonstrably had a lasting influence on later composers, even today, while B has not. This is also inherently connected to the above factors: since A appears in textbooks and is more widely performed than B, then of course he is going to have a greater influence on later composers than B will.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> ...But the fact is that the popularity of Mozart actually declined during the 19th century (except in connossieur circles), because they frankly found a lot of the stuff to be "wallpaper music" by the sensibilities of their time, and the treatment of the "welcome old friend" (a.k.a. Papa) by guys like Schumann, Berlioz, Hanslick, etc, was far, far worse.
> Whether or not to treat the stuff as "ancient relics from the past" is up to each of us to decide.


That makes absolutely no sense. Do you know what a connoisseur is? And who are you including as ‘ancient relics from the past’?


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> I think a strong positive indicator of Bach's view of key-mashing--forearm and all--would be if he himself engaged in it. And what is "too sure"? How sure are you of Bach's possible endorsement of it? I think my "sure" about Bach is on firmer ground than your cannot be too sure. Is the above quote a struggling to say something rather than let my simple post go unchallenged? We know the answer to that question.


Neither of us can speak for Bach. It's the same with, for example, "Bach would love the modern piano". Maybe he would; maybe he would detest it. Who knows. In any case, in the Rautavaara it isn't merely "smashing" the keyboard. Those are a word you like quite a bit: "clusters".


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> If someone values Salieri as much as Mozart (as some people in the opera subforum do), I wouldn't need to indulge in the thinking "that person is objectively stupid to be not able to see Mozart's superiority over Salieri."


Why "stupid"? Some people see and grasp some things better than others. Some people can understand that a painting's composition is poorly balanced, others can sense it without understanding what they're sensing, while still others may not sense anything amiss. Some - the artistically talented - will be able to pick up a brush and fix the problem. 

Is the need to deny these inequalities of perception and knowledge the real motivation for extreme subjectivist views of artistic values?



> You said "different genres can't be compared with one another", (which is another argument conveniently used by some here). There has been a comparison of the Benjamin Franklin string quartet to Mozart, but it has only about as much similarity as Bob Dylan does to Mozart.


That's silly. The Franklin Quartet for 3 Violins and Cello is essentially a theme and variations. It sounds - unsurprisingly - like something an 18th-century person without musical training or talent would write. It's an easy-to-grasp refutation of subjectivist "egalitarianism," at least for those who don't require that musical quality be measured in deciliters.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> As usual, when you speak for and about others - which you do with unseemly arrogance and frequency (once is too many times) - you have no ****ing idea what you're talking about. Speak for yourself and leave my name out of your puerile screeds.


Calm down. You do your arguments no favors by your tone.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> How can you be sure how much of an "autonomous agent" you are? Were you raised by a pack of wolves and only recently emerged out of the tree line?


Am I to assume that the above is your best effort? Be it so. You might read my posts before the Pavlovian reaction.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Thank you. It's good to know there are adults in the room.


It was utterly certain that Woodduck would respond. We all knew he would.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> Neither of us can speak for Bach. It's the same with, for example, "Bach would love the modern piano". Maybe he would; maybe he would detest it. Who knows. In any case, in the Rautavaara it isn't merely "smashing" the keyboard. Those are a word you like quite a bit: "clusters".


Always ready for your instruction. Is there more?


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> I think he meant that Bach would learn the power of modern techniques. He would be up with the cutting edge of such 'progress'.


dissident would say we don't know Bach's possible thinking about such things.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Calm down. You do your arguments no favors by your tone.


My arguments need no "favors." Don't add condescension to presumptuousness. Your statement that "*I experience art as an autonomous agent whereas* *Woodduck experiences it within a web of notions that he has gleaned from the opinions of others, either peers or authority figures" *is utterly ignorant and something you have no right to assert. It exposes the deficiencies of your understanding of art, your ignorance of me, and a repugnant egocentricity. 

I don't enjoy lecturing my elders, but somebody needs to do it. When you've said something offensive, acknowledge it like a man.


----------



## SanAntone

I remember reading an article about what kind of face most people find beautiful. It had to do with symmetry. But perfect symmetry was not as attractive as near symmetry. The flaws in the system were what charmed us. 

We also have an inner urge to find order in seemingly random phenomenon, e.g. seeing animals in cloud formations, or a face on the surface of the moon. But then again we are awestruck by the sky at sunset: no recognizable shapes or patterns, just the majestic beauty of the entire sky.

So much of appreciation of art and music is mysterious, operating at the subconscious level.

So why has the music of Bach appealed to us across hundreds of years? I would guess it is related to these ideas of symmetry and order. Bach's contrapuntal mastery appeals to us because we sense the order and symmetry in the music. We are fascinated by that aspect as well as moved by the music itself.

I think it is near impossible to analyze a Bach fugue and nail down exactly what Bach has done that produces a sense of well-being or even joy as we listen to the music. For sure we can describe the nuts and bolts of the counterpoint, how Bach was a master at manipulating the musical lines in a complex and creative fashion - impressed by the solution of a complicated puzzle. 

But explain the magic? That I think is beyond our grasp.


----------



## Strange Magic

For those interested in the topic What is Profundity, and the different approaches to it by art and science, you might be interested in the book _The Scientific Sublime_ by Alan G. Gross. I said I might review it, and have done so in the What Books Are You Currently Reading topic down in the Off Topic Pub forum.

My goal was to give an indication of what the book is about such that others might be tempted to read it.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> My arguments need no "favors." Don't add condescension to presumptuousness. Your statement that "*I experience art as an autonomous agent whereas* *Woodduck experiences it within a web of notions that he has gleaned from the opinions of others, either peers or authority figures" *is utterly ignorant and something you have no right to assert. It exposes the deficiencies of your understanding of art, your ignorance of me, and a repugnant egocentricity.
> 
> I don't enjoy lecturing my elders, but somebody needs to do it. When you've said something offensive, acknowledge it like a man.


Again, your tone grows ever more shrill. If you found my remark offensive, then your threshold for sensing offense is very low indeed. You have often wondered why you continue to post in this thread yet you return to it again and again and with your tone antagonizing others. Not working. Go back through many hundreds of posts and compare my remarks to yours for gratuitous insult and disparagement. BTW, I can take it.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

You see, Benjamin Franklin made sure to discover electricity so people would forget about his venture into music.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Again, your tone grows ever more shrill. If you found my remark offensive, then your threshold for sensing offense is very low indeed. You have often wondered why you continue to post in this thread yet you return to it again and again and with your tone antagonizing others. Not working. Go back through many hundreds of posts and compare my remarks to yours for gratuitous insult and disparagement. BTW, I can take it.


You made a statement about another member (me) which is both false and presumptuous in having been made at all. I do not accept that sort of thing. You are out of bounds. You should be able to see that.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> Why "stupid"? Some people see and grasp some things better than others. Some people can understand that a painting's composition is poorly balanced, others can sense it without understanding what they're sensing, while still others may not sense anything amiss. Some - the artistically talented - will be able to pick up a brush and fix the problem.


Sure, but to what end fundamentally? Pleasing the audiences? So what if Mozart was a better clown than Franklin?


hammeredklavier said:


> "Quartet for 3 Violins and Cello is a composition commonly attributed to Benjamin Franklin."
> has a practically easy, simplistic, folksy feel that would have worked far better in the context of a village festival in colonial America than Mozart K.465 would have, from the perspective of people in Franklin's place and time.
> You see a lot of things are about context. Music written by composers such as Bach and Mozart also had its respective social functions in their places and times.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> But explain the magic? That I think is beyond our grasp.


Explain the _magic_ of Pachelbel's canon, even after 340 years of its composition, why so many people in the world, even without knowledge of the music theory behind a canon, would go onto youtube to listen to it.
But of course, it's _way too popular.. way too popular.. _It's why we don't talk like the above sentence. Even though it has withstood the "test of time" more absolutely than most other classical music, by definition.


----------



## mmsbls

The past several pages have seen many negative personal comments. We ask that members be polite and not post personal attacks of any kind against other members. Any poster who uses the word "you" in a post should ensure that the comment does not describe the other member in any negative manner. Basically, please comment on content and not other members.


----------



## Woodduck

SanAntone said:


> I remember reading an article about what kind of face most people find beautiful. It had to do with symmetry. But perfect symmetry was not as attractive as near symmetry. The flaws in the system were what charmed us.


I think humans want balance, but not stasis or monotony. Pure symmetry tends to be static, monotonous, boring. Life is dynamic, and so things are perpetually slighly off balance - asymmetrical - while maintaining basic equilibrium. We can see or hear these forces at work in music, and when a composer skillfully achieves equilibrium in a work of complex dynamic forces we recognize something fundamental to our biological nature. It's balance in motion, dynamic homeostasis, the dance of successful life.



> So why has the music of Bach appealed to us across hundreds of years? I would guess it is related to these ideas of symmetry and order. Bach's contrapuntal mastery appeals to us because we sense the order and symmetry in the music. We are fascinated by that aspect as well as moved by the music itself.


Bach achieves that dynamic equilibrium in textures of layered complexity, a harmony of diverse things happening on different planes. It can seem positively cosmic, like planets spinning on their axes while revolving around a sun within a great spiraling galaxy - or, looking inside rather than outside (but the microcosm reflecting the macrocosm), the hierarchical patterns of sensations, perceptions and concepts by which we grasp the world. Within that great structural dance is a richness of expressive devices - melodic gestures and harmonic tensions - by which Bach fuses personal affect with impersonal or transpersonal structure. The emotions can be strong, yet they never disrupt the structural balance, and that containment seems to transform them, making them less specific and more universal.



> I think it is near impossible to analyze a Bach fugue and nail down exactly what Bach has done that produces a sense of well-being or even joy as we listen to the music. For sure we can describe the nuts and bolts of the counterpoint, how Bach was a master at manipulating the musical lines in a complex and creative fashion - impressed by the solution of a complicated puzzle.
> 
> But explain the magic? That I think is beyond our grasp.


In an ultimate sense all of existence is beyond our grasp, but the more we can see the isomorphism of Bach's music with the patterns of energy, motion and structure within us and outside us, the easier it is to understand the depth and rareness of his creative power and, in consequence of that, his durability in the world from age to age. I think it's also easy to understand why Bach's music, perhaps more than any other, has inspired talk of "profundity" among those who can hear the way it encompasses and integrates, through far-reaching cross-domain formal metaphors, such basic elements of our inner and outer experience.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> dissident would say we don't know Bach's possible thinking about such things.


Yes, we can't, but a musician of recent years would know about voice clustering and its uses for effectiveness. 

I've wondered whether JsB was as religious as we read. What about math? What did he know about the wider world? We can't know.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> The history of music contains information thatI think is more important than who likes whom.


As does the history of who sponsors, promotes, values, distributes the opinions of music. I don't think the two are as easily separable as you suggest.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> Am I to assume that the above is your best effort? Be it so. You might read my posts before the Pavlovian reaction.


Am I to assume that you...have no answer? Imagine my surprise. Of course there's the possibility that "autonomous agent" could be a glorified way of saying "blissfully ignorant".


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> dissident would say we don't know Bach's possible thinking about such things.


We don't, really.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> Am I to assume that you...have no answer? Imagine my surprise. Of course there's the possibility that "autonomous agent" could be a glorified way of saying "blissfully ignorant".


Was I raised by wolves? Yes, emphatically so--I am Mowgli reborn. Yes, I just emerged from the tree line, the first primate on the human line to do so. Yes, my belief in my being an autonomous agent is both rock steady and justified.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> I remember reading an article about what kind of face most people find beautiful. It had to do with symmetry. But perfect symmetry was not as attractive as near symmetry. The flaws in the system were what charmed us.
> 
> We also have an inner urge to find order in seemingly random phenomenon, e.g. seeing animals in cloud formations, or a face on the surface of the moon. But then again we are awestruck by the sky at sunset: no recognizable shapes or patterns, just the majestic beauty of the entire sky.
> 
> So much of appreciation of art and music is mysterious, operating at the subconscious level.
> 
> So why has the music of Bach appealed to us across hundreds of years? I would guess it is related to these ideas of symmetry and order. Bach's contrapuntal mastery appeals to us because we sense the order and symmetry in the music. We are fascinated by that aspect as well as moved by the music itself.
> 
> I think it is near impossible to analyze a Bach fugue and nail down exactly what Bach has done that produces a sense of well-being or even joy as we listen to the music. For sure we can describe the nuts and bolts of the counterpoint, how Bach was a master at manipulating the musical lines in a complex and creative fashion - impressed by the solution of a complicated puzzle.
> 
> But explain the magic? That I think is beyond our grasp.


Exactly right. First, you must accept as given that fugues of the kind written by Bach are aesthetically satisfying, at least to you. Then you can start to examine the wealth of detail and variety Bach in particular was able to bring to the form. Yes, looking at the question ex post, one can speak about the satisfaction of hearing order achieved from complexity, the admiration of the ingenuity of a single line of music simultaneously serving multiple purposes, and so forth. But none of that explains the magic. That is what Wittgenstein meant when he said that aesthetics is not a science.


----------



## fbjim

As someone who doesn't particularly care for Bach, I'm probably unqualified, but the most notable thing I saw about reactions to his music were how things which are sometimes considered vices in art- an element of pedagogy, high complexity, a focus on "correctness" - becomes aesthetic ends in themselves, rather than the more romantic view that those things can hamper expression.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> But that flies in the face of the "all subjective opinions are equally valid" sermons that have been laid out here over and over. Besides I don't think you have to be well-versed in the minutiae of late Classical-early Romantic musical styles to appreciate the work of those 3 composers. That knowledge does enhance appreciation, but it isn't a requirement.


"Valid" is an interesting word and I'm still not sure what it means. If someone just asked me straight up if all opinions on Bach were valid, I'd say yes, because "valid" to me just means "honest" or "existent". Whether or not those views are actually useful depends on what one hopes to accomplish by soliciting or considering those opinions (I've used "useful" rather than "valid" in the past because of this)


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> As someone who doesn't particularly care for Bach, I'm probably unqualified, but the most notable thing I saw about reactions to his music were how things which are sometimes considered vices in art- an element of pedagogy, high complexity, a focus on "correctness" - becomes aesthetic ends in themselves, rather than the more romantic view that those things can hamper expression.


Excellent, insightful point. You're beginning to think about what Walter Jackson Bate called the "premises of taste". That is what you must do to get anywhere near a cogent response to KenOC's question.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> Was I raised by wolves? Yes, emphatically so--I am Mowgli reborn. Yes, I just emerged from the tree line, the first primate on the human line to do so. Yes, my belief in my being an autonomous agent is both rock steady and justified.





Strange Magic said:


> Was I raised by wolves? Yes, emphatically so--I am Mowgli reborn. Yes, I just emerged from the tree line, the first primate on the human line to do so. Yes, my belief in my being an autonomous agent is both rock steady and justified.


I think your view of this is 'justified' for rare persons liek you, because even when I was growing up we weren't pressured to be constantly concerned about an education TOWARD getting a 'good' job. We had a more well-rounded time of it. Kids today are more tightly scheduled and the rest of their time seems to involve being glued to one flickering screen or another. Where's the time for personal creativity and old-fashioned play and exploring outside? Nature and environment and sciences are all from book-learning. No natural activities to reinforce such interests (including musical explorations).

It was a 'new world' for kids after about the late 1980s (computing was everywhere), and a much nastier one in my view..


----------



## Woodduck

fbjim said:


> As someone who doesn't particularly care for Bach, I'm probably unqualified, but the most notable thing I saw about reactions to his music were how things which are sometimes considered vices in art- an element of pedagogy, high complexity, a focus on "correctness" - becomes aesthetic ends in themselves, rather than the more romantic view that those things can hamper expression.


I would say from this that you not only don't care for Bach, but perhaps don't understand him. I don't think a "focus on correctness" describes his music at all. The dichotomy between form and expression is an aesthetic equivalent to the conflict between reason and emotion; that conflict may occur in life, but it represents a misunderstanding of what form in music is. It identifies "form" with "formula," which no real artist of any era - Baroque, Romantic or otherwise - does. Bach, utilizing a range of structural ideas typical of his era, employs them with extraordinary freedom and imagination, and for a wide range of expressive purposes. He is a far cry from Wagner's hidebound pedant, Beckmesser. _Die Meistersinger, _by the way, is a unique operatic study on healing the dichotomy between formulaic traditionalism and expressive innovation and individuality, The music of the opera is a contrapuntal tour de force, a deliberate demonstration, coming immediately after the hyperromatic iconoclasm of _Tristan und Isolde_, of the falsity of the form/expression dichotomy.


----------



## SanAntone

fbjim said:


> As someone who doesn't particularly care for Bach, I'm probably unqualified, but the most notable thing I saw about reactions to his music were how things which are sometimes considered vices in art- an element of pedagogy, high complexity, a focus on "correctness" - becomes aesthetic ends in themselves, rather than the more romantic view that those things can hamper expression.


Where did you see these reactions? Because what I've gotten from reactions to Bach is an overwhelming admiration and consensus that he is not only among the greatest composers, but many consider him THE greatest composer.


----------



## fbjim

Luchesi said:


> I think your view of this is 'justified' for rare persons liek you, because even when I was growing we weren't pressured to be constantly concerned about an education TOWARD getting a 'good' job. We had a more well-rounded time of it. Kids today are more tightly scheduled and the rest of their time seems be glued to one flickering screen or another. Where's the time for personal creativity and old-fashioned play and exploring outside? Nature and environment and sciences are all from book-learning. No natural activities to reinforce such interests (including musical explorations).
> 
> It was a 'new world' for kids after about the late 1980s (computing was everywhere), and a much nastier one in my view..


There are conflicting reports on whether or not leisure time has decreased over the years but I've generally been of the opinion that the increasing career focus of the education system is not a good thing.


----------



## fbjim

SanAntone said:


> Where did you see these reactions? Because what I've gotten from reactions to Bach is an overwhelming admiration and consensus that he is not only among the greatest composers, but many consider him THE greatest composer.


I actually misspoke, or rather deleted something and didn't delete it all the way. That should read something like _my_ reaction.


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> I actually misspoke, or rather deleted something and didn't delete it all the way. That should read something like _my_ reaction.


Either way, it was a great post, because you've managed to put your finger on some of the underlying premises behind broad proclamations such as, Bach is the greatest, or Bach is a bore. And when you succeed in doing that, suddenly it becomes clear why neither statement is provable or objectively and universally true.


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> I would say from this that you not only don't care for Bach, but perhaps don't understand him. I don't think a "focus on correctness" describes his music at all. The dichotomy between form and expression is an aesthetic equivalent to the conflict between reason and emotion; that conflict may occur in life, but it represents a misunderstanding of what form in music is. It identifies "form" with "formula," which no real artist of any era - Baroque, Romantic or otherwise - does. Bach, utilizing a range of structural ideas typical of his era, employs them with extraordinary freedom and imagination, and for a wide range of expressive purposes. He is a far cry from Wagner's hidebound pedant, Beckmesser. _Die Meistersinger, _by the way, is a unique operatic study on healing the dichotomy between formulaic traditionalism and expressive innovation and individuality, The music of the opera is a contrapuntal tour de force, a deliberate demonstration, coming immediately after the hyperromatic iconoclasm of _Tristan und Isolde_, of the falsity of the form/expression dichotomy.


It's very likely I don't understand Bach, though not for lack of trying. I've been gently ridiculed (in good-nature) about this before. Certainly I don't want to compare Bach to - well, pick any given textbook-correct classical/baroque composer who nobody cares about because they lack a voice. 

To put it in the terms you use, I see the reason, but the emotion always escaped me. The best I could manage was that his formal mastery and imagination were at such levels that they became expressive ends in themselves, rather than just methods to translate expression to music (does that make sense?)


----------



## fbjim

Woodduck said:


> Apparently we're to believe that people who think that Verdi's _Otello_ is in any real sense a superior work of art to Andrew Lloyd Webber's _Jesus Christ Superstar_ couldn't possibly have arrived at that conclusion except by absorbing or consulting the opinions of others. We're also to believe that people who think that all judgments of art are equally legitimate are able to approach art _tabula rasa,_ unbiased and unaffected in their responses by the world in which they've lived all their lives.


I'd prefer to say that we are unable to extract ourselves from the influence of history and society regardless of what our opinions on Verdi are. This is neither an argument for radical determinism nor an argument that the "correct" way to approach music is to attempt to deny this influence as much as possible, and I don't particularly think it constitutes a denial of ones own autonomy in terms of aesthetic preferences, either. 

Like I said - some composers were so influential that their work exemplified marked changes in aesthetic principles. Even if I took a deliberate effort to remove all traces and concepts of Beethoven, Debussy, Wagner or Stravinsky from my brain, I still would live in a world where virtually all music made since their work has, even in the smallest ways, been influenced by their work.



E) also once again, "are all opinions on art equally legitimate" is a question that has no answer unless it's known what we hope to accomplish or gain by soliciting those opinions.


----------



## SanAntone

> "are all opinions on art equally legitimate"


Yes, of course all opinions about art are legitimate as an expression of personal taste. However, some opinions carry more weight than others, e.g. Andras Schiff's opinion on Bach carries more weight with me than that of someone whose involvement with Bach is relatively superficial.

Nevertheless, the only opinions which ultimately matter are those we hold and use to determine which music we choose to devote our time to.


----------



## fbjim

The implication that I take is that I (or people like me) necessarily hold all views on art to be equally relevant in all contexts, which is not true. The word "legitimate" implies that some opinions on Bach are "illegitimate", and assuming nobody is lying, I have trouble believing that in a vacuum. They're just data points which need a context before we start weighing them.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> Either way, it was a great post, because you've managed to put your finger on some of the underlying premises behind broad proclamations such as, Bach is the greatest, or Bach is a bore. And when you succeed in doing that, suddenly it becomes clear why neither statement is provable or objectively and universally true.


Except that it would appear that far more people see Bach as the, or one of the, greatest and very few find him a bore which slants the evidence towards there being something objectively significant about what he did.


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> The implication that I take is that I (or people like me) necessarily hold all views on art to be equally relevant in all contexts, which is not true. The word "legitimate" implies that some opinions on Bach are "illegitimate", and assuming nobody is lying, I have trouble believing that in a vacuum.


Well, steady now. Once you accept the basic aesthetic premises of the German high baroque style, you can do a deeper dive into Bach's music and learn more about what makes it work. However, if the whole aesthetic context doesn't work for you, that is an equally legitimate opinion. Whether his intricate counterpoint endlessly fascinates and enthralls you, or you feel it drags the music down into needless technical minutiae and drains it of excitement, is entirely up to you. The verdict of history on Bach's music is sufficiently "thumbs up" that it is still performed and admired. But, so is music with slightly or radically different aesthetic premises.


----------



## fbjim

fluteman said:


> Well, steady now. Once you accept the basic aesthetic premises of the German high baroque style, you can do a deeper dive into Bach's music and learn more about what makes it work. However, if the whole aesthetic context doesn't work for you, that is an equally legitimate opinion. Whether his intricate counterpoint endlessly fascinates and enthralls you, or you feel it drags the music down into needless technical minutiae and drains it of excitement, is entirely up to you. The verdict of history on Bach's music is sufficiently "thumbs up" that it is still performed and admired. But, so is music with slightly or radically different aesthetic premises.


True, but I think we're talking on different planes here.

If our goal was to learn about the music of Bach by considering opinions on his music, we likely wouldn't heavily weigh opinions by people who have no affinity for baroque music, for an obvious example, because that wouldn't really help us in that goal. We might consider opinions by people critical of Bach, but the "usefulness" of any given opinion would depend on the reason we're looking for those opinions in the first place.

If, for some reason, I'm just trying to find out if the general population finds Bach aesthetically pleasing - perhaps in some experiment about aesthetic universals - then we'd necessarily weigh each response equally regardless of its source.


----------



## SanAntone

The only opinions about Bach, or any composer or period or style, I really pay attention to are those offered by musicians or scholars whose depth of experience and expertise on the subject I accept.


----------



## DaveM

fbjim said:


> The implication that I take is that I (or people like me) necessarily hold all views on art to be equally relevant in all contexts, which is not true. The word "legitimate" implies that some opinions on Bach are "illegitimate", and assuming nobody is lying, I have trouble believing that in a vacuum. They're just data points which need a context before we start weighing them.


Everyone is entitled to their own opinions; they’re not entitled to their own facts.


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> True, but I think we're talking on different planes here.
> 
> If our goal was to learn about the music of Bach by considering opinions on his music, we likely wouldn't heavily weigh opinions by people who have no affinity for baroque music, for an obvious example, because that wouldn't really help us in that goal. We might consider opinions by people critical of Bach, but the "usefulness" of any given opinion would depend on the reason we're looking for those opinions in the first place.
> 
> If, for some reason, I'm just trying to find out if the general population finds Bach aesthetically pleasing - perhaps in some experiment about aesthetic universals - then we'd necessarily weigh each response equally regardless of its source.


But we already have the cumulative verdict of the general population on Bach's music for over 270 years. It is sufficiently positive that his music is still very much performed and enjoyed, very much including by me. It still is not universal in any sense.


----------



## fbjim

fluteman said:


> But we already have the cumulative verdict of the general population on Bach's music for over 270 years. It is sufficiently positive that his music is still very much performed and enjoyed, very much including by me. It still is not universal in any sense.


That's just a hypothetical to demonstrate that there are cases where we might not weigh opinions. 

Another example would be people discussing music among each other - we'd likely be less concerned with the scholarly rigor of each other in the context of discussing music among friends.


----------



## fbjim

DaveM said:


> Everyone is entitled to their own opinions; they’re not entitled to their own facts.


True. One can discount the opinion of someone who dislikes Bach all they want, but one can not deny the fact that said person does not like Bach.


----------



## hammeredklavier

"they are listening to a solemn discourse, they are hearing the gospel sung, they are attending divine service rather than a concert. And really such music ought to be thus listened to. They adore Bach, and believe in him, without supposing for a moment that his divinity could ever be called into question. A heretic would horrify them, he is forbidden even to speak of him. God is God and Bach is Bach." -Berlioz

"what I would say is that I like playing Bach because it is entertaining to play a good fugue, but I do not acknowledge in him (as others do) a great genius." -Tchaikovsky
For although (as he told me himself) he would every now and then play piano fugues by Bach when he was alone, he always felt that the latter's cantatas and major vocal works were "real classical bores"


----------



## fbjim

^^^ The esteem that Brahms held Beethoven was brought up earlier, in terms of how it impacted his work - sort of seeing him as a model to live up to. I do think a bit of iconoclasm can be associated with great artists as well - it's hard to go out and challenge accepted terms of aesthetics if one simply believes that everything is already perfect.

There's no single well to draw on as far as creativity goes.


----------



## fluteman

fbjim said:


> That's just a hypothetical to demonstrate that there are cases where we might not weigh opinions.
> 
> Another example would be people discussing music among each other - we'd likely be less concerned with the scholarly rigor of each other in the context of discussing music among friends.


If you don't like a certain kind of music, no amount of expert analysis can or should convince you otherwise. The point of expert analysis, or one of the main points, is to explain how the composer achieves his results within the context of the style he / she works in. Experts can explain many of the reasons J.S. Bach is considered a preeminent composer in the German high baroque style, but not why you should prefer that style over Mississippi delta blues or Indian ragas.


----------



## SanAntone

If someone says that they don't like the music of Bach, that's one thing, a legitimate expression of personal taste. But if they claim that Bach is a crap composer - that is not a legitimate opinion since it flies in the face of the historical consensus judgment about Bach.

Expert analyses and historical and biographical treatments of Bach's life are of interest to some people, and can serve to broaden their appreciation and understanding of Bach's music. They are not designed to proselytize an opinion about Bach and convert everyone to a love of Bach's music. They exist for the benefit of all those musicians, scholars, and laypersons alike to study the life and work of Bach, if they are so interested, and come away with valuable information that can enhance their enjoyment of the music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> But if they claim that Bach is a crap composer - that is not a legitimate opinion


Of course they wouldn't talk like that if they want to be taken seriously, they would talk like Kreisler jr or


Red Terror said:


> Decades of marketing/brainwashing have convinced some of you that Bach can never be equaled. However, to my ears (and many others), Zelanka was every bit the composer Bach was.





Tasto solo said:


> A lot of very subjective contributions to this thread - how on earth can you rationally define a composer's "level" or "genius"? It is always going to be a matter of taste and I fully respect those who are touched more by Rameau or Monteverdi as I respect those for whom there is no "equal" to Bach. What I dislike, and thankfully this thread has generally steered clear, is the Bach cult which try to beatify this composer (ironically the worst thing he could imagine happening after his death judging by his piety) with their "Bach is God speaking through music" nonsense. Bach was a very clever composer and I adore a lot of his music. But I see too much the pattern and repetition in his music to be deeply moved by it. I am much more strongly moved by the music of Zelenka and Graupner who, like Bach, developed very unique personal styles, but could employ counterpoint with a more human touch and (especially in Graupner's case) orchestrated much better than Bach and achieved a much broader range of tone colours. They also developed their styles considerably in their later life whereas Bach, Handel and others basically stayed in their box. So these two composers are generally above Bach's "level" for me, if we want to speak in these simplistic and subjective terms!





Tasto solo said:


> I still stand wholeheartedly by what I wrote: The b minor mass is over-hyped in my view. Many people who talk with hyperbole about Bach's mass have never heard a note of Heinichen, Zelenka, Ristori, Hasse etc, composers who worked in the location and context for which Bach composed the initial Kyrie-Gloria and quite probably the remaining sections over a decade later. The b minor mass has some wonderful moments but for me it does not have the impact of some of the great masses of the composers I mentioned. I find Bach's approach to assemble a mass by recycling movements from various Lutheran cantatas is inferior to the holistic approach, especially of Zelenka, who clearly composed his masses from scratch and often has recurring themes... See e.g. the Missa Divi Xaverii which is quite a good example of that.


----------



## fbjim

SanAntone said:


> If someone says that they don't like the music of Bach, that's one thing, a legitimate expression of personal taste. But if they claim that Bach is a crap composer - that is not a legitimate opinion since it flies in the face of the historical consensus judgment about Bach.


Usually if someone says, without qualification, that a composer is "crap" I tend to just take that as an expression of taste. 

Now if someone said Bach was "crap at counterpoint" or that Wagner was "unimportant", well...


----------



## Strange Magic

More about profundity. Gross' book, _The Scientific Sublime,_ divides the sublime into 3 sections: A) the Literary Sublime--which can be about fact or fiction that incites wonder and admiration (Moby Dick, Shakespeare), or, more importantly, discusses the nature of sublimity. To these I add as truly profound, essays such as Garrett Hardin's _The Tragedy of the Commons, _where the fate of humanity and of the biosphere are at stake--pretty profound stuff. Music and non-verbal art lack the articulation to fully express and encompass such profundity.

Gross' 2nd category B) he calls the Natural Sublime. This is the feeling we get when confronted by grand spectacle--Victoria Falls, the Grand Canyon, Dante's View into Death Valley, the eclipse of the sun. To me, this is Sublimity with only a hint of the Profound. Pictorial art can deal with this but not music unless verbal titles are added.

The 3rd category is C) the Scientific Sublime.. Here we deal with the Profound as the ultimate nature of the universe, our place in it, reality itself, the pageant of life (evolution), the movements of the Earth's crust, time itself. The only way such profundities can be explored and expressed in any depth is through the written or spoken word--art and music are too inarticulate to grapple with such overarching concepts. Most of this is Gross' viewpoint but I have added some of my own. 

Trying here to return to the OP and away from Subjective/Objective.


----------



## 59540

..........


----------



## hammeredklavier

fbjim said:


> Now if someone said that Wagner was "unimportant", well...


That's also where the criteria for evaluation can get vague.
"In 2002, pop music producer Pete Waterman described Canon in D as "almost the godfather of pop music because we've all used that in our own ways for the past 30 years"."

Boulez said that he modeled his 2nd piano sonata on Beethoven (the art of disintegration), but would people like DaveM care?
Someone might not appreciate all the practice of writing long symphonies and parts for voices in them that came after Beethoven, for instance.
Heck, there have even been people like tdc who tried to argue Beethoven contributed not much to Romantic harmony beyond generic uses of mediant/submediant relations.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> The Franklin Quartet for 3 Violins and Cello is essentially a theme and variations.


So how does this compare to Mozart variations?


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> Either way, it was a great post, because you've managed to put your finger on some of the underlying premises behind broad proclamations such as, Bach is the greatest, or Bach is a bore. And when you succeed in doing that,* suddenly it becomes clear why neither statement is provable or objectively and universally true.*


I don't get why you say that. Everything in music starts with the objective facts in the scores. Whether the works are worth learning, studying, performing --- or analyzing for clarity, the benefits of reduction, for comparing, for a deeper appreciation. 
If in here we're only thinking about adult, non-musicians, then I understand such unimportant generalizations. And IMV, surely everyone can use common sense about subjectivity and objectivity.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> I don't get why you say that. Everything in music starts with the objective facts in the scores. Whether the works are worth learning, studying, performing --- or analyzing for clarity, the benefits of reduction, for comparing, for a deeper appreciation.
> If in here we're only thinking about adult, non-musicians, then I understand such unimportant generalizations. And IMV, surely everyone can use common sense about subjectivity and objectivity.


Yes. it is an objective fact that Bach worked in a particular style that today we often call the German high baroque. That can be seen from scores or heard from performances. One can also argue based on much factual evidence that he is the preeminent representative of that style, though Telemann at least also is a candidate, and developed it into a highly sophisticated, flexible and eclectic system.
But as an answer to KenOC's question that originated this thread -- Is Bach's music as profound as Beethoven's, and if so, how can one tell? -- these objective facts do not suffice, and never will, discuss them as we may until doomsday.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> Yes. it is an objective fact that Bach worked in a particular style that today we often call the German high baroque. That can be seen from scores or heard from performances. One can also argue based on much factual evidence that he is the preeminent representative of that style, though Telemann at least also is a candidate, and developed it into a highly sophisticated, flexible and eclectic system.
> But as an answer to KenOC's question that originated this thread -- Is Bach's music as profound as Beethoven's, and if so, how can one tell? -- these objective facts do not suffice, and never will, discuss them as we may until doomsday.


Point of order: KenOC didn’t originate this thread. Every time I see him mentioned I worry whether something has happened to him.


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> Everything in music starts with the objective facts in the scores.


The only objective facts of a score are the pitches, durations, articulation markings, and tempo indications (although all but metronome markings are open to a variety of correct interpretations; and even with tempo markings there is the assumption that the tempo does not stay rigid until the next indication and there will always be some fluctuation).

Although musical notation is a flexible system that offers a good representation of the music, it does not do this perfectly, and in some ways is only an approximation of what the composer hears in his mind's ear, especially concerning rhythm.

There is a wide range of ways to interpret the score, including approaches to analyzing it. Performers have a certain amount of leeway in how they decide on how to play a score which is why every recording of a Beethoven sonata will have differences, sometimes huge differences.

The act of interpreting and analyzing a score is a subjective process.


----------



## DaveM

DaveM said:


> Point of order: KenOC didn’t originate this thread. Every time I see him mentioned I worry whether something has happened to him.


I think I misread the post I responded to. I guess SM started this thread with reference to a previous KenOC thread. My apologies to Fluteman.


----------



## BachIsBest

From the short book _Beauty_ by Sir Roger Scruton, on whether 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.

"My answer is simply this: everything I have said about the experience of beauty implies it is rationally founded. It challenges us to find meaning in its object, to make critical comparisons, and to examine our own lives and emotions in light of what we find. Art, nature, and the human form all invite us to place this experience in the centre of our lives. If we do so, then it offers a place of refreshment of which we will never tire. But to imagine that we can do this, and still be free to see beauty as nothing more than a subjective preference or a source of transient pleasure, is to misunderstand the depth to which reason and value penetrate our lives. It is to fail to see that, for a free being, there is right feeling, right experience and right enjoyment just as much as right action. The judgement of beauty orders the emotions and desires of those who make it. It may express their pleasure and their taste: but it is pleasure in what they value and taste for their true ideals."


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> The only objective facts of a score are the pitches, durations, articulation markings, and tempo indications (although all but metronome markings are open to a variety of correct interpretations; and even with tempo markings there is the assumption that the tempo does not stay rigid until the next indication and there will always be some fluctuation).
> 
> Although musical notation is a flexible system that offers a good representation of the music, it does not do this perfectly, and in some ways is only an approximation of what the composer hears in his mind's ear, especially concerning rhythm.
> 
> There is a wide range of ways to interpret the score, including approaches to analyzing it. Performers have a certain amount of leeway in how they decide on how to play a score which is why every recording of a Beethoven sonata will have differences, sometimes huge differences.
> 
> The act of interpreting and analyzing a score is a subjective process.


Good points. I'll have to think about it some more. Thanks.

But again I’m caught up about looking at two scores, or two song sheets, for example. One is bubblegum pop and one is an old standard like Someone to Watch Over Me. We see immediately the difference in complexity, the composer's skill with notes and surprises in the harmonic progressions, an excellent middle section for added effectiveness. The other song is 3 or 4 chords, very predictable, repetitive, a little above a nursery song. For it to be recorded and then a hit, it must have an experienced producer, must have some catchy appeal, a simple, pounding rhythm helps and the right blend of sounds for the arrangement. But I’m comparing just the objective facts in the song sheets.

We can say that some people might prefer the light stuff, I guess, but I don’t know why that has any relevance. Do they want music or something else? Some people obviously prefer romance novels to Tolstoy. Do they want literature or something else? And why should anyone else care about where they are, personally? How is that constructive?

Now compare the old standard with a late sonata by Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Liszt, and on we continue through the later worlds of CM.


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> From the short book _Beauty_ by Sir Roger Scruton, on whether 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'
> 
> "My answer is simply this: everything I have said about the experience of beauty implies it is rationally founded. It challenges us to find meaning in its object, to make critical comparisons, and to examine our own lives and emotions in light of what we find. Art, nature, and the human form all invite us to place this experience in the centre of our lives. If we do so, then it offers a place of refreshment of which we will never tire. But to imagine that we can do this, and still be free to see beauty as nothing more than a subjective preference or a source of transient pleasure, is to misunderstand the depth to which reason and value penetrate our lives. It is to fail to see that, for a free being, there is right feeling, right experience and right enjoyment just as much as right action. The judgement of beauty orders the emotions and desires of those who make it. It may express their pleasure and their taste: but it is pleasure in what they value and taste for their true ideals."


Scruton is entitled to his view - an entirely subjective one of course. Other philosophers offer different views. How many should we try trading?

From _Of the Standard of Taste_ by David Hume



> Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty. One person may even perceive deformity, where another is sensible of beauty; and every individual ought to acquiesce in his own sentiment, without pretending to regulate those of others.


(Hume 1757, 136)


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> this is very much the approach of an author such as Charles Rosen





fluteman said:


> Charles Rosen, in his books The Classical Style





fluteman said:


> should consider reading some books such as those of Rosen





fluteman said:


> As for Charles Rosen





fluteman said:


> very much in the manner of Rosen.


Aren't you curious, how many of these Rosen could identify?
(at the time he was writing The Classical Style)


----------



## BachIsBest

Forster said:


> Scruton is entitled to his view - an entirely subjective one of course. Other philosophers offer different views. How many should we try trading?
> 
> From _Of the Standard of Taste_ by David Hume
> 
> (Hume 1757, 136)


I thought what Scruton wrote was interesting, eloquent, and apt. This is why I posted it. I don't see why listing the viewpoints of philosophers is interesting; what is interesting is reading brief (as this is a forum) summaries of their thoughts to perhaps makes us think, and clarify our thoughts.


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> I thought what Scruton wrote was interesting, eloquent, and apt. This is why I posted it. I don't see why listing the viewpoints of philosophers is interesting; what is interesting is reading brief (as this is a forum) summaries of their thoughts to perhaps makes us think, and clarify our thoughts.


I have an aversion to Scruton. I find the Hume no less "interesting, eloquent, and apt".


----------



## Strange Magic

Forster said:


> I have an aversion to Scruton. I find the Hume no less "interesting, eloquent, and apt".


I agree. I sometimes agree with Scruton, but Scruton as above quoted drifts into the gauzy, vague jargon of the art critic trying to justify a position with high-falutin yet difficult to pin down prose, mostly assertions, as if this is evidence of something. And we are back to whether any particular person's appreciation of and love for art is proper, valid, up to standard, legitimate, authentic. I'll take Hume any day.


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> Scruton is entitled to his view - an entirely subjective one of course. Other philosophers offer different views. How many should we try trading?
> 
> From _Of the Standard of Taste_ by David Hume
> 
> (Hume 1757, 136)


Bravo. To me Hume's essay is by far the most important English language work on the topic under discussion here. Having established taste is subjective, the next step is to examine how and why these subjective tastes are formed. Consider John Dewey's Art as Experience. It was published in the 1930s, late in Dewey's career (he was born before the Civil War) at a time when the rise of industry, science and technology and the decline of government (and dictation of taste) by patrilineal aristocracy had already -- profoundly -- impacted Western aesthetic values. Dewey even recognizes the impact of African American music on Western music. So this is a good view of our topic from early in the modern era.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Scruton is entitled to his view - an entirely subjective one of course. Other philosophers offer different views. How many should we try trading?
> 
> From _Of the Standard of Taste_ by David Hume
> 
> (Hume 1757, 136)


Hume was a long time ago. A great thinker, yes. Then I think, a 12 yr old youngster knows more about our universe and our emergence here, including some of the factors during our long brain (intellectual) development (as music is concerned), than anyone back then. How was he misguided by the assumptions and guesses of his time? I don’t know enough about him, and we probably can’t know.. 

But I totally agree that seeing beauty is so very subjective! To me, it’s of little logical use in a debate like this. 

Instead of finding ‘beauty’ for all the various life paths and emotional temperaments, how about finding works worthy of study, learning music as a language young so that it’s part of your life, decade after decade, all leading to deeper appreciations, for when you need it all much later. The effort in learning the language and the principles of analysis pays back rewards many times over, week after week, over the many many years. 

Posters will get tired of hearing this view from me, but the creeping relativism is so sad to me. Like it’s harmless?, or required by civilized society?. As an educator, why not elevate the great works (in all the arts, sorta like we do in science), and then let the youngsters tear down the statues and criticize it all AFTER they’re prepared to do so (like we criticize Aristotle and Newton after we know enough). This is the way it was in the early half of the 1900s, I believe. 
I think we’re going very wrong.. but I suspect we won’t be turning the ship around, and all I can do is watch the results, confirming my fears.


----------



## SanAntone

Since beauty, something of which we all have a clear idea, is subjective; profundity is even more obviously subjective since the very idea of profundity in music is vague.



> As an educator, why not elevate the great works


Who decides what are "the great works" and why they are great?

Something I was told a long, long, time ago still resonates with me: the best teachers do not teach a student what to think but how to think, as well as inspire a student to cultivate independent and critical thinking.


----------



## fbjim

The way critical reading is taught in schools, at least from my experience remains bad and doesn't really have much to do with a failure to elevate great works of literature. Back when I went in the early 00s, the "standard rep" were things like Faulkner, Scott Fitzgerald, Hemingway - but education in those matters was excessively focused on "correct" critical reading (as in- an implication that there is one textbook-correct way to derive meaning from work, and deviations from that are wrong), especially when it came to matters of symbolism. I don't think changing this repertoire to be more "with the times" would matter if the fundamental principles of critical reading remain poorly taught.

I suspect one problem is that one needs to know how to read critically in order to teach it, and that the principles of critical reading map poorly to grading systems and standardized testing.


(if I were God-Emperor, I'd teach high schoolers principles of critical thinking generally- given the state of the Internet today, teaching kids how to weigh evidence before coming to a conclusion is something everyone could benefit from. Bayesian logic isn't so inscrutable that you can't teach it to sophomores...)


----------



## SanAntone

The scene in the movie Dead Poets Society where Robin Williams is going through the Introduction to their poetry anthology, telling the class to tear out pages because it was crap - is one of the greatest commentaries on the idea of this thread.


----------



## DaveM

Fwiw, I would argue that in nature, all ‘beauty’ is not necessarily universally subjective. Flowers are designed to attract many species as pollinators. I suppose one might argue that the pollinators don’t have any idea what ‘beauty’ is, but then it’s interesting that flowers have developed to be as attractive to them as possible, and in doing so, seem to attract a lot of humans.

There is an ongoing question whether something such as the beauty of flowers is totally subjective. For instance, David Deutsch in _The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World_ (p. 353ff) argues that some aspects of what we find beautiful are subjective and learned, but that there is nonetheless an objective quality of beauty in the universe. Deutsch argues that flowers needed to evolve signals to reach their pollinators, that these signals needed to work on a wide variety of pollinating species, and that the easiest way to do that was to evolve signals that conformed to “objective standards of beauty”.


----------



## fbjim

Something I also see with poor teaching of great literature and classical music (re: those Mozart for Kids CDs) is the implication that exposure to Genius is edifying by itself, with not enough focus on how to actually engage with said work of genius. It does no good to simply teach that Tolstoy was one of The Greats if you don't actually teach how to read Anna Karenina.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> Since beauty, something of which we all have a clear idea, is subjective; profundity is even more obviously subjective since the very idea of profundity in music is vague.
> 
> 
> 
> Who decides what are "the great works" and why they are great?
> 
> Something I was told a long, long, time ago still resonates with me: the best teachers do not teach a student what to think but how to think, as well as inspire a student to cultivate independent and critical thinking.


Very possibly there are more modern teaching techniques, but I use hero worship. In other words I try to elevate Beethoven Bach and Mozart to super hero status, so that the children have some guidance and maybe the memory will grow with them. It's simple and straightforward and directed, it speaks their language from the Top Ape syndrome origins. 

There's little problem that they will become indoctrinated, because they wiggle and squirm just like all youngsters, resisting whatever an old person will tell them. I tell them someday you'll find something wrong here and there and you'll make your own list of the big guys. Start a list whenever you think you're ready..

Youngsters will seek out big meaningful ideas and topics (maybe it’s unconscious) , because they are naturally motivated to be efficient with their attentions and grow up fast, learning and taking on responsibilities etc.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> Hume was a long time ago. A great thinker, yes. Then I think, a 12 yr old youngster knows more about our universe and our emergence here, including some of the factors during our long brain (intellectual) development (as music is concerned), than anyone back then. How was he misguided by the assumptions and guesses of his time? I don’t know enough about him, and we probably can’t know..
> 
> But I totally agree that seeing beauty is so very subjective! To me, it’s of little logical use in a debate like this.
> 
> Instead of finding ‘beauty’ for all the various life paths and emotional temperaments, how about finding works worthy of study, learning music as a language young so that it’s part of your life, decade after decade, all leading to deeper appreciations, for when you need it all much later. The effort in learning the language and the principles of analysis pays back rewards many times over, week after week, over the many many years.
> 
> Posters will get tired of hearing this view from me, but the creeping relativism is so sad to me. Like it’s harmless?, or required by civilized society?. As an educator, why not elevate the great works (in all the arts, sorta like we do in science), and then let the youngsters tear down the statues and criticize it all AFTER they’re prepared to do so (like we criticize Aristotle and Newton after we know enough). This is the way it was in the early half of the 1900s, I believe.
> I think we’re going very wrong.. but I suspect we won’t be turning the ship around, and all I can do is watch the results, confirming my fears.


I'm afraid you are taking this discussion in a political direction not allowed here. Who decides whether something is among these "great works" of art worthy of being elevated in the eyes of our children? Do they include the works of Maya Angelou? Ralph Ellison? Harper Lee? Some seem to think these works should be banned from school libraries, much less "elevated". What about the music of Robert Johnson, Huddie Ledbetter, Woody Guthrie, Miles Davis and John Coltrane? Where you are getting stuck is in your refusal to acknowledge the profound difference between art and science. Shakespeare is not Newton. Nor is Bach.


----------



## Strange Magic

SanAntone said:


> Since beauty, something of which we all have a clear idea, is subjective; profundity is even more obviously subjective since the very idea of profundity in music is vague.


I agree that the subjectivity of the profound is vague--certainly hyper-vague in music due to its lack of a formal language to penetrate to the heart of large complex ideas. But even vagueness can exist along a spectrum. My notion is that the sciences deal in much more data-driven and clearly-articulated phenomena that often concern fundamental issues of the nature of the universe, its and our fate, large and minuscule forces and objects, our responsibilities as curators of our planet, etc. It seems to me that such questions and answers demonstrate a robust profundity that perhaps Cro-Magnon people did not contemplate--they had their own worries--that seizes the attention of many thinking people today. If, through misattention or neglect of said profundities, we lose our home, that will be itself profound.


----------



## SanAntone

Strange Magic said:


> I agree that the subjectivity of the profound is vague--certainly hyper-vague in music due to its lack of a formal language to penetrate to the heart of large complex ideas.


I don't see a relationship between science and music, other than they are both human pursuits in a search for a kind of truth or manner of perceiving our reality. I don't see much overlap, except in trivial matters such as frequency rates of the 12 pitches of the chromatic scale, or the overtone series.

Regarding the OP's question concerning profundity in music, I admit to not thinking of this as an important question, or even an interesting one. 

Music means many things to me, but primarily it is organized sound, arranged in various styles and genres, written and performed by musicians and often offering a keyhole into the nobility of the human experience and celebration of the creativity of the human spirit.

I don't look for extra-musical meaning in music. I experience it as sound and unless it has a text, perceive music as containing musical meaning only. This practically translates into formal musical plans, the development through variation of thematic ideas, and the arrangement of contrasting musical elements. Finding the meaning in this requires following the "narrative" of the music through spontaneous musical perception and memory.

Profundity doesn't figure in. Mostly, IMO, when people hear something that sounds serious, heavy, or momentous, like the Beethoven 5th, they think of it as "profound." But for me that idea is silly and a cliché.


----------



## Luchesi

Did anyone in here have musical heroes growing up, in your preteens, or had that concept already faded away?


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> I'm afraid you are taking this discussion in a political direction not allowed here. Who decides whether something is among these "great works" of art worthy of being elevated in the eyes of our children? Do they include the works of Maya Angelou? Ralph Ellison? Harper Lee? Some seem to think these works should be banned from school libraries, much less "elevated". What about the music of Robert Johnson, Huddie Ledbetter, Woody Guthrie, Miles Davis and John Coltrane? Where you are getting stuck is in your refusal to acknowledge the profound difference between art and science. Shakespeare is not Newton. Nor is Bach.


The big names kids might've heard of, and would set them apart, if they're into that sort of thing.
The kids play simple pieces by Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, Chopin.


----------



## DaveM

I find there to be something profound in this work (given some very recent events):


----------



## BachIsBest

Strange Magic said:


> I agree. I sometimes agree with Scruton, but Scruton as above quoted drifts into the gauzy, vague jargon of the art critic trying to justify a position with high-falutin yet difficult to pin down prose, mostly assertions, as if this is evidence of something. And we are back to whether any particular person's appreciation of and love for art is proper, valid, up to standard, legitimate, authentic. I'll take Hume any day.


In fairness to Scruton, this was written at the end of the book, and calls back to multiple concepts elaborated upon within.



Forster said:


> I have an aversion to Scruton. I find the Hume no less "interesting, eloquent, and apt".


Unless I'm missing something, the Hume quote is two sentences that state his position with no explanation?


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> The scene in the movie Dead Poets Society where Robin Williams is going through the Introduction to their poetry anthology, telling the class to tear out pages because it was crap - is one of the greatest commentaries on the idea of this thread.


I've heard no one here plotting works and calculating the area of rectangles. I think we can all agree this is preposterous.


----------



## Strange Magic

SanAntone said:


> I don't see a relationship between science and music, other than they are both human pursuits in a search for a kind of truth or manner of perceiving our reality. I don't see much overlap, except in trivial matters such as frequency rates of the 12 pitches of the chromatic scale, or the overtone series.
> 
> Regarding the OP's question concerning profundity in music, I admit to not thinking of this as an important question, or even an interesting one.
> 
> Music means many things to me, but primarily it is organized sound, arranged in various styles and genres, written and performed by musicians and often offering a keyhole into the nobility of the human experience and celebration of the creativity of the human spirit.
> 
> I don't look for extra-musical meaning in music. I experience it as sound and unless it has a text, perceive music as containing musical meaning only. This practically translates into formal musical plans, the development through variation of thematic ideas, and the arrangement of contrasting musical elements. Finding the meaning in this requires following the "narrative" of the music through spontaneous musical perception and memory.
> 
> Profundity doesn't figure in. Mostly, IMO, when people hear something that sounds serious, heavy, or momentous, like the Beethoven 5th, they think of it as "profound." But for me that idea is silly and a cliché.


Just FWIW, here is KenOC's first post that started this whole discussion:



> *KenOC: "*I occasionally see criticisms that some music, especially baroque instrumental and pre-Ludwig classical, lacks profundity. So I ask, what is profundity? Is it something that actually exists in music? Something that triggers a particular neural or emotional response? How can we recognize it?
> 
> Well, definitions are welcome too -- of course!"


It seems that you are having second thoughts about how important the subject of profundity in music really is, as you have been one of our steadiest contributors. I agree that I listen to music--CM, anybody's music--with real pleasure and sometimes think it sublime (who here does not?). But I answered KenOC's question by saying I found nothing actually profound in music and most of the non-verbal arts--entertainment, sometimes sublimity, often even boredom--but profundity? Not so much. In that sense, science and art occupy what Stephen Jay Gould would call separate and non-overlapping Magisteria, (as he does also concerning Science and Religion), though where his instincts lie is reasonably obvious concerning what is profound. I thought KenOC's question was well worth serious thought and have posted accordingly.


SaveShare


----------



## fluteman

A


Luchesi said:


> The big names kids might've heard of, and would set them apart, if they're into that sort of thing.
> The kids play simple pieces by Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, Chopin.


Are any of your "big names" non-white, non-Christian or non-European? Just curious.


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> I've heard no one here plotting works and calculating the area of rectangles. I think we can all agree this is preposterous.


Have you seen the movie? Because your post has nothing to with my reference to the scene, nor anything else I've posted.


----------



## Luchesi

no delete function, is there?


----------



## fbjim

Luchesi said:


> Did anyone in here have musical heroes growing up, in your preteens, or had that concept already faded away?


Dylan. I actually learned a lot of classical music growing up because I played cello for years, from childhood to college. I only began to actually enjoy it when I stopped playing - I associated it with tedious practice when I'd rather be riding my bike.


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> Have you seen the movie? Because your post has nothing to with my reference to the scene, nor anything else I've posted.


Yes. The pages they ripped out detailed ranking poems based on two scales, plotting the poem as a point on a chart, and determining the greatness based on the area of the resulting rectangle.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> A
> 
> Are any of your "big names" non-white, non-Christian or non-European? Just curious.


No. Who are you thinking of?


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Fwiw, I would argue that in nature, all ‘beauty’ is not necessarily universally subjective. Flowers are designed to attract many species as pollinators. I suppose one might argue that the pollinators don’t have any idea what ‘beauty’ is, but then it’s interesting that flowers have developed to be as attractive to them as possible, and in doing so, seem to attract a lot of humans.
> 
> There is an ongoing question whether something such as the beauty of flowers is totally subjective. For instance, David Deutsch in _The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World_ (p. 353ff) argues that some aspects of what we find beautiful are subjective and learned, but that there is nonetheless an objective quality of beauty in the universe. Deutsch argues that flowers needed to evolve signals to reach their pollinators, that these signals needed to work on a wide variety of pollinating species, and that the easiest way to do that was to evolve signals that conformed to “objective standards of beauty”.


Here is Wikipedia on the flower of the plant _Rafflesia: "The flowers look and smell like rotting flesh. The foul odour attracts insects such as carrion flies, which transport pollen from male to female flowers."_

Another unpleasant and unbeautiful flower is also described in Wikipedia: "_*Amorphophallus titanum*_, the *titan arum*, is a flowering plant in the family Araceae. ,,,,Due to its odor, like that of a rotting corpse, the titan arum is characterized as a carrion flower, and is also known as the *corpse flower* or *corpse plant* (Indonesian: _bunga bangkai_—_bunga_ means flower, while _bangkai_ can be translated as corpse, cadaver, or carrion).."

The flowers of both species are not at all pleasant, but they do generate a morbid curiosity. Take a look.

Nature does not recognize beauty as such, It does recognize specific utility.


----------



## fbjim

Meanwhile, John Cage found mushrooms to be profound...


----------



## Luchesi

fbjim said:


> Dylan. I actually learned a lot of classical music growing up because I played cello for years, from childhood to college. I only began to actually enjoy it when I stopped playing - I associated it with tedious practice when I'd rather be riding my bike.


Dylan, that makes me feel old, because I've never listened past his Blonde on Blonde album. His voice seemed put on back then, and I wanted to hear clear singing. I was buying too many albums.


----------



## fbjim

I grew up listening to old/classic rock because that's what my father would put on the radio on the way to school. I only got into newer/independent stuff when I went to college.


----------



## Luchesi

fbjim said:


> I grew up listening to old/classic rock because that's what my father would put on the radio on the way to school. I only got into newer/independent stuff when I went to college.


I was in a succeesful rock group (well we made some money to pay for it as a hobby), and we needed ideas from the Kinks, Animals, Doors. So we all coordinated what albums we bought. We thought of Dylan as a folk singer ("And a voice that came from you and me.").


----------



## 59540

fbjim said:


> ...
> (if I were God-Emperor, I'd teach high schoolers principles of critical thinking generally- given the state of the Internet today, teaching kids how to weigh evidence before coming to a conclusion is something everyone could benefit from. Bayesian logic isn't so inscrutable that you can't teach it to sophomores...)


We've had that for decades already. No offense, but when I see "we need to teach critical thinking" I can't shake the suspicion that approved conclusions are already mapped out.
.


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> Yes. The pages they ripped out detailed ranking poems based on two scales, plotting the poem as a point on a chart, and determining the greatness based on the area of the resulting rectangle.


My point was that this was someone trying to rate poems on "objective" data.


----------



## fbjim

dissident said:


> We've had that for decades already. No offense, but when I see "we need to teach critical thinking" I can't shake the suspicion that approved conclusions are already mapped out.
> .


This is the opposite of what I am advocating. The ability to take information from multiple sources and come to a conclusion yourself (as opposed to parroting something from a favored source) by weighing them is something that is not well taught, at least not in school. And given how often I see information shared based less on truth and more on sensationalism, it's still not taught very well. 

I think I had one ethics class ever, as well, and that was in college as part of an engineering course.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Here is Wikipedia on the flower of the plant _Rafflesia: "The flowers look and smell like rotting flesh. The foul odour attracts insects such as carrion flies, which transport pollen from male to female flowers."_
> 
> Another unpleasant and unbeautiful flower is also described in Wikipedia: "_*Amorphophallus titanum*_, the *titan arum*, is a flowering plant in the family Araceae. ,,,,Due to its odor, like that of a rotting corpse, the titan arum is characterized as a carrion flower, and is also known as the *corpse flower* or *corpse plant* (Indonesian: _bunga bangkai_—_bunga_ means flower, while _bangkai_ can be translated as corpse, cadaver, or carrion).."
> 
> The flowers of both species are not at all pleasant, but they do generate a morbid curiosity. Take a look.
> 
> Nature does not recognize beauty as such, It does recognize specific utility.


Well of course you would pick the exception to prove a rule. Humans have the intelligence to give a name to the attraction to flowers. That doesn’t mean that the same parameters that attract humans are not the same as those that attract pollinators. I put this question to a number of bees outside and they all agree with me.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Well of course you would pick the exception to prove a rule. Humans have the intelligence to give a name to the attraction to flowers. That doesn’t mean that the same parameters that attract humans are not the same as those that attract pollinators. I put this question to a number of bees outside and they all agree with me.


I am to understand then that any attraction occurring between animals and/or plants constitutes "beauty" . Not lust, not instinct built into the genes of living organisms to get them to feed and/or couple--no, it is an appreciation of beauty that brings Japanese beetles to flowers. Got it.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> I am to understand then that any attraction occurring between animals and/or plants constitutes "beauty" . Not lust, not instinct built into the genes of living organisms to get them to feed and/or couple--no, it is an appreciation of beauty that brings Japanese beetles to flowers. Got it.


The bees thank you for your understanding.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> The bees thank you for your understanding.


Alanis Morissette is also appreciative of bees (and their lovely knees)!


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> Bravo. To me Hume's essay is by far the most important English language work on the topic under discussion here. [etc]


Well thanks for the plaudits, but I know little about Hume and his works. TBH, I just selected him more or less at random. I wanted to post an authority on the subjectivist side to demonstrate that this issue has been under discussion for aeons and doesn't get resolved just by citing philosophers, in either direction.



Luchesi said:


> Hume was a long time ago. A great thinker, yes.


See my point above. There are modern thinkers with similar views, able to claim the same authority. For example:

_"Crispin Sartwell in his book Six Names of Beauty (2004), attributes beauty neither exclusively to the subject nor to the object, but to the relation between them, and even more widely also to the situation or environment in which they are both embedded. He points out that when we attribute beauty to the night sky, for instance, we do not take ourselves simply to be reporting a state of pleasure in ourselves; we are turned outward toward it; we are celebrating the real world. On the other hand, if there were no perceivers capable of experiencing such things, there would be no beauty. Beauty, rather, emerges in situations in which subject and object are juxtaposed and connected."

Beauty (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) _



SanAntone said:


> [...]
> Regarding the OP's question concerning profundity in music, I admit to not thinking of this as an important question, or even an interesting one.
> 
> Music means many things to me, but primarily it is organized sound, arranged in various styles and genres, written and performed by musicians and often offering *a keyhole into the nobility of the human experience and celebration of the creativity of the human spirit.*
> 
> I don't look for extra-musical meaning in music. I experience it as sound and unless it has a text, perceive music as containing musical meaning only. This practically translates into formal musical plans, the development through variation of thematic ideas, and the arrangement of contrasting musical elements. Finding the meaning in this requires following the "narrative" of the music through spontaneous musical perception and memory.
> 
> Profundity doesn't figure in. Mostly, IMO, when people hear something that sounds serious, heavy, or momentous, like the Beethoven 5th, they think of it as "profound." But for me that idea is silly and a cliché.


The part of what you describe I have emboldened might constitute exactly what some think of as 'profundity', mightn't it?



BachIsBest said:


> Unless I'm missing something, the Hume quote is two sentences that state his position with no explanation?


So? Is that a problem with Hume's writing, or a problem with my quotation?


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> Well thanks for the plaudits, but I know little about Hume and his works.


Yes, that's apparent from the rest of your post. No problem, except that you seem to assume an ongoing "subjectivist v. objectivist" debate rages throughout the world, where, in reality, Hume's position, usually referred to as "empiricism", long since has been generally accepted in most contexts, including the one discussed in this thread. Those with opposing views, such as the flat earthers and the climate change deniers, are still around, but are considered outliers, or even nuts.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> Yes, that's apparent from the rest of your post. No problem, except that you seem to assume an ongoing "subjectivist v. objectivist" debate rages throughout the world, where, in reality, Hume's position, usually referred to as "empiricism", long since has been generally accepted in most contexts, including the one discussed in this thread. Those with opposing views, such as* the flat earthers and the climate change deniers, are still around, but are considered outliers, or even nuts.*


If only the latter part of your sentence were true......


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> Yes, that's apparent from the rest of your post. [...]


It is? In what way? The rest of my post isn't about Hume.



fluteman said:


> [...] No problem, except that you seem to assume an ongoing "subjectivist v. objectivist" debate rages throughout the world


I make no such assumption. I'm merely responding to points made by Bachisbest (his quote from Scruton, outlining an objectivist view of beauty) and by Luchesi (that Hume is old and surely we know better now).

I wasn't actually offering my own considered opinion on the state of subj/obj, merely using Stanford as a source for ease and convenience, hence the brevity. Besides, whilst I've read more than one book surveying various philosophical treatises, I've read little by the philosophers themselves - such heavy and often dark matter isn't really my thing. I'm more of a magpie, picking up shiny objects. I mean, why read Descartes or Nietzsche in their original tongues when Julian Baggini has done a decent enough job for my purposes?


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> It is? In what way? [....] I've read little by the philosophers themselves - such heavy and often dark matter isn't really my thing.


Again, that is obviously the case.


----------



## fbjim

Luchesi said:


> The big names kids might've heard of, and would set them apart, if they're into that sort of thing.
> The kids play simple pieces by Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, Chopin.



vaguely speaking, by the way, of getting into classical music growing up, the thing that actually got me to listen to it for pleasure (which i had resisted when i actually played it) was ironically a Bach piece

Bwv 911, played in the opening of the David Mamet film _House of Games_. Got some Gould records the next day.


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> Again, that is obviously the case.


Do stop being so brutal and explain. Please.


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> Do stop being so brutal and explain. Please.


Look, I've already repeated myself too many times on these issues. Here at TC, people argue certain issues that have been analyzed in painful detail by some of the world's greatest thinkers for centuries. If you want to start afresh as if none of that happened, except to pick up a famous historical quote here and there and casually dismiss it if it doesn't happen to strike your fancy, fine. In fact, that's much better than some of the nonsense I see from others. But there is no substitute for reading the entire book. 

Several of the sources I've cited here are not very long or hard to read. Hume's Of The Standard Of Taste is short, though his writing style is a bit jumbled and rambling. Wittgenstein's Lectures and Conversations is also short, and mainly consists of summarized and edited lecture notes. Again, not great literature, but not hard to read. John Dewey was a plain-spoken New Englander, not exciting to read, but again, not difficult. Walter Jackson Bate was mainly a literary and poetry critic and was a fine writer. He cites many sources the reader may not be familiar with, but that isn't much of a problem. 

Charles Rosen, I admit, goes on at great length and in great detail. If you already are familiar with much of the standard traditional classical music canon and have studied music theory to a reasonable degree, you are better off. He enjoys stating opinions in a provocative way. Don't get distracted. Leonard Meyer has a technical style of writing and can be heavy going, but is well-organized. Sir Joshua Reynold's Discourses, derived from lectures he gave his students over a span of many years in the late 18th century, also ramble a bit and sometimes seem contradictory, as he himself may have wrestled with these questions of aesthetic values. But there can be no doubt by the end he comes down in the empiricist camp.

Enjoy.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> ..Look, I've already repeated myself too many times on these issues. Here at TC, people argue certain issues that have been analyzed in painful detail by some of the world's greatest thinkers for centuries. If you want to start afresh as if none of that happened, except to pick up a famous historical quote here and there and casually dismiss it if it doesn't happen to strike your fancy, fine. In fact, that's much better than some of the nonsense I see from others.


Am I in the wrong forum?


----------



## Strange Magic

Somewhere in John LeCarre's _Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, _LeCarre has Oliver Lacon tell Smiley that the Minister he serves will believe nothing that cannot be written on a postcard. There is something to this approach in that it forces clarity and brevity upon issues both large and small--the intricacies and subtleties can be teased out later, as thought good.

An example that I have offered before is the defense of philosophical Naturalism by Ernest Nagel in a few short pages, but, boiled down, states that things are more or less--mostly more--as they seem.. This hybrid notion is reliant upon our senses--possibly subject to optical and other illusions, hallucinations, etc--and as augmented by instruments that exrend our senses. Add to this a strong dose of both common sense and logic, and a largely shared reportage among observers and you have Naturalism. There are corollaries to these key notions--that there are no disembodied forces, for example--and others such.

Most other Big Picture concepts equally lend themselves to such distillation: Evolution, astronomical and cosmic theses, humanity's future, our place in nature, and the nature and operation of Art. For purposes of discussion here on TC, I think it is best to state clearly and succinctly one's understanding of said Big Issues and to, again, briefly yet cogently indicate why you believe as you do--without recourse to Higher Authority..This I have attempted to do by asking repeatedly Where/What Is The Evidence for the twin notions that there is Profundity in the Arts to equal that of the Sciences., and that there are objective parameters--not subject to measurement or of group or individual opinion (polling) that exist to indicate Good Better, Best in art objects.

I offer these thoughts to encourage people to think independently about such matters in the Arts without overmuch reliance on what our authority figures tell us. But one must start somewhere and I recommend philosophical Naturalism as a fruitful place to begin one's quest for understanding.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> It is? In what way? The rest of my post isn't about Hume.
> 
> 
> 
> I make no such assumption. I'm merely responding to points made by Bachisbest (his quote from Scruton, outlining an objectivist view of beauty) and by Luchesi (that Hume is old and surely we know better now).
> 
> I wasn't actually offering my own considered opinion on the state of subj/obj, merely using Stanford as a source for ease and convenience, hence the brevity. Besides, whilst I've read more than one book surveying various philosophical treatises, I've read little by the philosophers themselves - such heavy and often dark matter isn't really my thing. I'm more of a magpie, picking up shiny objects. I mean, why read Descartes or Nietzsche in their original tongues when Julian Baggini has done a decent enough job for my purposes?


I didn't mean that we know more, on these matters. ...I meant that a man of his time didn't know much at all about the big questions (origins and developments) in order to be a philosopher, but all of them made up for it by their sizable effort to write their philosophies down, so concisely. So, even if you don't agree, you get an educatin' just reading them.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> This I have attempted to do by asking repeatedly Where/What Is The Evidence for the twin notions that there is Profundity in the Arts to equal that of the Sciences., and that there are objective parameters--not subject to measurement or of group or individual opinion (polling) that exist to indicate Good Better, Best in art objects.


Has someone said that profundity in the Arts is _equal_ that of the Sciences? Sounds like irrelevant hyperbole. You ask where the evidence is regarding ‘objective parameters’ indicating good, better, best in art objects. No one has framed that subject using ‘good, better, best’. More hyperbole. You know full well that the argument in favor of some objectivity in judging artists and their works has been within a certain context, but you always conveniently return to an extreme position that ignores that. In any event, I would like to see the evidence that, under no circumstances, can there be objectivity in judging artists and their works.



> I offer these thoughts to encourage people to think independently about such matters in the Arts without overmuch reliance on what our authority figures tell us. But one must start somewhere and I recommend philosophical Naturalism as a fruitful place to begin one's quest for understanding.


The question becomes whether the problem is people unable to think independently or someone unable or unwilling to see beyond a simplistic extreme.


----------



## Luchesi

fbjim said:


> vaguely speaking, by the way, of getting into classical music growing up, the thing that actually got me to listen to it for pleasure (which i had resisted when i actually played it) was ironically a Bach piece
> 
> Bwv 911, played in the opening of the David Mamet film _House of Games_. Got some Gould records the next day.


Yes, Gould plays the Toccatas very lyrically, many people complain, but in these scores I find it appealing and it pulls me in. And his tone seems to me to be at its most expressive in that recording of the 6.


----------



## fbjim

Luchesi said:


> Yes, Gould plays the Toccatas very lyrically, many people complain, but in these scores I find it appealing and it pulls me in. And his tone seems to me to be at its most expressive in that recording of the 6.


I dont think I ever identified the recording used in the opening credits of House of Games, but I did like the Gould toccatas (toccati? toccatae?) record I got a lot.

Fun fact, because of Gould my first exposure to the Hammerklavier was uh, the Gould recording which was maybe not the best introduction to that sonata.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> This I have attempted to do by asking repeatedly Where/What Is The Evidence for the twin notions that there is Profundity in the Arts to equal that of the Sciences., and that there are objective parameters--not subject to measurement or of group or individual opinion (polling) that exist to indicate Good Better, Best in art objects.
> 
> I offer these thoughts to encourage people to think independently about such matters in the Arts without overmuch reliance on what our authority figures tell us. ...


You ascribe "profundity" to science without ever offering evidence for it. You never even give a cogent, consistent definition of what "profundity" actually _is_. And you do this with this air of arrogance and condescension and all the while all you've done is appeal to "higher authority" in the form of some book on the "scientific sublime" and some other philosophers here and there. Waste of time. You might want to offer a cogent thesis on some basic definitions.

The unalterable fact is that many, many people sense profundity in works of art, and will continue to do so, and you can't really say a damn thing about it either way other than to express your own lack of susceptibility or sensitivity. If you find more "profundity" in inorganic chemistry or the polynomial remainder theorem than you do in a piece of music, good for you. But does it make you any more "enlightened"? Do you want a national science medal? After all, you've spent comment after comment strongly implying that your way of thinking and looking at existence is objectively superior to that of us poor benighted rubes. Well it may very well be for _you_, but not for anybody else.


----------



## Luchesi

fbjim said:


> I dont think I ever identified the recording used in the opening credits of House of Games, but I did like the Gould toccatas (toccati? toccatae?) record I got a lot.
> 
> Fun fact, because of Gould my first exposure to the Hammerklavier was uh, the Gould recording which was maybe not the best introduction to that sonata.


Yes, Gould seemed to play his version of what he saw as the concept of the work (beginning again with each movement). Maybe not the composer's concept. And perhaps by this approach he would miss what other pianists brought out. Piano brilliance, but as an interpreter he loved to explore. He saw no reason to record another rendition of what was out there already.
It wasn't the money, he had to be satisfied that his point had been presented (and his opinions changed every week). I honestly couldn't grasp some of what he was pointing out, as a pianist/exploring-interpreter in his quirkier recordings (but most of the explanations came out later), but it's all available to review.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Has someone said that profundity in the Arts is _equal_ that of the Sciences? Sounds like irrelevant hyperbole. You ask where the evidence is regarding ‘objective parameters’ indicating good, better, best in art objects. No one has framed that subject using ‘good, better, best’. More hyperbole. You know full well that the argument in favor of some objectivity in judging artists and their works has been within a certain context, but you always conveniently return to an extreme position that ignores that. In any event, I would like to see the evidence that, under no circumstances, can there be objectivity in judging artists and their works.
> 
> 
> The question becomes whether the problem is people unable to think independently or someone unable or unwilling to see beyond a simplistic extreme.


Read KenOC's OP (again? First time?). He wonders about whether profundity exists in at least some CM. I say it does not exist in music at all, but does in the sciences.

You are focusing, I see, on the exact verbiage I used: Good, Better, Best. Have you not been attending the several threads that discuss--maybe someone has been posting in your name--Is all art equal? Is some better than other? Is this an attempt to detect some flaw in my argument; some fatal error in my language or argument?

It is incumbent upon those who find objective evidence for excellence in the arts to supply the evidence--any evidence other than pure assertion and/or polling.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> You ascribe "profundity" to science without ever offering evidence for it. You never even give a cogent, consistent definition of what "profundity" actually _is_. And you do this with this air of arrogance and condescension and all the while all you've done is appeal to "higher authority" in the form of some book on the "scientific sublime" and some other philosophers here and there. Waste of time. You might want to offer a cogent thesis on some basic definitions.
> 
> The unalterable fact is that many, many people sense profundity in works of art, and will continue to do so, and you can't really say a damn thing about it either way other than to express your own lack of susceptibility or sensitivity. If you find more "profundity" in inorganic chemistry or the polynomial remainder theorem than you do in a piece of music, good for you. But does it make you any more "enlightened"? Do you want a national science medal? After all, you've spent comment after comment strongly implying that your way of thinking and looking at existence is objectively superior to that of us poor benighted rubes. Well it may very well be for _you_, but not for anybody else.


Like DaveM's reply, i can only wonder: Where Have You Been? all this while. I have posted many times about the profundity of science when it gathers together seemingly unrelated phenomena--a dog's breakfast as I described them--into a overarching story (theory) that draws all together in a PROFOUND explanation of previously not-understood, disparate data points. And none of us actually offers a point of view that they feel is inferior to that of others--they just keep their mouths shut. There is an air of desperation in some of these responses to my theses.


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> Look, I've already repeated myself too many times on these issues. Here at TC, people argue certain issues that have been analyzed in painful detail by some of the world's greatest thinkers for centuries. If you want to start afresh as if none of that happened, except to pick up a famous historical quote here and there and casually dismiss it if it doesn't happen to strike your fancy, fine. In fact, that's much better than some of the nonsense I see from others. But there is no substitute for reading the entire book.
> 
> Several of the sources I've cited here are not very long or hard to read. Hume's Of The Standard Of Taste is short, though his writing style is a bit jumbled and rambling. Wittgenstein's Lectures and Conversations is also short, and mainly consists of summarized and edited lecture notes. Again, not great literature, but not hard to read. John Dewey was a plain-spoken New Englander, not exciting to read, but again, not difficult. Walter Jackson Bate was mainly a literary and poetry critic and was a fine writer. He cites many sources the reader may not be familiar with, but that isn't much of a problem.
> 
> Charles Rosen, I admit, goes on at great length and in great detail. If you already are familiar with much of the standard traditional classical music canon and have studied music theory to a reasonable degree, you are better off. He enjoys stating opinions in a provocative way. Don't get distracted. Leonard Meyer has a technical style of writing and can be heavy going, but is well-organized. Sir Joshua Reynold's Discourses, derived from lectures he gave his students over a span of many years in the late 18th century, also ramble a bit and sometimes seem contradictory, as he himself may have wrestled with these questions of aesthetic values. But there can be no doubt by the end he comes down in the empiricist camp.
> 
> Enjoy.


I think you misunderstood my request for an explanation. You said, "Yes, that's apparent from the rest of your post" and then, "Again, that is obviously the case". I was asking you to explain how you could tell this from my posts, that's all.


----------



## Luchesi

EdwardBast said:


> To those who understand the intellectual bases and philosophy of the arts and humanities, your arguments aren't close enough to reality to even be wrong. From one science literate person to another, I'll put it in terms you might understand: Attempting dialog with you on musical aesthetics is like trying to talk geography with a flat-earther or evolution with a new earth creationist.


I think it's illogical and difficult to continue, if someone doesn't understand a higher concept, and then they say it doesn't exist (as something valuable to other humans).

And wanting to be taught music in these short posts, without examples from scores, without an instrument to hear the effects. I blame myself not others, like I’d blame myself if I couldn’t find a successful way to teach tensor calculus in here. The student needs so much background..


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> Like DaveM's reply, i can only wonder: Where Have You Been? all this while. I have posted many times about the profundity of science when it gathers together seemingly unrelated phenomena--a dog's breakfast as I described them--into a overarching story (theory) that draws all together in a PROFOUND explanation of previously not-understood, disparate data points. ...


You've done nothing of the sort. All you've done is refer to some book you've been reading while snarking and attempting to throw shade on the notion of "profundity" with the "where's the evidence?" mantra repeated ad nauseam. Where's your evidence for "profundity" in anything? Gross's book again? You haven't defined "profound" whatsoever. Saying "drawing it all together in a PROFOUND explanation" is just the usual circularity from you.


----------



## Strange Magic

EdwardBast said:


> To those who understand the intellectual bases and philosophy of the arts and humanities, your arguments aren't close enough to reality to even be wrong. From one science literate person to another, I'll put it in terms you might understand: Attempting dialog with you on musical aesthetics is like trying to talk geography with a flat-earther or evolution with a new earth creationist.


Thank you for your input. Your assertions are always welcome and give insight into your thinking.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> You've done nothing of the sort. All you've done is refer to some book you've been reading while snarking and attempting to throw shade on the notion of "profundity" with the "where's the evidence?" mantra repeated ad nauseam. Where's your evidence for "profundity" in anything? Gross's book again? You haven't defined "profound" whatsoever. Saying "drawing it all together in a PROFOUND explanation" is just the usual circularity from you.


Thank you for your input. Your assertions are always welcome and give insight into your thinking.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> The bees thank you for your understanding.


Cockroaches also thank you for understanding how they reproduce.


dissident said:


> .


Kute. It's been a while since you posted this last time (it was one of the political discussions I remember).


----------



## Strange Magic

Here is a statement from the Geological Society of America on its 125th anniversary:

"The concepts of plate tectonics, including seafloor spreading, subduction and volcanic arcs, continental collisions, plumes, and hotspots, are taught universally in geoscience curriculums today and are commonly used in documentaries and the public news media. Many have said in parallel with statements on the geosynclinal theory, “Plate tectonic theory is a great unifying principle of fundamental importance to all branches of the geological science.” 

GSA Today - 125th anniversary of The Geological Society of America: Looking at the past and into the future of science at GSA

The entire GSA statement gives a clear example of a theory bringing order out of a chaos of disparate and seemingly unrelated facts. A perfect working definition and example of a profundity established by science. An inability to recognize and understand this displays a perverse Defiant Ignorance of either profundity or science.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> ...An inability to recognize and understand this displays a perverse Defiant Ignorance of either profundity or science.


"_Either_ profundity or science"? OK, you know "profundity"? Define it for us. There's no definition of it in a geological statement. That's no more profound than the rate of acceleration.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> Here is a statement from the Geological Society of America on its 125th anniversary:
> 
> "The concepts of plate tectonics, including seafloor spreading, subduction and volcanic arcs, continental collisions, plumes, and hotspots, are taught universally in geoscience curriculums today and are commonly used in documentaries and the public news media. Many have said in parallel with statements on the geosynclinal theory, “Plate tectonic theory is a great unifying principle of fundamental importance to all branches of the geological science.”
> 
> GSA Today - 125th anniversary of The Geological Society of America: Looking at the past and into the future of science at GSA
> 
> The entire GSA statement gives a clear example of a theory bringing order out of a chaos of disparate and seemingly unrelated facts. A perfect working definition and example of a profundity established by science. An inability to recognize and understand this displays a perverse Defiant Ignorance of either profundity or science.


I've considered the rise of dissonance, along with the increasing emotive ambiguity of harmony, rhythm and form to be the great unifying developments in music history. It's a big subject.


----------



## fbjim

Luchesi said:


> Yes, Gould seemed to play his version of what he saw as the concept of the work (beginning again with each movement). Maybe not the composer's concept. And perhaps by this approach he would miss what other pianists brought out. Piano brilliance, but as an interpreter he loved to explore. He saw no reason to record another rendition of what was out there already.
> It wasn't the money, he had to be satisfied that his point had been presented (and his opinions changed every week). I honestly couldn't grasp some of what he was pointing out, as a pianist/exploring-interpreter in his quirkier recordings (but most of the explanations came out later), but it's all available to review.


In some of the liner notes of his more infamous recordings (mainly the hammerklavier and the appassionata) he's pretty clear that he doesn't like the music he's recording, and well, you can kinda tell.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> I've considered the rise of dissonance, along with the increasing emotive ambiguity of harmony, rhythm and form to be the great unifying developments in music history. It's a big subject.


Classical European music history from the 14th to the 19th centuries, that is.


----------



## Luchesi

fbjim said:


> In some of the liner notes of his more infamous recordings (mainly the hammerklavier and the appassionata) he's pretty clear that he doesn't like the music he's recording, and well, you can kinda tell.


He admitted that he always wanted more moving lines and clever counterpoint, from Mozart and Beethoven, when he was contracted to produce their complete sets of sonatas. Some sonatas he disliked - as too much obvious-sounding drama. I've never agreed with him about that complaint.


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> "_Either_ profundity or science"? OK, you know "profundity"? Define it for us. There's no definition of it in a geological statement. That's no more profound than the rate of acceleration.


Most scientifically aware lay persons believe that the findings of Galileo and Newton are profound. You clearly do not. Therefore....


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> I've considered the rise of dissonance, along with the increasing emotive ambiguity of harmony, rhythm and form to be the great unifying developments in music history. It's a big subject.


Increasing emotive ambiguity. I prefer decreasing emotive ambiguity. I work at doing it here.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> Increasing emotive ambiguity. I prefer decreasing emotive ambiguity. I work at doing it here.


It's "the Shiny Objects" for humans. We're kitty cats. I like that.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> He admitted that he always wanted more moving lines and clever counterpoint, from Mozart and Beethoven, when he was contracted to produce their complete sets of sonatas. Some sonatas he disliked - as too much obvious-sounding drama. I've never agreed with him about that complaint.


So, who is right? You or Glenn Gould? Is Gould one of those you referred to in post 1,516 who, at least for the Mozart and Beethoven piano sonatas, "doesn't understand a higher concept, and then they say it doesn't exist"? Could you have trained him to see the profundity that he was missing?


----------



## fbjim

Consistently some of the "weirdest", non-consensus views on art I've seen come from artists/musicians. It makes sense in a way, though I've always found it interesting.


----------



## BachIsBest

Forster said:


> See my point above. There are modern thinkers with similar views, able to claim the same authority. For example:
> 
> _"Crispin Sartwell in his book Six Names of Beauty (2004), attributes beauty neither exclusively to the subject nor to the object, but to the relation between them, and even more widely also to the situation or environment in which they are both embedded. He points out that when we attribute beauty to the night sky, for instance, we do not take ourselves simply to be reporting a state of pleasure in ourselves; we are turned outward toward it; we are celebrating the real world. On the other hand, if there were no perceivers capable of experiencing such things, there would be no beauty. Beauty, rather, emerges in situations in which subject and object are juxtaposed and connected."
> 
> Beauty (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) _


From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that you so helpfully linked:

_"Perhaps the most familiar basic issue in the theory of beauty is whether beauty is subjective—located ‘in the eye of the beholder’—or rather an objective feature of beautiful things. A pure version of either of these positions seems implausible, for reasons we will examine, and many attempts have been made to split the difference or incorporate insights of both subjectivist and objectivist accounts."_

In other words, exactly what most of us in the so-called "objectivist" camp have been arguing for.



Forster said:


> So? Is that a problem with Hume's writing, or a problem with my quotation?


Probably your quotation, I guess? I don't really see what we're even arguing about at this point.


----------



## Forster

BachIsBest said:


> Probably your quotation, I guess? I don't really see what were even arguing about at this point.


Well never mind then.


----------



## Strange Magic

BachIsBest said:


> From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that you so helpfully linked:
> 
> _"Perhaps the most familiar basic issue in the theory of beauty is whether beauty is subjective—located ‘in the eye of the beholder’—or rather an objective feature of beautiful things. A pure version of either of these positions seems implausible, for reasons we will examine, and many attempts have been made to split the difference or incorporate insights of both subjectivist and objectivist accounts."_
> 
> In other words, exactly what most of us in the so-called "objectivist" camp have been arguing fo


So now Beauty is added to the list of inherent properties of art objects or of anything at all, to stand beside Excellence, etc. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is in error when it asserts that the subjectivist view seems implausible. It actually is entirely plausible; far more so than the bizarre idea of inherent, intrinsic beauty. Which of the planets is most beautiful? Which rock type? Which ape?


----------



## Forster

Strange Magic said:


> So now Beauty is added to the list of inherent properties of art objects or of anything at all, to stand beside Excellence, etc. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is in error when it asserts that the subjectivist view seems implausible. It actually is entirely plausible; far more so than the bizarre idea of inherent, intrinsic beauty. Which of the planets is most beautiful? Which rock type? Which ape?


Stanford offers a useful survey of a number of philosophical topics. However, it is written by a number of different authors, each with their own authorial perspective (dare I say, subjective viewpoint). Interestingly, the section on Beauty is written by Crispin Sartwell, the philosopher I referenced in my quote (I didn't realise this at the time.)

More interesting perhaps, is the survey of almost 2000 philosophers in 2020.

PhilPapers Survey 2020 (philpeople.org) 

On the question of whether they thought that "aesthetic value" is objective or subjective, the figures were roughly 44% objective and 41% subjective. Of the nearly 5% who had an alternative view (and offered a text response), 24 respondents referenced intersubjectivity. Almost 7% were agnostic or undecided. Almost 4% said 'both'.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> So now Beauty is added to the list of inherent properties of art objects or of anything at all, to stand beside Excellence, etc. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is in error when it asserts that the subjectivist view seems implausible. It actually is entirely plausible; far more so than the bizarre idea of inherent, intrinsic beauty. Which of the planets is most beautiful? Which rock type? Which ape?


My college observatory, built in 1903, still contains its original 18-inch refracting telescope, then one of the world's largest, built by Alvan Clark & Sons at a cost of $12,000, of which $5,000 was for the objective, figured over 18 months. Talk about quality optics! I was part of a group led by the college astronomy professor one cold, clear winter night up into the dome to take a close look at Saturn and details of the Moon's surface, among other things. Some who could have joined us chose to stay warm by the fire. Or the TV. Who was right? What a silly question.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> So now Beauty is added to the list of inherent properties of art objects or of anything at all, to stand beside Excellence, etc. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is in error when it asserts that the subjectivist view seems implausible. It actually is entirely plausible; far more so than the bizarre idea of inherent, intrinsic beauty. Which of the planets is most beautiful? Which rock type? Which ape?


Great thinking! So planets were designed to be attractive. Flowers that stink are always the most popular on Mother’s Day. And homely young actresses are typically cast to sell movies.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Great thinking! So planets were designed to be attractive. Flowers that stink are always the most popular on Mother’s Day. And homely young actresses are typically cast to sell movies.


Usually it is easy to suspect your position on these matters. Hard to tell this time. Is clarity a problem for you? What exactly is your point?


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> My college observatory, built in 1903, still contains its original 18-inch refracting telescope, then one of the world's largest, built by Alvan Clark & Sons at a cost of $12,000, of which $5,000 was for the objective, figured over 18 months. Talk about quality optics! I was part of a group led by the college astronomy professor one cold, clear winter night up into the dome to take a close look at Saturn and details of the Moon's surface, among other things. Some who could have joined us chose to stay warm by the fire. Or the TV. Who was right? What a silly question.


Sky&Telescope had an article on that restoration. Your school's name begins with an A, perhaps? The night sky and the speculations and wonders aroused--more so seen through a quality telescope--provokes thoughts of a profound nature.


----------



## Strange Magic

Forster said:


> Stanford offers a useful survey of a number of philosophical topics. However, it is written by a number of different authors, each with their own authorial perspective (dare I say, subjective viewpoint). Interestingly, the section on Beauty is written by Crispin Sartwell, the philosopher I referenced in my quote (I didn't realise this at the time.)
> 
> More interesting perhaps, is the survey of almost 2000 philosophers in 2020.
> 
> PhilPapers Survey 2020 (philpeople.org)
> 
> On the question of whether they thought that "aesthetic value" is objective or subjective, the figures were roughly 44% objective and 41% subjective. Of the nearly 5% who had an alternative view (and offered a text response), 24 respondents referenced intersubjectivity. Almost 7% were agnostic or undecided. Almost 4% said 'both'.


Philosophers, like economists, especially come in a wide range of abilities and of relevance and cogency of thought. Thanks for the info, though--it confirms my suspicions.


----------



## 59540

Strange Magic said:


> Most scientifically aware lay persons believe that the findings of Galileo and Newton are profound. You clearly do not. Therefore....


Still no definition. If the concept is so vague and subjective that you can't offer a precise definition of it, I don't know how you can be the arbiter of what is or isn't "profound" or demand evidence of something that you can't even define. OR snipe at or badger anyone who claims to find profundity in whatever.


----------



## mmsbls

dissident said:


> Still no definition. If the concept is so vague and subjective that you can't offer a precise definition of it, I don't know how you can be the arbiter of what is or isn't "profound" or demand evidence of something that you can't even define. OR snipe at or badger anyone who claims to find profundity in whatever.


Can't you go to the beginning of the thread and use the beginning of this post?


----------



## 59540

mmsbls said:


> Can't you go to the beginning of the thread and use the beginning of this post?


I read it a while back, thanks, mmsbls. Nice leap from the top rope again for your team. What's essentially a 78-page troll job has been encouraged. I was under the impression that this is a classical music forum, but seemingly anything minimizing it is celebrated...with mods, or rather a certain mod, jumping in to take sides.

And no, the term wasn't defined. "Penetrating insight" into what? Geology? Forget it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> Charles Rosen


is mentioned (yet again) by you, for no apparent reason. But his writings are where we must really apply _critical thinking_. Again, just read page 281 of The Classical Style. He claims that a work Mozart wrote in Decemeber 1773 was modeled on a set works (by another composer, who was living and working far away from Mozart, and Mozart wasn't yet acquainted with, and wasn't very widely known at the time) that weren't published until 1774. Use common sense, and you'll arrrive at a different conclusion: Opinions vs less and more objective argumentation. "If you can't write books like Rosen, you have no right to criticize him" is a non-argument. Not everyone has the money and time to build a church like him, that doesn't mean we have to all worship at the same altar as him.


----------



## hammeredklavier

"Particle physicist Tara Shears on what the current understanding is of Antimatter and the similarities between how science describes the behaviour of the universe and the way in which Bach uses patterns and symmetry in his music."


----------



## Strange Magic

dissident said:


> I read it a while back, thanks, mmsbls. Nice leap from the top rope again for your team. What's essentially a 78-page troll job has been encouraged. I was under the impression that this is a classical music forum, but seemingly anything minimizing it is celebrated...with mods, or rather a certain mod, jumping in to take sides.
> 
> And no, the term wasn't defined. "Penetrating insight" into what? Geology? Forget it.


Here is a good example of the awe (profundity) that science and its findings can induce in those who are open to it. I am terribly sorry that KenOC's OP and the follow up to it has shattered and hurt some minds--I realize how difficult it is to absorb ideas that we have never entertained before that are well out of our comfort zone--the urge is to both dismiss and to lash out.

"PROFUNDITY. Ideally, to paraphrase Carl Sagan, science is _skepticism married to wonder_. Note that wonder comes first: it is probably the first emotion we experience after birth! It is certainly the emotion that Wonderfest strives to nourish beyond childhood. With humility, science asks some of the deepest questions. And it often provides wondrous, natural, even mechanistic answers that make mysticism and the supernatural seem banal. Our species yearns for transcendence, and, strangely, science delivers. Not in the afterlife, but in THIS life — as it helps us to transcend personal egocentricism, conceptual anthropocentrism, and cosmic geocentrism. Sometimes, at its best, science also fills us with awe — with deep acknowledgment of the mysterious rather than the mystical."

Why SCIENCE? Prosperity, Pleasure, Profundity – Wonderfest – Bay Area Beacon of Science


----------



## hammeredklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> as long as you think the likes of Handel, Telemann aren't objectively inferior in artistic achievement to Bach, you'll never be in agreement with





hammeredklavier said:


>


btw, something for us to think about:


----------



## Strange Magic

Profundity, the profound--an internet examination of their definitions reveal a sea of synonyms and examples of their use in sentences. In contrast, I have offered my definition as that which (as I have posted numerous times) gathers together a swarm of seemingly unrelated facts/data about the world into a coherent story (theory) that links and binds together these data points into a revelatory and richly satisfying whole. Examples include evolution, the expansion of the universe, the cosmic background radiation and the Big Bang, black holes, plate tectonics, genes, neurochemistry, and the fate of the Earth and of humanity and of the creatures with whom we share this planet.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

What is even going on in this thread anymore


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> Stanford offers a useful survey of a number of philosophical topics. However, it is written by a number of different authors, each with their own authorial perspective (dare I say, subjective viewpoint). Interestingly, the section on Beauty is written by Crispin Sartwell, the philosopher I referenced in my quote (I didn't realise this at the time.)
> 
> More interesting perhaps, is the survey of almost 2000 philosophers in 2020.
> 
> PhilPapers Survey 2020 (philpeople.org)
> 
> On the question of whether they thought that "aesthetic value" is objective or subjective, the figures were roughly 44% objective and 41% subjective. Of the nearly 5% who had an alternative view (and offered a text response), 24 respondents referenced intersubjectivity. Almost 7% were agnostic or undecided. Almost 4% said 'both'.


So, to figure out whether "aesthetic values" however that is defined, are subjective or objective, the method used is -- a poll! With statistical analysis of the resulting data! I love it. Somebody needs a refresher course in scientific method.


----------



## Strange Magic

4chamberedklavier said:


> What is even going on in this thread anymore


It is both clarifying to know people's views (taste exchanging) and it is fun!


----------



## BachIsBest

Strange Magic said:


> So now Beauty is added to the list of inherent properties of art objects or of anything at all, to stand beside Excellence, etc. _The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is in error when it asserts that the subjectivist view seems implausible._ It actually is entirely plausible; far more so than the bizarre idea of inherent, intrinsic beauty. Which of the planets is most beautiful? Which rock type? Which ape?


The fact that you feel the Stanford encyclopedia is "in error" and you, with no apparent qualifications, are in fact entirely and completely obviously, almost tautologically, correct, probably should tell you its time to, perhaps, at least consider the other side beyond the ridiculous strawmen you keep wheeling out even if your ultimate opinion remains unchanged. No?


----------



## BachIsBest

Strange Magic said:


> Profundity, the profound--an internet examination of their definitions reveal a sea of synonyms and examples of their use in sentences. In contrast, I have offered my definition as that which (as I have posted numerous times) gathers together a swarm of seemingly unrelated facts/data about the world into a coherent story (theory) that links and binds together these data points into a revelatory and richly satisfying whole. Examples include evolution, the expansion of the universe, the cosmic background radiation and the Big Bang, black holes, plate tectonics, genes, neurochemistry, and the fate of the Earth and of humanity and of the creatures with whom we share this planet.


The only thing that I can say after reading your definition of profundity is it is so general and vague as to include virtually anything. Some things listed as examples border on the absurd. Cosmic background radiation? This is literally just a term for a small amount of radiation that exists everywhere and causes annoyance for filtering out noise. If this is profound my left toe is profound.

Honestly, after this thread, the only thing related to "profundity" that I am convinced of is that I am profoundly confused.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> Here is a good example of the awe (profundity) that science and its findings can induce in those who are open to it. I am terribly sorry that KenOC's OP and the follow up to it has shattered and hurt some minds--I realize how difficult it is to absorb ideas that we have never entertained before that are well out of our comfort zone--the urge is to both dismiss and to lash out.
> 
> "PROFUNDITY. Ideally, to paraphrase Carl Sagan, science is _skepticism married to wonder_. Note that wonder comes first: it is probably the first emotion we experience after birth! It is certainly the emotion that Wonderfest strives to nourish beyond childhood. With humility, science asks some of the deepest questions. And it often provides wondrous, natural, even mechanistic answers that make mysticism and the supernatural seem banal. Our species yearns for transcendence, and, strangely, science delivers. Not in the afterlife, but in THIS life — as it helps us to transcend personal egocentricism, conceptual anthropocentrism, and cosmic geocentrism. Sometimes, at its best, science also fills us with awe — with deep acknowledgment of the mysterious rather than the mystical."
> 
> Why SCIENCE? Prosperity, Pleasure, Profundity – Wonderfest – Bay Area Beacon of Science


For me, It's almost the same with music theory and musical analysis. Great and dedicated minds have taken the notes and intervals derived from the harmonic series and moved us consistently with their finely-crafted creations. I have little doubt that you would come to see this if you worked with the theory and the analyses for a few years, and 'played' with the creations, and developed the experiences with it all, tactilely experiencing - and aurorally and intellectually (all together at the same time). 
I hold out that I may be deluded, but it is so compelling that I've never looked back - once I had some early successes. It's so atrractively reducible, it's so reliable, it's so open-ended, all encompassing/correlatable, so satisfying but deep/mysterious.


----------



## Luchesi

BachIsBest said:


> The only thing that I can say after reading your definition of profundity is it is so general and vague as to include virtually anything. Some things listed as examples border on the absurd. Cosmic background radiation? This is literally just a term for a small amount of radiation that exists everywhere and causes annoyance for filtering out noise. If this is profound my left toe is profound.
> 
> Honestly, after this thread, the only thing related to "profundity" that I am convinced of is that I am profoundly confused.


As you probably know, the CMB is our universe's baby pictures (from the various telescopes). Pretty profound I'd say. There's so much to say about the CMB. What we've interpreted from it, and just the fact that we're here early enough to be able to map it.


----------



## Strange Magic

BachIsBest said:


> The fact that you feel the Stanford encyclopedia is "in error" and you, with no apparent qualifications, are in fact entirely and completely obviously, almost tautologically, correct, probably should tell you its time to, perhaps, at least consider the other side beyond the ridiculous strawmen you keep wheeling out even if your ultimate opinion remains unchanged. No?


It is as simple as 2 plus 2 equals 4. The Stanford Encyclopedia is in error Big Time. There is no question that the subjectivist position is totally plausible. I use my brain where it clearly is supplying me with inarguable and factual data. A little independent thought is always refreshing to discern, and I offer it. Also an ability to stick with the essence of the message rather than constantly complaining about the messenger.


----------



## BachIsBest

Luchesi said:


> As you probably know, the CMB is our universe's baby pictures (from the various telescopes). Pretty profound I'd say. There's so much to say about the CMB. What we've interpreted from it, and just the fact that we're here early enough to be able to map it.


I realise what we can tell from CMB. But saying CMB itself is profound is like saying a rock is profound because we can examine the atomic structure of the rock and eventually learn about the structure of matter. In this sense, everything is profound and profundity loses all meaning.


----------



## Strange Magic

BachIsBest said:


> The only thing that I can say after reading your definition of profundity is it is so general and vague as to include virtually anything. Some things listed as examples border on the absurd. Cosmic background radiation? This is literally just a term for a small amount of radiation that exists everywhere and causes annoyance for filtering out noise. If this is profound my left toe is profound.
> 
> Honestly, after this thread, the only thing related to "profundity" that I am convinced of is that I am profoundly confused.


Compare my definition of the profound/profundity with the dozens of dictionary definitions--all word salad repeating (talk about tautology!) a bunch of synonyms saying the same thing in slightly varying and microscopically different ways. i have offered (this is so tiresome!  ) a far more specific and detailed definition of the profound than anybody else here and than any dictionary definition. But no definition seems to be specific or precise enough for my critics, and they prefer it that way, as they feel they can bob and weave out of dealing with the realities my definition reveals with "irresistible logic".

A little knowledge of astronomy and cosmology might also help you better understand--as Luchesi indicates--the greater importance of the CMBR than that of your left toe. Ignorance is Bliss, I suppose.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> So, who is right? You or Glenn Gould? Is Gould one of those you referred to in post 1,516 who, at least for the Mozart and Beethoven piano sonatas, "doesn't understand a higher concept, and then they say it doesn't exist"? Could you have trained him to see the profundity that he was missing?


His brain probably made him impatient with dramatic late Mozart, he avoided most of Schubert, Schumann, Chopin. He didn't like people, although he spent hours on the phone for a social outlet. 
My brain is more like other musicians - conventional/run of the mill. So we're both right, for ourselves.

Not Gould, I was referring to people who don't find a enduring appreciation for musical analysis. 
I don't think I can train anyone to see profundity, because you find it along your own unique life path.


----------



## Strange Magic

BachIsBest said:


> I realise what we can tell from CMB. But saying CMB itself is profound is like saying a rock is profound because we can examine the atomic structure of the rock and eventually learn about the structure of matter. In this sense, everything is profound and profundity loses all meaning.


Noooo, it does not. I have defined the Profound for you as, if you like, examining the atomic structure of the rock and learning about the structure of the universe--you seem to get that. That is Profundity. We learn nothing from non-verbal art beyond what we hear and see, except about the variability of human discernment and sometimes of both the darkness and the light within specific people. But no universal all-encompassing and synthesizing overview linking disparate parts into a whole. The very uniqueness of art experience among individuals itself rules out profundity. Sublimity, yes. Profundity, no.


----------



## Luchesi

BachIsBest said:


> I realise what we can tell from CMB. But saying CMB itself is profound is like saying a rock is profound because we can examine the atomic structure of the rock and eventually learn about the structure of matter. In this sense, everything is profound and profundity loses all meaning.


Yes, that's a common-sense dismissal, but I find looking at a rock somehwat profound (because of what a geologist can tell us). Not as profound as having the CMB to behold for its early patterns etc., and just maybe the evidence for a collision/bounce of an adjacent universe.

What makes teaching challenging for me, is guessing what will be sufficiently profound and enticing to my students. I only know what's profound for me, and how lucky I feel in this regard..


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> So, to figure out whether "aesthetic values" however that is defined, are subjective or objective, the method used is -- a poll! With statistical analysis of the resulting data! I love it. Somebody needs a refresher course in scientific method.


Er, no, I don't think that's the point of the survey at all, but you're just having a laugh aren't you?


----------



## Forster

Strange Magic said:


> Philosophers, like economists, especially come in a wide range of abilities and of relevance and cogency of thought. Thanks for the info, though--it confirms my suspicions.


Your suspicions....which are?

Funny how the survey I posted which shows opinion on aesthetic value more or less evenly divided has received only sceptical responses. I offered it as a piece of information, not as a proof of anything, merely a small piece of evidence that, contrary to what some seem to assert, philosophical opinion on the issue remains split and not 'settled'.


----------



## Strange Magic

Forster said:


> Your suspicions....which are?
> 
> Funny how the survey I posted which shows opinion on aesthetic value more or less evenly divided has received only sceptical responses. I offered it as a piece of information, not as a proof of anything, merely a small piece of evidence that, contrary to what some seem to assert, philosophical opinion on the issue remains split and not 'settled'.


My skepticism is and was always high when it came to the pronouncements of philosophers and of economists--both sorts often completely ignorant of science and the actual physical world (or denying that it exists). Down in the Political Groups, I spent much energy on decrying the ravings of Cornucopian "economists" such as Julian Simon, who wrote that the Earth could sustain an infinitely large population--how crazy is that?? And solipsist philosophers who are eager to share their views with others.


----------



## Forster

Strange Magic said:


> My skepticism is and was always high when it came to the pronouncements of philosophers and of economists--both sorts often completely ignorant of science and the actual physical world (or denying that it exists). Down in the Political Groups, I spent much energy on decrying the ravings of Cornucopian "economists" such as Julian Simon, who wrote that the Earth could sustain an infinitely large population--how crazy is that?? And solipsist philosophers who are eager to share their views with others.


I assume your low opinion of philosophers is based on personal experience of a handful of them, as opposed to a comprehensive knowledge of the 1785 who took part in the survey?


----------



## Strange Magic

Forster said:


> I assume your low opinion of philosophers is based on personal experience of a handful of them, as opposed to a comprehensive knowledge of the 1785 who took part in the survey?


I was tormented as a child by teams of philosophers and economists all working to strain my credulity to the breaking point.  They succeeded. I was then saved, in part, by Doctor Samuel Johnson's refutation of Bishop Berkeley and by finding a jewel of great value amid a sea of mush, the writings of the Naturalist philosopher Ernest Nagel, author of several textbooks on logic, measurement, and the scientific method. His essay, _Naturalism Reconsidered, _remains a near-perfect summary of my philosophical views. Other than by dealing with a paywall, to my knowledge one can only find Nagel's essay in an old paperback entitled _Essays in Philosophy _and published by Washington Square Press.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Your suspicions....which are?
> 
> Funny how the survey I posted which shows opinion on aesthetic value more or less evenly divided has received only sceptical responses. I offered it as a piece of information, not as a proof of anything, merely a small piece of evidence that, contrary to what some seem to assert, philosophical opinion on the issue remains split and not 'settled'.


Philosophers are piecing together an encompassing logic (from earlier ‘proofs’) about Art and the receiver.

I’m merely asserting that one piece is more effective in its goals than another, just looking at the objective facts in the score with an experienced eye. Otherwise how can a musician study and compare, or even choose what’s what? They have to “like” a work? It's much easier to play nursery songs (sugary sweet tonal music) all the time if that's all they wanted.

I’ve asked my musicians, they agree, they don't know what the problem is - they don't understand the question, but I probably presented the debate from my biased point of view.

It's natural that no-one wants to come to the conclusion that what they're doing (spending so much time) is mostly meaningless and wholly subjective. They avoid such fundamental questions. They just want to get on with ‘playing’.

Added:
You should probably take a poll from only experienced musicians, because they have the required experiences. How do we study and memorize works? From the sounds in them which we find pleasing (learning to like them enough?)? What are your experiences?


----------



## Strange Magic

*^^^^@Luchesi: I*nteresting post, but I have some questions: A) What do you have in mind when you post that one piece is more effective in its goals than another. Do you mean _reaching _a goal? B) And what is the composer's goal, other than penning and hearing something that the composer and others find pleasing? C) Is the goal to write the perfect symphony? The perfect concerto? What would these sound like? Is there more than one perfect piece of music? D) What does the score actually tell us about the piece other than/in addition to the notes and instructions written down? Is the score of Dvorak's 7th symphony better than the score of Bartok's _Concerto for Orchestra? _Surely all scores in your view cannot be equal. Or are they? And how do we measure this other than by our personal tastes?

I hate posting via rhetorical questions but I would appreciate your input on these questions.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> *^^^^@Luchesi: I*nteresting post, but I have some questions: A) What do you have in mind when you post that one piece is more effective in its goals than another. Do you mean _reaching _a goal? B) And what is the composer's goal, other than penning and hearing something that the composer and others find pleasing? C) Is the goal to write the perfect symphony? The perfect concerto? What would these sound like? Is there more than one perfect piece of music? D) What does the score actually tell us about the piece other than/in addition to the notes and instructions written down? Is the score of Dvorak's 7th symphony better than the score of Bartok's _Concerto for Orchestra? _Surely all scores in your view cannot be equal. Or are they? And how do we measure this other than by our personal tastes?
> 
> I hate posting via rhetorical questions but I would appreciate your input on these questions.


I'm learning in here that I'm probably not a good person to ask about these questions. I'm too pragmatic, coming from so long in the sciences of predicting long range weather for launching expensive stratospheric experiments. A lot of pressure in a very important job.
But for me musical analysis gives me a reliable and consistent view of what we will be working on. It's never about a perfect work it's about how the composer does what he does in the score to achieve the effectiveness of the ‘effect’ that he has on his (experienced) audience.

So if you want to dance to music you probably don't put on a Beethoven sonata, but what are the reasons why? the objective details in the score? It's a silly question just to make my point but I don't have a lot of time right now. You can probably just hear the difference obviously, but that's not an answer from the fundamental music theory. It reminds me of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and listening is not reliable across the populations. We have to have a very direct approach if we're going to take the time to learn and practice and perform - and perform it again many times.


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> Er, no, I don't think that's the point of the survey at all, but you're just having a laugh aren't you?


Dear Forster: We live in a world dominated by principles established or effectively summarized by a few leading thinkers: Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Hume, Kant, John Stewart Mill, John Locke, Adam Smith, and more recently, Albert Einstein. Forget about polls. In this world, empiricism and rationalism are the dominant principles. They underlie all of science and engineering, and nearly all of commerce. They are very important principles of politics, law and art, but in those areas, they vie with other principles, most importantly that of tradition.

Tradition plays no role in science. For centuries, Newton's theory of mechanics held sway. But in the late 19th and early 20th century, it became apparent that while the theory of Newtonian mechanics gave a very close approximation of physical phenomena on a more or less human scale, it was not exactly correct, and it gave way to quantum mechanics. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Mr. Newton. Scientific theories are ever improved and refined as empirical observation improves. The old is simply the old.

Not so with art. Art is in large part a sociological / anthropological phenomenon. Man is a social animal, and creates and observes traditions as a glue to bind societies together across multiple generations. Art is an important part of that glue, and is in large part tradition-based. Not entirely, mind you. Especially with highly developed, sophisticated traditions, such as that of European classical music of the 18th and 19th centuries, certain limited theoretical constructs can be rationally formulated and empirically observed. There is a rational theory behind the diatonic scale, for example.

But there never can be a comprehensive theory of music, or of any art, or of any human behavior that is tradition-driven or based, except in a sociological or anthropological sense. Too much of it results from a long historical accretion of random or accidental events. Music can never be fully predicted the way Newtonian or quantum mechanics predicts physical phenomena.

So in the absence of a rational theory, or at least a comprehensive one, we are left with empirical observation. Subjective empirical observation. It is unavoidable. That is what Strange Magic means when he says there is no profundity in music. He means there is no comprehensive, rational, unifying theory of music. And he is correct. Earlier in this thread, I offered an olive branch in the form of a broader, less formal, less technically correct, more poetic / literary definition, but was ignored. Oh well.


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> Dear Forster: We live in a world dominated by principles established or effectively summarized by a few leading thinkers: Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Hume, Kant, John Stewart Mill, John Locke, Adam Smith, and more recently, Albert Einstein. Forget about polls. In this world, empiricism and rationalism are the dominant principles. They underlie all of science and engineering, and nearly all of commerce. They are very important principles of politics, law and art, but in those areas, they vie with other principles, most importantly that of tradition.
> 
> Tradition plays no role in science. For centuries, Newton's theory of mechanics held sway. But in the late 19th and early 20th century, it became apparent that while the theory of Newtonian mechanics gave a very close approximation of physical phenomena on a more or less human scale, it was not exactly correct, and it gave way to quantum mechanics. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Mr. Newton. Scientific theories are ever improved and refined as empirical observation improves. The old is simply the old.
> 
> Not so with art. Art is in large part a sociological / anthropological phenomenon. Man is a social animal, and creates and observes traditions as a glue to bind societies together across multiple generations. Art is an important part of that glue, and is in large part tradition-based. Not entirely, mind you. Especially with highly developed, sophisticated traditions, such as that of European classical music of the 18th and 19th centuries, certain limited theoretical constructs can be rationally formulated and empirically observed. There is a rational theory behind the diatonic scale, for example.
> 
> But there never can be a comprehensive theory of music, or of any art, or of any human behavior that is tradition-driven or based, except in a sociological or anthropological sense. Too much of it results from a long historical accretion of random or accidental events. Music can never be fully predicted the way Newtonian or quantum mechanics predicts physical phenomena.
> 
> So in the absence of a rational theory, or at least a comprehensive one, we are left with empirical observation. Subjective empirical observation. It is unavoidable. That is what Strange Magic means when he says there is no profundity in music. He means there is no comprehensive, rational, unifying theory of music. And he is correct. Earlier in this thread, I offered an olive branch in the form of a broader, less formal, less technically correct, more poetic / literary definition, but was ignored. Oh well.


I think I'm missing something. Twice now, you've offered some longer post expanding on a point you wish to make in response to something I've said - but I can't see what. You chose not to clarify in our last exchange, so I thought I'd assume you were joking this time when you said, re the usefulness of a poll, that "Somebody needs a refresher course in scientific method". I referenced a poll for no reason other than to show that in the community of academic philosophers, the issue of subjectivity/objectivity wrt aesthetic values is not settled. I wasn't setting out to show anything else or make any other point.

As for what Strange Magic thinks about profundity wrt music - I agree, more or less, and I take his point that there is potentially as much awe and wonder in science as there is in the arts. We differ slightly on whether 'profound' is a useful term to describe the emotional experience induced by some music - he prefers to use the word sublime, I'm happy with profound. I already said, entirely off my own bat and without reference to any other member's influence here, that I think the idea of profundity in music is not useful. Music can't _represent _'profound ideas', though there's no stopping the listener thinking all kinds of thoughts - from the sublime to the gorblimey - some of which will stick and remain associated with a particular piece. I also reject the tendency to embrace the Serious, the Tragic and the Profound as intrinsically more worthwhile than the Humorous, the Mundane, the Trivial which, to my mind, are as worthy of treatment by composers as anything else.

I hope I've explained my position clearly. By all means ask questions if you wish to know more.


----------



## Strange Magic

I do agree that it was interesting to learn the breakdown of the thoughts of philosophers on whether beauty exists somewhere beyond our personal experience, or only inside the brain of each individual, or some combination of the two. The poll gave us an insight into what the profession thought and also gave us a clue on how seriously we should follow philosophers as a guide to beauty and to maybe other concepts. I thank Forster for the informative poll.

I found the results of the poll as could be expected from philosophers, who, as a class, are never quite sure of anything, or are certainly less sure than scientists. A good example would be, again, plate tectonics--if and when clearly explained to any sort of real scientist (and most lay folk interested in science) there will be near-unanimity as to both the correctness of the theory itself and an understanding of the evidence chain that led to the promulgation of the theory. Contrast the blur of opinion over beauty, what is beauty, where found. I take literally the claims of objectivists that beauty is inherent within properly executed artworks. 

But to me the "inexorable" corollary follows that all perceivers--not some but all not suffering from a brain or sensory dysfunction--will clearly sense the beauty. And that inherent beauty should be clear to not only every earthling but equally clear when the spaceship carrying the _Venus de Milo _or a painting by Rembrandt arrives mysteriously on the planet Thraa and is there sensed by the masses of writhing tentacles floating in Thraa's universal ocean--sensed and understood that they are perceiving inherent beauty integral to the art.

Now whatever objectivists are still attending to this thread, they will backpedal and say they didn't really mean that kind of objectivity but some other kind. We shall see. Or maybe not.


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> I think I'm missing something. Twice now, you've offered some longer post expanding on a point you wish to make in response to something I've said - but I can't see what. You chose not to clarify in our last exchange, so I thought I'd assume you were joking this time when you said, re the usefulness of a poll, that "Somebody needs a refresher course in scientific method". I referenced a poll for no reason other than to show that in the community of academic philosophers, the issue of subjectivity/objectivity wrt aesthetic values is not settled. I wasn't setting out to show anything else or make any other point.
> 
> As for what Strange Magic thinks about profundity wrt music - I agree, more or less, and I take his point that there is potentially as much awe and wonder in science as there is in the arts. We differ slightly on whether 'profound' is a useful term to describe the emotional experience induced by some music - he prefers to use the word sublime, I'm happy with profound. I already said, entirely off my own bat and without reference to any other member's influence here, that I think the idea of profundity in music is not useful. Music can't _represent _'profound ideas', though there's no stopping the listener thinking all kinds of thoughts - from the sublime to the gorblimey - some of which will stick and remain associated with a particular piece. I also reject the tendency to embrace the Serious, the Tragic and the Profound as intrinsically more worthwhile than the Humorous, the Mundane, the Trivial which, to my mind, are as worthy of treatment by composers as anything else.
> 
> I hope I've explained my position clearly. By all means ask questions if you wish to know more.


OK, I'll try one last time. What today's community of academic philosophers says in response to a poll about subjectivity and objectivity to me isn't relevant to this discussion, certainly not to what I was trying to say. What I was talking about has more to do with cultural anthropology, a modern field of study largely shaped by Franz Boas. Such modern fields of study are possible due to near universal acceptance in Western society of the basic ideas of Hume and Kant, whose work is still a central feature of any university philosophy curriculum, regardless of current day developments.
These basic ideas relate to what is commonly called "empiricism", and that is what my arguments here relate to, not "subjectivity" or "objectivity" in the technical, precise sense of those words. The idea is, the most useful way of viewing the world, i.e., the one that gets us closest to reality, is through our best efforts at empirical observation. Then, the rational theory that best explains or predicts what we observe is accepted, subject to further refinements or extensions. That is the scientific method. And in theory, the scientific method can explain anything and everything, at least if you hold a determinist view of the universe, including human behavior.
The trouble is, human behavior is the result of so many factors, many of which are random or accidental, it really isn't useful to try to reduce human behavior down to a mathematical or statistical certainty, regardless of whether that is theoretically possible. So we have what are called the social sciences, or the 'soft' sciences. It turns out human behavior almost invariably follows certain predictable general patterns, even if not with hard scientific precision. The inevitable differences among individual humans, and among communities and societies, can be traced in an approximate and general way to different environments and circumstances. But this isn't hard science. It is one of statistical trends and inferences backed by empirical observation.
Music and art generally is a human cultural tradition found in some form in nearly all societies and communities. It is a classic soft science subject for the cultural anthropologist. It always reflects the unique environmental and historical factors of any particular society or community, and of course any particular artist. So, attempts to reduce it to a hard science subject to a comprehensive, universal rational theory are bound to fail. And all such attempts have failed.
Edit: IMHO, the poll of "the community of academic philosophers" you cite does not even rise to the level of valid soft science. Legitimate soft scientists in the field under discussion here include musicologists such as Charles Rosen and Leonard Meyer.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> ..But to me the "inexorable" corollary follows that all perceivers--not some but all not suffering from a brain or sensory dysfunction--will clearly sense the beauty. And that inherent beauty should be clear to not only every earthling but equally clear when the spaceship carrying the _Venus de Milo _or a painting by Rembrandt arrives mysteriously on the planet Thraa and is there sensed by the masses of writhing tentacles floating in Thraa's universal ocean--sensed and understood that they are perceiving inherent beauty integral to the art.
> 
> Now whatever objectivists are still attending to this thread, they will backpedal and say they didn't really mean that kind of objectivity but some other kind. We shall see. Or maybe not.


Seems like a sign of desperation to look for support of your extreme subjectivist position from the non-human inhabitants of Thraa when one can’t sell it to humans on Earth. However, I’ll plan to hang around to see how the Venus de Milo or the Rembrandt paintings are perceived by the masses of writhing tentacles on Thraa.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> Seems like a sign of desperation to look for support of your extreme subjectivist position from the non-human inhabitants of Thraa when one can’t sell it to humans on Earth. However, I’ll plan to hang around to see how the Venus de Milo or the Rembrandt paintings are perceived by the masses of writhing tentacles on Thraa.


As far as I can tell, there seem to be 3 views on the subjective/objective question. First, some view beauty (or other similar characteristics) as an objective quality existing in the object (e.g. music). Second, some believe there are certainly objective qualities to the object but agree there is also a subjective component. Finally, some have stated beauty is subjective. The difference between the second and third beliefs is not entirely clear to me since I think almost everyone agrees with both views (i.e. there is both an objective and subjective component). The last view is simply the position that if there is anything subjective in beauty then it is a subjective characteristic.

I guess my question is why you consider Strange Magic's view as extreme? Is it more extreme than the first view? If there is any subjective component to beauty, would you agree that it's then reasonable to consider beauty subjective?


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> As far as I can tell, there seem to be 3 views on the subjective/objective question. First, some view beauty (or other similar characteristics) as an objective quality existing in the object (e.g. music). Second, some believe there are certainly objective qualities to the object but agree there is also a subjective component. Finally, some have stated beauty is subjective. The difference between the second and third beliefs is not entirely clear to me since I think almost everyone agrees with both views (i.e. there is both an objective and subjective component). The last view is simply the position that if there is anything subjective in beauty then it is a subjective characteristic.
> 
> I guess my question is why you consider Strange Magic's view as extreme? Is it more extreme than the first view? If there is any subjective component to beauty, would you agree that it's then reasonable to consider beauty subjective?


I would define beauty as a matter of subjective perception. However, how human perception functions ultimately is a matter of hard science, and thus even subjective perception ultimately is based on objective principles. Some seem to tie themselves up in knots and to be unable to get past this conundrum. But there really is no conundrum. Rather than giving oneself the obligation of rationally explaining the position of each atom in the universe, one simply must acknowledge the limits of rationality and accept pure empiricism and as much as one can usefully derive from it. That is what Strange Magic does when he differentiates between the profound and the sublime. I know you are a scientist, but the best scientists, e.g. Einstein, understand the limits of rationality: "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Seems like a sign of desperation to look for support of your extreme subjectivist position from the non-human inhabitants of Thraa when one can’t sell it to humans on Earth. However, I’ll plan to hang around to see how the Venus de Milo or the Rembrandt paintings are perceived by the masses of writhing tentacles on Thraa.


I wonder often if some fail repeatedly to understand my position. My position is that *if beauty is inherent within artwork, * then it should and must be perceived by every perceiver not damaged in some way. All are capable of perceiving beauty if it is an integral component within the very tissue and fabric of art. The inhabitants of Thraa are, of course, metaphorical stand-ins for my Universal Perceiver of the Beauty of a given art object (though I often am in telepathic communication with them.),


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> As far as I can tell, there seem to be 3 views on the subjective/objective question. First, some view beauty (or other similar characteristics) as an objective quality existing in the object (e.g. music). Second, some believe there are certainly objective qualities to the object but agree there is also a subjective component. Finally, some have stated beauty is subjective. The difference between the second and third beliefs is not entirely clear to me since I think almost everyone agrees with both views (i.e. there is both an objective and subjective component). The last view is simply the position that if there is anything subjective in beauty then it is a subjective characteristic.
> 
> I guess my question is why you consider Strange Magic's view as extreme? Is it more extreme than the first view? If there is any subjective component to beauty, would you agree that it's then reasonable to consider beauty subjective?


I’m very firmly in category 2. SM is very firmly in view/category 3. Of course, when it comes to ‘beauty’ there is a significant subjective component, but the subject is more complex than pure subjectivity. 

Pollinator insects are attracted to flowers because of color and smell. While that doesn’t suggest that pollinators appreciate ‘beauty’, it would appear that the same parameters that attract them also attract a large cross-section of humans and florists depend on the related objective information to stay in business. Producers and directors pick certain actresses to sell certain movies. It would appear that they use objective information regarding beauty/attractiveness to choose actresses that are likely to bring in the largest audience. I could go on to works of art/music that are considered ‘beautiful’ by a broad consensus.

The problem with SM‘s extreme position is that it depends on there being 100% agreement in order for there to be objectivity. And he diminishes the importance of consensus by highlighting the minority opinion as if that proves the extreme subjectivity position. So when I mention the pollinator/flowers example, he brings up the subject of ‘stinking’ flowers. You ask, ‘_If there is any subjective component to beauty, would you agree that it's then reasonable to consider beauty subjective?’ _If, as stated, that were true, then you have removed your view/category 2 and made it part of 3.

Finally, to say that all ‘beauty’ is subjective is to ignore the fact that nature has created some things to be attractive and artists have created some works to have ‘beauty’. In order for that to occur, there has to be some objective information guiding the creations. And that doesn’t mean that the result has to be 100% successful to be significant.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *fluteman: *"but the best scientists, e.g. Einstein, understand the limits of rationality: "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."


I am not sure that you have put the proper interpretation on Einstein's remarks, and that he truly and literally meant what he clearly said. By the word intuition, Einstein described the sudden linking \of two or more ideas before anyone else, But the fact remains that, sooner or later, the link will be teased out by someone and it will be shown to be about as correct a link as can be postulated. No amount of trans-rational intuition can long withstand the constant questioning of the scientific method unless it is shown to very closely approach adherence to the evidence. 

The example of another point of view is that of the master mathematician David Hilbert, who came very close to beating out Einstein's publishing of the General Theory, but deferred when shown by Einstein that E. was a few days ahead of him. Hilbert's motto was: " We Must Know. We Will Know," The sacred gift of intuition is a strictly personal one of being the first kid on the block to see a link which is/was already there in the phenomena. Einstein was fond of oracular statements modestly diminishing his accomplishment, and sometimes referring to The Old One etc. as a factor in his thinking. We should regard his remarks about intuition v. rationality in this light.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> I wonder often if some fail repeatedly to understand my position. My position is that *if beauty is inherent within artwork, * then it should and must be perceived by every perceiver not damaged in some way. All are capable of perceiving beauty if it is an integral component within the very tissue and fabric of art. The inhabitants of Thraa are, of course, metaphorical stand-ins for my Universal Perceiver of the Beauty of a given art object (though I often am in telepathic communication with them.),


If we had a universal, comprehensive rational theory of everything, then (perhaps) all could perceive things exactly the same way simply by being perfectly rational. But I agree with Einstein that we don't and won't ever have that. And I respectfully disagree with your underestimation of Einstein.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Finally, to say that all ‘beauty’ is subjective is to ignore the fact that nature has created some things to be attractive and artists have created some works to have ‘beauty’. In order for that to occur, there has to be some objective information guiding the creations. And that doesn’t mean that the result has to be 100% successful to be significant.


The first paragraphs of DaveM's post are a rehash of "inherent objectivity" via polling and consensus. The nature of Attraction as the engine driving the perception of beauty is dealt a fatal blow when we consider gravitational attraction between masses and also magnetic attraction between N and S poles of magnets, If these be how we define artistic beauty--and we should, according to DaveM's (and presumably Nature's) Law off Attraction--then we are in a different ball game entirely


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> I wonder often if some fail repeatedly to understand my position. My position is that *if beauty is inherent within artwork, * then it should and must be perceived by every perceiver not damaged in some way. All are capable of perceiving beauty if it is an integral component within the very tissue and fabric of art. The inhabitants of Thraa are, of course, metaphorical stand-ins for my Universal Perceiver of the Beauty of a given art object (though I often am in telepathic communication with them.),


Well, beauty appears to be inherent in some artwork/music if designed to be so by the artist and where the artist is successful in getting the agreement of a consensus of the viewers/audience. 100% agreement is not necessary to achieve significance. Even scientists know that.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> The first paragraphs of DaveM's post are a rehash of "inherent objectivity" via polling and consensus. The nature of Attraction as the engine driving the perception of beauty is dealt a fatal blow when we consider gravitational attraction between masses and also magnetic attraction between N and S poles of magnets, If these be how we define artistic beauty--and we should, according to DaveM's (and presumably Nature's) Law off Attraction--then we are in a different ball game entirely


By that reply, all you have done is exposed the habit of distorting posts either purposely or through a lack of comprehension, or both.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> If we had a universal, comprehensive rational theory of everything, then (perhaps) all could perceive things exactly the same way simply by being perfectly rational. But I agree with Einstein that we don't and won't ever have that. And I respectfully disagree with your underestimation of Einstein.


I agree entirely with your first sentence--we are as one there on never reaching a rational theory of everything; Hilbert's motto was his cry of defiance against conceding anything without a fight. My point about seeing art in exactly the same way among all perceivers will also never be realized due to the inherent individuality of each perceiver. Clusters, Yes. Consensus, Yes. Inherent yet immeasurable properties, No.

Einstein's reputation is safe with me; fear not!


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Well, beauty appears to be inherent in some artwork/music if designed to be so by the artist and where the artist is successful in getting the agreement of a consensus of the viewers/audience. 100% agreement is not necessary to achieve significance. Even scientists know that.


If we are now talking about Significance, that's fine with me--that can be measured--perhaps not with great rigor--but still measurable. Question: Were Goya's Black Paintings meant to be beauiful?


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> By that reply, all you have done is exposed the habit of distorting posts either purposely or through a lack of comprehension, or both.


Merely offering my judgement after reading dozens of your posts. My posts are also terribly repetitious, but then they have to be.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> If we are now talking about Significance, that's fine with me--that can be measured--perhaps not with great rigor--but still measurable. Question: Were Goya's Black Paintings meant to be beauiful?


Regarding your first sentence, it's nice to see you concede, however reluctantly, the usefulness of 'soft' or social sciences, musicology being a branch of a wide-ranging one, anthropology. Regarding your question, I'd unhesitatingly say "yes", but I've read Wittgenstein, who thoroughly reasoned such things out, and don't fear such 'trick' questions.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *mmsbls: *"Second, some believe there are certainly objective qualities to the object but agree there is also a subjective component."


I am not quite sure what you are saying here, but for any object to exist in the physical world, it must have (some) objective qualities--weight, shape, colors, creator, etc. If you are using the terms as I am, then put me down as category #2. The category #1 would have only a tiny population of folks not practicing what they preach--solipsists and other loonies attempting to convince people that everything is illusion or that only they exist. A strange mental world.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> As far as I can tell, there seem to be 3 views on the subjective/objective question. First, some view beauty (or other similar characteristics) as an objective quality existing in the object (e.g. music). Second, some believe there are certainly objective qualities to the object but agree there is also a subjective component. Finally, some have stated beauty is subjective. The difference between the second and third beliefs is not entirely clear to me since I think almost everyone agrees with both views (i.e. there is both an objective and subjective component). The last view is simply the position that if there is anything subjective in beauty then it is a subjective characteristic.
> 
> I guess my question is why you consider Strange Magic's view as extreme? Is it more extreme than the first view? If there is any subjective component to beauty, would you agree that it's then reasonable to consider beauty subjective?


Here my 2 cents, but I've never cared about some anonymous person's likes or dislikes, so maybe I'm an outlier (an unhelpful anomaly).

Humans see as beauty, perhaps;
symmetry, balance(s) originality, cleverness/humor form/architecture ambiguity/trickiness, logical development in a series is beautiful to the prepared listener..

Again, it reminds me of explaining Portuguese poetry to a person who only knows a little bit of the Portuguese.

At the risk of sounding condescending, I have 3 parts to appreciation of music (they’re of equal importance to me;

1. The initial impression of what's happening, look to see what the composer was doing specifically - then analysis, reduction to chords sometimes.

2. Learning, memorizing, practicing, comparing, teaching and playing

3. Listening and hearing things (recognition), being transported in your mind to somewhere new (personal significance etc.).

If anyone is NOT proficient in reading/understanding music why would they care if it's objective or not? In my field, if someone doesn't understand how we forecast weather 16 days in advance (using systems from on the other side of planet), why would they care if it's a totally subjective exercise to them? The methods have little meaning to them. They'd have to see how it's done in the cold and warm seasons, different latitudes, different local conditions etc.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> Regarding your first sentence, it's nice to see you concede, however reluctantly, the usefulness of 'soft' or social sciences, musicology being a branch of a wide-ranging one, anthropology. Regarding your question, I'd unhesitatingly say "yes", but I've read Wittgenstein, who thoroughly reasoned such things out, and don't fear such 'trick' questions.


I have no fatal problem with the soft sciences--they are in their infancy and will get better (more precise and predictive) over time. The anthropology of human origins, or, more accurately, human paleontology, is a particular interest of mine, as well as all speculation about human (or animal) behavior. Goya's Black Paintings I'm sure provide a field day for psychologists. Other of Goya's paintings are almost equally disturbing, with more than hints of coming danger.

[Edit] It may be that Goya's paintings are examples of the Burkean Sublime in that the paintings themselves present no danger to the viewer but elicit the pleasure of the terror and horrors. depicted.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> I have no fatal problem with the soft sciences--they are in their infancy and will get better (more precise and predictive) over time. The anthropology of human origins, or, more accurately, human paleontology, is a particular interest of mine, as well as all speculation about human (or animal) behavior. Goya's Black Paintings I'm sure provide a field day for psychologists. Other of Goya's paintings are almost equally disturbing, with more than hints of coming danger.
> 
> [Edit] It may be that Goya's paintings are examples of the Burkean Sublime in that the paintings themselves present no danger to the viewer but elicit the pleasure of the terror and horrors. depicted.


Goya has been one of my favorite artists since early childhood. How can you ever forget Saturn Devouring His Son once you have seen it?


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> I have no fatal problem with the soft sciences--they are in their infancy and will get better (more precise and predictive) over time. The anthropology of human origins, or, more accurately, human paleontology, is a particular interest of mine, as well as all speculation about human (or animal) behavior. Goya's Black Paintings I'm sure provide a field day for psychologists. Other of Goya's paintings are almost equally disturbing, with more than hints of coming danger.
> 
> [Edit] It may be that Goya's paintings are examples of the Burkean Sublime in that the paintings themselves present no danger to the viewer but elicit the pleasure of the terror and horrors. depicted.


And don't think I didn't notice -- you have no FATAL problem with the soft sciences. What was the term the late Richard Feynman used? Oh, yes -- "low level baloney". But a failure to recognize the difference between hard and soft science is one of the profound misunderstandings that keep this thread going.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> And don't think I didn't notice -- you have no FATAL problem with the soft sciences. What was the term the late Richard Feynman used? Oh, yes -- "low level baloney". But a failure to recognize the difference between hard and soft science is one of the profound misunderstandings that keep this thread going.


I think Feynman was being Feynman (as Einstein was being Einstein) in making his remark. He was just used to more stringent evidence for his vision of science with a capital S than the soft sciences could supply. I think the soft sciences are getting better with time and they certainly supply lots of interesting findings and speculations.

On a lighter note, I enjoy re-reading Asimov's _Foundation Trilogy _every decade or so. Paul Krugman, the Nobelist economist, has said he wanted to become a psychohistorian like Hari Seldon, but when he found out there was (not yet) any such field of study, decided to become an economist as a fallback.


----------



## Strange Magic

*^^^^@mmsbls and fluteman: *Have either of you (or anybody else) read Robert Heinlein's remarkable short story entitled simply *They*? Published in 1941 in _Unknown _SF and Fantasy periodical, *They *is a truly remarkable piece of writing that dwells on how the very fabric of personal reality is constructed. The film _The Truman Show _may have been inspired by a reading of *They *but has nowhere near the short story's fascinating and disturbing power. There is even a tiny hint of the story in _Is There Anybody Out There? _from _The Wall. _Part-time psychologists and philosophers like me will get a jolt.

P.S. Quite different from Heinlein's later stuff, and better too IMO.


----------



## Forster

Strange Magic said:


> I do agree that it was interesting to learn the breakdown of the thoughts of philosophers on whether beauty exists somewhere beyond our personal experience, or only inside the brain of each individual, or some combination of the two. The poll gave us an insight into what the profession thought and also gave us a clue on how seriously we should follow philosophers as a guide to beauty and to maybe other concepts. I thank Forster for the informative poll.


Thank you.



fluteman said:


> OK, I'll try one last time. What today's community of academic philosophers says in response to a poll about subjectivity and objectivity to me isn't relevant to this discussion, certainly not to what I was trying to say. [...]


That's ok. My post about the poll was aimed at two other posters, not you. It was relevant to what _I_ wanted to say to _them_.



fluteman said:


> [...]The idea is, the most useful way of viewing the world, i.e., the one that gets us closest to reality, is through our best efforts at empirical observation. Then, the rational theory that best explains or predicts what we observe is accepted, subject to further refinements or extensions. That is the scientific method. And in theory, the scientific method can explain anything and everything, at least if you hold a determinist view of the universe, including human behavior.
> The trouble is, human behavior is the result of so many factors, many of which are random or accidental, it really isn't useful to try to reduce human behavior down to a mathematical or statistical certainty, regardless of whether that is theoretically possible. So we have what are called the social sciences, or the 'soft' sciences. It turns out human behavior almost invariably follows certain predictable general patterns, even if not with hard scientific precision. The inevitable differences among individual humans, and among communities and societies, can be traced in an approximate and general way to different environments and circumstances. But this isn't hard science. It is one of statistical trends and inferences backed by empirical observation.
> Music and art generally is a human cultural tradition found in some form in nearly all societies and communities. It is a classic soft science subject for the cultural anthropologist. It always reflects the unique environmental and historical factors of any particular society or community, and of course any particular artist. So, attempts to reduce it to a hard science subject to a comprehensive, universal rational theory are bound to fail. And all such attempts have failed.


Um. OK. So music and art aren't sciences, and aren't susceptible to a scientific analysis. Have I got that right? If so, that's fine by me, as I wasn't treating it as such.



fluteman said:


> "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."


According to my research, Einstein didn't say this.

The Intuitive Mind Is a Sacred Gift and the Rational Mind Is a Faithful Servant – Quote Investigator



Strange Magic said:


> [...]Now whatever objectivists are still attending to this thread, they will backpedal and say they didn't really mean that kind of objectivity but some other kind. We shall see. Or maybe not.


I think "the objectivists" (at least, those who had something worthwhile to say) have left the thread - to "the subjectivists" who are debating (and/or misunderstanding) among themselves. 😄


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> 100% agreement is not necessary to achieve significance.


I'm curious what you think of this comment from KenOC's thread:


trazom said:


> Slow tempo, thick texture, and an abundance of diminished 7th.


----------



## Strange Magic

Forster said:


> According to my research, Einstein didn't say this.
> 
> The Intuitive Mind Is a Sacred Gift and the Rational Mind Is a Faithful Servant – Quote Investigator


Some close detective work there, Forster. I salute you. I think it has been most everyone's experience at one time or another to find a famous quote is not actually as delivered or is entirely apocryphal. The ones from the movies we can directly check; then there is no "failure to communicate" _(Cool Hand Luke). _


----------



## DaveM

Just watched The King’s Speech (which won the Oscars’ Best Picture and Best Actor, Colin Firth) for about the 8th time over the last decade plus. The climax, depicting George VI’s 1940 Christmas speech to the British empire, was a particularly profound moment given the declaration of war just over 3 months prior. Why was the Beethoven 7th Symphony Allegretto chosen for this important critical moment in the movie?Presumably because it would add to the profundity of the proceedings.

To me, in order to recognize profundity in the arts, it is not necessary to imbue the work of art itself with the quality of profundity, it is only necessary that the work has the quality to transmit a feeling of profundity to a given audience under certain circumstances. In the above example, the Allegretto was likely to inspire that feeling, given that moment in the film, to a sizable audience in Western Europe and North America and probably somewhat beyond. There are not that many classical music works that would have worked quite as well.

Thus, those who would perseverate on some requirement that the works of art have to be imbued with inherent profundity in order for there to be some objective quality thereof are missing the point, which is that under some circumstances to given broad audiences, works of art can inspire a feeling of profundity. In the case of profundity, in this instance, it is this perspective that acknowledges and identifies artists‘ skills and the value of their works whereas the pure extreme subjective position simply doesn’t.


----------



## Forster

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm curious what you think of this comment from KenOC's thread:


A waggish formula that brings Wagner and Mahler instantly to mind. Those guys were just full of profundity!


----------



## Strange Magic

> *DaveM: *"under some circumstances to given broad audiences, works of art can inspire a feeling of profundity."


I think we can differentiate between those reporting having a feeling of profundity from the profound itself. Not sure a Chinese viewer of the film will either feel that profundity or consider the sequence profound, though they likely might if the situation was presented to them in words. I have no quarrel with verbally-based art conveying the profound to others--I strongly (again) recommend Hardin's essay _The Tragedy of the Commons_ as a very profound statement.


----------



## Forster

Strange Magic said:


> I think we can differentiate between those reporting having a feeling of profundity from the profound itself. Not sure a Chinese viewer of the film will either feel that profundity or consider the sequence profound, though they likely might if the situation was presented to them in words. I have no quarrel with verbally-based art conveying the profound to others--I strongly (again) recommend Hardin's essay _The Tragedy of the Commons_ as a very profound statement.


The same Hardin who is the subject of this article in Scientific American?









The Tragedy of the Tragedy of the Commons


The man who wrote one of environmentalism’s most-cited essays was a racist, eugenicist, nativist and Islamaphobe—plus his argument was wrong




blogs.scientificamerican.com


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> I think we can differentiate between those reporting having a feeling of profundity from the profound itself. *Not sure a Chinese viewer of the film will either feel that profundity or consider the sequence profound*, though they likely might if the situation was presented to them in words. I have no quarrel with verbally-based art conveying the profound to others--I strongly (again) recommend Hardin's essay _The Tragedy of the Commons_ as a very profound statement.


What part of ‘a given audience’ with the example of ‘Western Europe and North America and probably somewhat beyond’ do you not understand? Do you take a little time to read a post before responding, because I notice that some of your responses suggest that you don’t.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> Presumably because it would add to the profundity of the proceedings.


Or maybe it's "sentimental" (inspiring images of "Fate knocking on the door"), depending on how one perceives, maybe that's why, (which is not a bad thing). Btw, how would you describe the difference between "sentimentality" and "profundity" in these matters?


hammeredklavier said:


> Is it possible to not think of _Beethoven the tragic, tortured artist_ when we listen to his music? Can we say for sure, _it doesn't affect in any way_, of how much profundity we feel from his music? I'll be honest, whenever I weep from listening to Mozart, it feels as though I'm _moaning_ for his early demise too.





hammeredklavier said:


> Explain the _magic_ of Pachelbel's canon, even after 340 years of its composition, why so many people in the world, even without knowledge of the music theory behind a canon, would go onto youtube to listen to it. But of course, it's _way too popular.. way too popular.. _It's why we don't talk like the above sentence. Even though it has withstood the "test of time" more absolutely than most other classical music, by definition.


As described by Forster earlier ("it's a curious paradox that we (sorry, "some of us") like to feel that we're in the avant-garde, smarter than the average bear, but, simultaneously, want to be in the big gang that recognises the same tastes, thereby validating our own."), the tendency of "some of us" to indulge in "double standards" on these matters is often amusing.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCHREyE5GzQ&t=6m30s
(number of views: 12,982,133 / date of upload: Jun 23, 2010)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlprozGcs80&t=5m
(number of views: 74,430,402 views / date of upload: Jan 26, 2008)

The point is that it's still all about _popularity and polling_, (not to discredit any of the works mentioned in the thread).


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> What part of ‘a given audience’ with the example of ‘Western Europe and North America and probably somewhat beyond’ do you not understand? Do you take a little time to read a post before responding, because I notice that some of your responses suggest that you don’t.


We all get what you're saying; "Beethoven, Mozart über alles because they're popular". Shouldn't we at least try to discuss specific characteristics (without resorting to arguments like "they're great just cause they are") in order to come to some kind of agreement of what's _objectively profound_? (At least, it's what I've tried to do with a far lesser-known composer in the thread)


----------



## Strange Magic

Forster said:


> The same Hardin who is the subject of this article in Scientific American?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tragedy of the Tragedy of the Commons
> 
> 
> The man who wrote one of environmentalism’s most-cited essays was a racist, eugenicist, nativist and Islamaphobe—plus his argument was wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com


Matto Mildenburger is doubtless correct in his assessment of Hardin as a nasty human being, and his writings beyond T_he Tragedy of the Commons _are likely full of the nastiness that Mildenberger ascribes to him. Yet, for anyone who has read that essay, it states clearly a grim reality about where we are headed environmentally on this planet--and this well before the reality of AGW made its appearance. The Reverend Thomas Malthus also was likely a nasty fellow when he very accurately stated that while populations can grow exponentially, their resources usually increase arithmetically. Nasty but truthful. 

Many have made a heavy industry of trying to "prove" Hardin wrong--desperately grabbing at tiny examples where the tragedy--the remorseless working of things--seems temporarily in abeyance. I have saved my posts on Malthusianism, penned in the Off Topic forum, whereby I shattered to my own satisfaction the arguments and reputations of Cornucopian economists but also of special pleaders of other sorts whose business was to tell all that Hardin was Crying Wolf. Yet the wolf did come. I can resurrect that whole thread like I did for the Profound. It's all there. Interesting that Mildenberger is a Professor of Environmental Politics and not of Environmental Science. We can assassinate Hardin's reputation until the cows come home. Yet his facts and his basic argument remains unassailable.

Final note: even Norman Borlaug, father of the Green Revolution, wrote that his advances in crop yields were only a temporary fix, and that population growth would overwhelm productivity unless it was brought under some sort of control. My solution is to set aside as a plan the full emancipation of women and giving them access to confidential contraception. This will humanely reduce populations over decades, even centuries, to one that the Earth can support indefinitely, with a rich natural environment. It took us about 250 years to multiply Earth's population by tenfold--we may expect that it might take 250 years to reduce it to 10% of today's levels.


----------



## Forster

I asked to make sure I'd got the right one, since, when I also skimmed The Tragedy, it didn't seem to have much to do with profundity, but it may have had more to do with DaveM's post (which I don't see).


----------



## Strange Magic

Forster said:


> I asked to make sure I'd got the right one, since, when I also skimmed The Tragedy, it didn't seem to have much to do with profundity, but it may have had more to do with DaveM's post (which I don't see).


Hardin's essay deals profoundly about a profound subject--the fate of humanity and of the world's biosphere that bred us and increasingly is less able to support either itself or human well-being. The insights are profound. I have rarely read another such.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> What part of ‘a given audience’ with the example of ‘Western Europe and North America and probably somewhat beyond’ do you not understand? Do you take a little time to read a post before responding, because I notice that some of your responses suggest that you don’t.


Pot/kettle. And I repeat: there is a difference between someone or anyone or everyone feeling they are experiencing something profound and saying so, and the thing itself--profundity itself. I can say with real feeling (not) that I am deeply moved to my core by the art of Thomas Kinkade or Margaret Keane. But I am not therefore in contact with profundity.


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> That's ok. My post about the poll was aimed at two other posters, not you. It was relevant to what _I_ wanted to say to _them_.
> 
> 
> 
> Um. OK. So music and art aren't sciences, and aren't susceptible to a scientific analysis. Have I got that right? If so, that's fine by me, as I wasn't treating it as such.
> 
> 
> 
> According to my research, Einstein didn't say this.
> 
> The Intuitive Mind Is a Sacred Gift and the Rational Mind Is a Faithful Servant – Quote Investigator
> 
> 
> 
> I think "the objectivists" (at least, those who had something worthwhile to say) have left the thread - to "the subjectivists" who are debating (and/or misunderstanding) among themselves. 😄


That's fine, and I'm sorry if my responses frustrated you. I got a little sloppy in some of my posts earlier, my fault. I've never been talking about subjectivism v. objectivism in the sense some contemporary philosophers discuss it. I've only read a few of them, and am not qualified to make pronouncements on their debate. The use of those words here only confuses things, imo. 

What I am talking about, and what is really the point here imo, is empiricism and rationalism, and how they work in modern society, i.e., since the 18th century. These two concepts acting together form the foundation of science, engineering, industry and commerce, and shape most of the constructions and institutions of modern society. (This largely at the expense of religious institutions, which have declined or morphed into something else in the modern era, but that is a topic for someplace else.)

But the mighty duo of empiricism and rationalism have not (and will never, imo) conquer our cultural institutions, at least not fully, which remain a refuge for other human mechanisms, mainly tradition and faith, as empiricism is imperfect, and rationalism limited. Chief among these holdouts is art.

Einstein called himself agnostic but believed in faith, tradition, and the imperfection of empiricism and limits of rationality. Here is a real quote:
My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.

Art is based on values, and thus in Einstein's words, a purely human problem. It can reflect our empirical and rational aspect, but never be fully defined by it.


----------



## mmsbls

fluteman said:


> I would define beauty as a matter of subjective perception. However, how human perception functions ultimately is a matter of hard science, and thus even subjective perception ultimately is based on objective principles...."


I agree completely. If there are beings capable of studying the brain as we study tree rings, they would view understanding human response to music objectively as we view understanding the age of a tree objectively. We accept understanding the brain at that level as beyond our present capability and perhaps not ever worth the extraordinary effort to answer such questions, and we simply define subjectivity as related to the variation in individual brain response to external stimuli,


----------



## DaveM

> The point is that it's still all about _popularity and polling_, (not to discredit any of the works discussed in the thread).





hammeredklavier said:


> *We all get what you're saying*; "Beethoven, Mozart über alles because they're popular".


Apparently not. And you, especially, are not speaking for ‘We all’.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Pot/kettle. And I repeat: there is a difference between someone or anyone or everyone feeling they are experiencing something profound and saying so, and the thing itself--profundity itself. I can say with real feeling (not) that I am deeply moved to my core by the art of Thomas Kinkade or Margaret Keane. But I am not therefore in contact with profundity.


‘_Someone or anyone feeling they are experiencing something profound and saying so’ _is what is important. ‘Profundity itself’ or by itself is meaningless. If Beethoven’s Allegretto, to a given audience, in The King’s Speech contributes to a feeling of the profound rather than a work such as Bolero then there appears to something inherent in the music itself. It also suggests that when Beethoven composed it, he was trying to convey a feeling of something profound.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> That's ok. My post about the poll was aimed at two other posters, not you. It was relevant to what _I_ wanted to say to _them_.
> 
> 
> 
> Um. OK. So music and art aren't sciences, and aren't susceptible to a scientific analysis. Have I got that right? If so, that's fine by me, as I wasn't treating it as such.
> 
> 
> 
> According to my research, Einstein didn't say this.
> 
> The Intuitive Mind Is a Sacred Gift and the Rational Mind Is a Faithful Servant – Quote Investigator
> 
> 
> 
> I think "the objectivists" (at least, those who had something worthwhile to say) have left the thread - to "the subjectivists" who are debating (and/or misunderstanding) among themselves. 😄


I'm wondering how you do posts like that. I tried but I have so little time. Multi quote didn't work, at the time. So frustrating after 40 years of programming for the general public. Drafts, insert table, insert quote? I should read the instruction page. Maybe FAQ, I've forgotten since the April launch.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> I’m very firmly in category 2. SM is very firmly in view/category 3. Of course, when it comes to ‘beauty’ there is a significant subjective component, but the subject is more complex than pure subjectivity....


Agreed.



> The problem with SM‘s extreme position is that it depends on there being 100% agreement in order for there to be objectivity. And he diminishes the importance of consensus by highlighting the minority opinion as if that proves the extreme subjectivity position. ...


I believe SM's position is basically the following. Consider characteristics that we all agree are objective such as the length of a stick. Once one defines length and maybe inches, we believe everyone ought to be able to measure the length of a stick in inches and get essentially the same result. Anyone who gets a different result would suffer from not understanding the question, an inability to use a ruler, or some other feature that we understand as preventing that person from properly measuring the stick. In that sense objective characteristics are characteristics that everyone should be able to agree on.



> You ask, ‘_If there is any subjective component to beauty, would you agree that it's then reasonable to consider beauty subjective?’ _If, as stated, that were true, then you have removed your view/category 2 and made it part of 3.


Yes. I personally view objective issues as having only objective components and view any issue that has some subjective component as being subjective. I generally assume that's how everyone would view the question, but I wasn't sure so I asked if you, personally, view it that way.



> Finally, to say that all ‘beauty’ is subjective is to ignore the fact that nature has created some things to be attractive and artists have created some works to have ‘beauty’. In order for that to occur, there has to be some objective information guiding the creations. And that doesn’t mean that the result has to be 100% successful to be significant.


The answer to your statements above is rather complex. Nature does not create attractive things. Nature creates variation in individuals both genetic and phenotypic (observed traits). Individuals with a genotype allowing them to both distinguish the variation and to act to increase their personal evolutionary fitness (create more offspring and descendants) will have an evolutionary advantage, and that genotype will increase as a percentage of the population. As an example, my understanding of beauty in humans partially stems from the variation in facial symmetry. Humans with fewer "bad" genes are both healthier (in the sense of the capability to produce more offspring) and have more symmetric faces. Other humans evolved both to perceive greater facial symmetry and to desire to choose those with greater facial symmetry as mates. Those who had a preference for greater facial symmetry indirectly also had a preference for greater health, and those individuals, on average, had more offspring. That preference was evolutionarily adaptive and increased in the population.

When we say someone is beautiful, we mean (in some sense) that they have greater facial symmetry than most and we have internal brain process or processes causing us to desire them more. That internal process identifies what we call "beauty" _and causes us to desire it_. The objective characteristic is symmetry. The internal (what we normally view as subjective) process creates the sensation of beauty.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> Well, beauty appears to be inherent in some artwork/music if designed to be so by the artist and where the artist is successful in getting the agreement of a consensus of the viewers/audience. 100% agreement is not necessary to achieve significance. Even scientists know that.


Consider an alien being who knows nothing of human psychology/physiology trying to create a beautiful piece of art for humans. How would they know what external characteristics of the art will cause humans to find it beautiful? They would have to create many art works and investigate human response to determine what characteristics lead to the humans finding the art beautiful. Human artists already have those data so they know how to create art with characteristics that humans will interpret internally as beautiful.


----------



## mmsbls

Strange Magic said:


> I am not quite sure what you are saying here, but for any object to exist in the physical world, it must have (some) objective qualities--weight, shape, colors, creator, etc. If you are using the terms as I am, then put me down as category #2. The category #1 would have only a tiny population of folks not practicing what they preach--solipsists and other loonies attempting to convince people that everything is illusion or that only they exist. A strange mental world.


Sorry, when I enumerated those 3 responses, I was not trying to define the 3 categories of response to the subjective/objective issue. I was simply saying that from reading the thread, people seemed to respond in 3 ways - it's objective, it's subjective, or it's a combination. Category 1 people are not loonies but rather people who likely define subjective differently than you and I do,


----------



## fbjim

mmsbls said:


> Yes. I personally view objective issues as having only objective components and view any issue that has some subjective component as being subjective. I generally assume that's how everyone would view the question, but I wasn't sure so I asked if you, personally, view it that way.


Generally for me it's a combination of this, and a belief that subjectivity by nature implies properties that are ascribed by human minds. 

The argument about "objective factors" for me tends to be talking more about what you might call second-order traits, like "the fact that many people find this profound"- in other words, an objective effect rather than an inherent trait.


----------



## mmsbls

Strange Magic said:


> *^^^^@mmsbls and fluteman: *Have either of you (or anybody else) read Robert Heinlein's remarkable short story entitled simply *They*? ...


I did read a significant amount of Heinlein when I was young, but I'm not sure if I read They. There's something familiar in your description of the story, but I don't have a recollection of reading it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> ... to a given audience, in The King’s Speech contributes to a feeling of the profound rather than a work such as ...


On the fundamental level, I can't see how that's really a different phenomenon from


----------



## Luchesi

Why isn't there a delete button... There's probably a good (technical) reason. No biggie.

Car guys find beauty in cars. I never have.

Non-musicians can't find beauty in the arcane concepts of music theory. I mean, how would that be possible?

Interesting discussion. I'm thankful this thread has been allowed to run. I have little time, but I check these replies..


----------



## mmsbls

fbjim said:


> Generally for me it's a combination of this, and a belief that *subjectivity by nature implies properties that are ascribed by human minds*.
> 
> The argument about "objective factors" for me tends to be talking more about what you might call second-order traits, like "the fact that many people find this profound"- in other words, an objective effect rather than an inherent trait.


That's a good, clear definition.


----------



## fbjim

To be honest half the reason I post here is that a) I find the context and practice of art as almost as interesting as the art itself, and b) I like conversational drift and there's no general chat thread


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> Yes. I personally view objective issues as having only objective components and view any issue that has some subjective component as being subjective. I generally assume that's how everyone would view the question, but I wasn't sure so I asked if you, personally, view it that way.


Especially, when we discuss subjectivity and objectivity, I don’t know why, when one believes there are objective components in addition to subjectivity, one would default back to a statement that is indistinguishable from the pure subjective position. After all, you did provide Category/View #2 in your post.



> The answer to your statements above is rather complex. *Nature does not create attractive things.* Nature creates variation in individuals both genetic and phenotypic (observed traits). Individuals with a genotype allowing them to both distinguish the variation and to act to increase their personal evolutionary fitness (create more offspring and descendants) will have an evolutionary advantage, and that genotype will increase as a percentage of the population. As an example, *my understanding of beauty in humans partially stems from the variation in facial symmetry. Humans with fewer "bad" genes are both healthier (in the sense of the capability to produce more offspring) and have more symmetric faces. Other humans evolved both to perceive greater facial symmetry and to desire to choose those with greater facial symmetry as mates. Those who had a preference for greater facial symmetry indirectly also had a preference for greater health, and those individuals, on average, had more offspring. That preference was evolutionarily adaptive and increased in the population.
> 
> When we say someone is beautiful, we mean (in some sense) that they have greater facial symmetry than most and we have internal brain process or processes causing us to desire them more. That internal process identifies what we call "beauty" and causes us to desire it. The objective characteristic is symmetry. The internal (what we normally view as subjective) process creates the sensation of beauty.*


I would say that what you have just described is the process of _nature creating attractive things_. In order for the species to procreate, genetic information such as a particular facial symmetry that is more likely to attract is passed on and over time becomes even more effective.


----------



## Luchesi

I got some clarity when I watched this yesterday beauty vs ugly


----------



## Strange Magic

mmsbls said:


> Consider an alien being who knows nothing of human psychology/physiology trying to create a beautiful piece of art for humans. How would they know what external characteristics of the art will cause humans to find it beautiful? They would have to create many art works and investigate human response to determine what characteristics lead to the humans finding the art beautiful. Human artists already have those data so they know how to create art with characteristics that humans will interpret internally as beautiful.


As long as we don't lose sight of the individuality of personal reaction to art. I asked before whether Goya's Black Paintings were beautiful, or the art of Thomas Kinkade and Margaret Keane. Once we do, we are back to our old friends Polling and Clusters. We should, besides facial symmetry, consider body shape (size, weight), pigmentation, nose shape, hair structure, etc. Several anthropologists have postulated that all these bodily features are sexually imposed upon, selected for, and expressions of populations sharing many if not all such characteristics.


----------



## mmsbls

Luchesi said:


> ...Non-musicians can't find beauty in the arcane concepts of music theory. I mean, how would that be possible?...


I agree. My daughter (well versed in music theory) and I (not well versed) had a thought about responses to music. She says that we both hear the same sounds though I may be less aware consciously of what I hear than she is. Her thought was to have both of us listen to a work. I would mark the sections that I found beautiful, interesting, or otherwise notable. She would look at those sections and see if there was some music theoretical reason I might be drawn to them. Obviously, I might love a melody, but she was interested to see if there were specific sections with an interesting harmony, a smooth modulation, or something like a deceptive cadence. As an example, I bought Berwald's symphonies and found the 3rd ("Sinfonie singuliere) particularly enjoyable (especially the first movement). When my wife and daughter heard it, their immediate response to the first movement was that it had an interesting and unusual harmony.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> I would say that what you have just described is the process of _nature creating attractive things_. In order for the species to procreate, genetic information such as a particular facial symmetry that is more likely to attract is passed on and over time becomes even more effective.


See my Post #1624. The attraction of one human for another is a near-chaos and, again, a demonstration of the variability of human choice.


----------



## Strange Magic

mmsbls said:


> Sorry, when I enumerated those 3 responses, I was not trying to define the 3 categories of response to the subjective/objective issue. I was simply saying that from reading the thread, people seemed to respond in 3 ways - it's objective, it's subjective, or it's a combination. Category 1 people are not loonies but rather people who likely define subjective differently than you and I do,


I would enjoy seeing an example of your version of response #1.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> Especially, when we discuss subjectivity and objectivity, I don’t know why, when one believes there are objective components in addition to subjectivity, one would default back to a statement that is indistinguishable from the pure subjective position. After all, you did provide Category/View #2 in your post.


I guess if the question is whether beauty, for example, is subjective _or_ objective one must choose one or the other. If there are only 2 choices I would say anything with some subjective component, is subjective. But, yes, clearly people can view the issue as having both subjective and objective components.



> I would say that what you have just described is the process of _nature creating attractive things_. In order for the species to procreate, genetic information such as a particular facial symmetry that is more likely to attract is passed on and over time becomes even more effective.


Sorry, I should have said that nature does not _intend_ to create attractive things. It creates variation. Species do not need evolution to create _more _attractive individuals to procreate. Humans are not attracted to beautiful characteristics. Rather they are attracted to symmetry which their brains interpret as a desirable feature, and we call that internally interpreted feature beauty.


----------



## mmsbls

Strange Magic said:


> I would enjoy seeing an example of your version of response #1.


There are dozens of posts in the objective/subjective thread where people state that beauty is objective. I certainly don't view those posters as loonies, and I don't think you do either. We both disagree with their view. I think that they are mistaken in some of what they say and that they probably define objectivity slightly differently than I do.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> Consider an alien being who knows nothing of human psychology/physiology trying to create a beautiful piece of art for humans. How would they know what external characteristics of the art will cause humans to find it beautiful? They would have to create many art works and investigate human response to determine what characteristics lead to the humans finding the art beautiful. Human artists already have those data so they know how to create art with characteristics that humans will interpret internally as beautiful.


It appears that we are talking at cross purposes. To some, probably yourself included, the important question appears to be whether an artwork, by itself, in isolation has the quality of ‘beauty’. Or whether alien beings including those with writhing tentacles on the planet Thraa could independently recognize ’beauty’. To me, the concept of beauty in the arts does not occur in a vacuum. Within a given population and cultures, the parameters of what is considered ‘beautiful’ develops over time and with that is the increasing ability to distinguish artists that do it particularly well including those who do it significantly better than others.

All of the verbiage in this thread and others suggesting that there is no significant commonality among humans that develops in what is perceived by one or more of the human senses in the arts or, at least, diminishing the importance of the commonality is surprising in a forum devoted to classical music.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> See my Post #1624. The attraction of one human for another is a near-chaos and, again, a demonstration of the variability of human choice.


Yes we all make choices. But where do they come from and why? Can we make progress in touring CM by catching likes and dislikes on a day, in a year, for a decade. 
I didn't do it that way. I had my heroes (the famous guys from general reading), I went through most of their works which were in the forms (pcons, psons, solo piano pieces) I was interested in (as little informed as I was), usually early works to late works. I did the same with Picasso, Monet, Van Gogh, early to late works.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> I guess if the question is whether beauty, for example, is subjective _or_ objective one must choose one or the other.


Why? I don’t find the subject that simple.



> Sorry, I should have said that nature does not _intend_ to create attractive things. It creates variation. Species do not need evolution to create _more _attractive individuals to procreate. Humans are not attracted to beautiful characteristics. Rather they are attracted to symmetry which their brains interpret as a desirable feature, and we call that internally interpreted feature beauty.


I find that to be a distinction without a difference. Your final sentence conflicts with the sentence that precedes it. In the end, nature is using the parameters that humans interpret as ‘beauty’ to guarantee the procreation of the species.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Why? I don’t find the subject that simple.
> 
> I find that to be a distinction without a difference. Your final sentence conflicts with the sentence that precedes it. In the end, nature is using the parameters that humans interpret as ‘beauty’ to guarantee the procreation of the species.


This is far too simple a thesis. The world's human population is huge and still growing, yet it is ludicrous to suggest that attraction is the only controlling factor. Consider arranged marriages, the nasty practice of rape, multiple spouses, and the unions of folks very much different from one another in body structure. Endless variability. We can of course identify, _ex post facto, _clusters.....


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> It appears that we are talking at cross purposes. To some, probably yourself included, the important question appears to be whether an artwork, by itself, in isolation has the quality of ‘beauty’. Or whether alien beings including those with writhing tentacles on the planet Thraa could independently recognize ’beauty’. To me, the concept of beauty in the arts does not occur in a vacuum. Within a given population and cultures, the parameters of what is considered ‘beautiful’ develops over time and with that is the increasing ability to distinguish artists that do it particularly well including those who do it significantly better than others.
> 
> All of the verbiage in this thread and others suggesting that there is no significant commonality among humans that develops in what is perceived by one or more of the human senses in the arts or, at least, diminishing the importance of the commonality is surprising in a forum devoted to classical music.


More talk of clusters and consensus among like-minded individuals. Significant commonality is a synonym for Large Clusters (in the case of CM) within a huge general audience of music lovers that dwarfs the CM audience.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> This is far too simple a thesis. The world's human population is huge and still growing, yet it is ludicrous to suggest that attraction is the only controlling factor. Consider arranged marriages, the nasty practice of rape, multiple spouses, and the unions of folks very much different from one another in body structure. Endless variability. We can of course identify, _ex post facto, _clusters.....


Long before that (screwy traditions). Expedient for the survival of populations while being hurtful to individuals. 

Music is in the big picture of development.


----------



## Strange Magic

mmsbls said:


> There are dozens of posts in the objective/subjective thread where people state that beauty is objective. I certainly don't view those posters as loonies, and I don't think you do either. We both disagree with their view. I think that they are mistaken in some of what they say and that they probably define objectivity slightly differently than I do.


You're right--I don't regard those believing in the notion of excellence, beauty, etc. being an intrinsic property of art objects to be loonies. I contend, though, that they are ideologues within an evidentiary desert and are wedded to an idea about art that they cannot break or question. Like the R word.


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> Long before that (screwy traditions). Expedient for the survival of populations while being hurtful to individuals.
> Music is in the big picture of development.


Again I find your post(s) "elliptical". Not sure what you are saying. Though I think it may be a denial of the primacy of mutual attraction. I could be wrong.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> This is far too simple a thesis. The world's human population is huge and still growing, yet it is ludicrous to suggest that attraction is the only controlling factor. Consider arranged marriages, the nasty practice of rape, multiple spouses, and the unions of folks very much different from one another in body structure. Endless variability. We can of course identify, _ex post facto, _clusters.....


Who said ‘only controlling factor’. Why do you continue to distort posts in your replies?


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> You're right--I don't regard those believing in the notion of excellence, beauty, etc. being an intrinsic property of art objects to be loonies. I contend, though, that they are ideologues within an evidentiary desert and are wedded to an idea about art that they cannot break or question. Like the R word.


Yes, ideologues who lack the humility Einstein (who was an enthusiastic amateur violinist) mentioned in the quote above. Ironically, prominent professional classical musicians, including some I know quite well personally, always seem to have that humility.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> It appears that we are talking at cross purposes.


I believe that many posts here and in similar threads do not really address what others have posted, and my posts may be guilty of that as well. 



> To some, probably yourself included, the important question appears to be whether an artwork, by itself, in isolation has the quality of ‘beauty’. Or whether alien beings including those with writhing tentacles on the planet Thraa could independently recognize ’beauty’.


Not _the_ important point. Alien beings are introduced as an example for a particular point. Without examples, the problem of talking at cross purposes becomes worse.



> To me, the concept of beauty in the arts does not occur in a vacuum. Within a given population and cultures, the parameters of what is considered ‘beautiful’ develops over time and with that is the increasing ability to distinguish artists that do it particularly well including those who do it significantly better than others.


I agree. completely



> All of the verbiage in this thread and others suggesting that there is no significant commonality among humans that develops in what is perceived by one or more of the human senses in the arts or, at least, diminishing the importance of the commonality is surprising in a forum devoted to classical music.


I could be mistaken, but I feel that most posters who discuss commonality actually believe there is significant commonality among humans.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> Why? I don’t find the subject that simple.


Sure, there are some characteristics of things (music, faces, etc.) that are objective. I believe the assessment of beauty occurs in the human brain, and processes occurring in the brain I view as subjective because they are specific to individuals.



> I find that to be a distinction without a difference. Your final sentence conflicts with the sentence that precedes it. In the end, nature is using the parameters that humans interpret as ‘beauty’ to guarantee the procreation of the species.


Nature does not act to guarantee procreation. The laws of nature act on all objects in the universe, and one outcome is that there are some objects that reproduce. Another outcome is that some large objects collide with other large objects causing the extinction of some species. I would not say nature acts to guarantee the extinction of species. 

Maybe evolution is not the best topic to discuss when viewing the objective/subjective nature of music on a classical music forum. At any rate, I think it's not productive for me to continue.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> Again I find your post(s) "elliptical". Not sure what you are saying. Though I think it may be a denial of the primacy of mutual attraction. I could be wrong.


Yes, it is natural attraction across the human race, but how, what are the specifics? We can't know right from the scores? Why not? What else is there? The answer seems to be that few people care about how music works (the same with geology, meteorology, particle physics, yada yada).

If it's different tell me how..


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> I agree. My daughter (well versed in music theory) and I (not well versed) had a thought about responses to music. She says that we both hear the same sounds though I may be less aware consciously of what I hear than she is.


I do not agree. You can develop a well-trained ear with or without formal training in western music theory, though some naturally have better ears for music than others. For example, you may have no clue as to what a Neapolitan sixth chord is, but if you are an experienced classical music listener, you will easily and immediately recognize it in practice.

It's sad that some members here endlessly promote that fallacy, as it can intimidate people who might otherwise be willing to investigate classical music.


----------



## mmsbls

fluteman said:


> I do not agree. You can develop a well-trained ear with or without formal training in western music theory, though some naturally have better ears for music than others. For example, you may have no clue as to what a Neapolitan sixth chord is, but if you are an experienced classical music listener, you will easily and immediately recognize it in practice.
> 
> It's sad that some members here endlessly promote that fallacy, as it can intimidate people who might otherwise be willing to investigate classical music.


I think we believe the same thing. Anyone can learn to develop a trained ear, and in fact my daughter eagerly wishes me to learn more theory. I was simply saying that when my daughter and I listen to music today, we may both hear a deceptive cadence, but I am not consciously aware that I have heard a deceptive cadence.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> I think we believe the same thing. Anyone can learn to develop a trained ear, and in fact my daughter eagerly wishes me to learn more theory. I was simply saying that when my daughter and I listen to music today, we may both hear a deceptive cadence, but I am not consciously aware that I have heard a deceptive cadence.


I have a comparatively bad ear for the correct type of chord and even unusual melodies. I get easily confused, I don't hear the right constellation of notes for very long at all. Maybe a minute, and then I'm usually lost. This might be why I have a different take on this, than more expert players in TC.

I've tuned pianos, part time, only maybe 3 pianos a week, since the 70s, but that's acoustic not musical. You check it for music as you go, but it's just a check surely not the initial set up. Every piano must be tuned to itself, 'musically'.


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> I think we believe the same thing. Anyone can learn to develop a trained ear, and in fact my daughter eagerly wishes me to learn more theory. I was simply saying that when my daughter and I listen to music today, we may both hear a deceptive cadence, but I am not consciously aware that I have heard a deceptive cadence.


OK, good. We agree there is no need to learn formal music theory or how to read scores to fully appreciate the music of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. Though I admit The Well-Tempered Clavier is a big bite to chew off. Bach helps the listener by beginning (relatively) simply, but by Book II, more careful and repeated listening is helpful.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> I have a comparatively bad ear for the correct type of chord and even unusual melodies. I get easily confused, I don't hear the right constellation of notes for very long at all. Maybe a minute, and then I'm usually lost. This might be why I have a different take on this, than more expert players in TC.
> 
> I've tuned pianos, part time, only maybe 3 pianos a week, since the 70s, but that's acoustic not musical. You check it for music as you go, but it's just a check surely not the initial set up. Every piano must be tuned to itself, 'musically'.


IME there is always someone with a better ear for music. I mentioned I could play lengthy excerpts of Brahms, Schubert and Beethoven by ear. I wasn't boasting, as I know people who can do that far better than I can. I knew a pianist who could play standard repertoire symphonies by ear, improvising harmonies that weren't always exactly right, but were impressively close. You don't have to be someone like that to appreciate classical music.


----------



## Strange Magic

mmsbls said:


> I believe that I could be mistaken, but I feel that most posters who discuss commonality actually believe there is significant commonality among humans.


All true. The commonality is exhibited at it strongest in the shared need for air, food, water. It weakens when we turn to shelter (read Darwin's and others' reports on the indigenous inhabitants of the Straits of Magellan.), ability to bear pain, many other such manifestations. When we get to matters of appetite, preference and the like, the commonality begins to lose its unifying power and we get innumerable clusters of opinion on what is Good, Bad, Ugly, Beautiful. Venn diagrams that show highly variable degrees of overlap amongst populations.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> IME there is always someone with a better ear for music. I mentioned I could play lengthy excerpts of Brahms, Schubert and Beethoven by ear. I wasn't boasting, as I know people who can do that far better than I can. I knew a pianist who could play standard repertoire symphonies by ear, improvising harmonies that weren't always exactly right, but were impressively close. You don't have to be someone like that to appreciate classical music.


You play extended parts of movements, after hearing a recording. That's impressive to me. I have to see what's going on. If it's something I've memorized, it's surprising what comes back to me, but I would never trust my memory alone, with a complicated left hand. 
Now, a (clever) song, like Stella By Starlight or Cinema Paradiso, Somewhere in Time, I've memorized (exact progressions) to work on by ear, improvising. I don't get tired of those 3, and many others.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> All true. The commonality is exhibited at it strongest in the shared need for air, food, water. It weakens when we turn to shelter (read Darwin's and others' reports on the indigenous inhabitants of the Straits of Magellan.), ability to bear pain, many other such manifestations. When we get to matters of appetite, preference and the like, the commonality begins to lose its unifying power and we get innumerable clusters of opinion on what is Good, Bad, Ugly, Beautiful. Venn diagrams that show highly variable degrees of overlap amongst populations.


Yes, and that is the great thing about art, including music. It can't be reduced to a single set of principles. Even in this modern age of information and technology, where everything is available everywhere, the moment you leave, say, the US, Canada and northern Europe (and maybe Australia and New Zealand), and walk the streets, the music is different, the food is different, the architecture is different. If you have a sharp eye, ear and tongue, you can still see, hear and taste the difference in different parts of the US, though corporate America has tried mightily to create national uniformity in taste, with some success.


----------



## Forster

Strange Magic said:


> Hardin's essay deals profoundly about a profound subject--the fate of humanity and of the world's biosphere that bred us and increasingly is less able to support either itself or human well-being. The insights are profound. I have rarely read another such.


OK, thanks. I get the point.



fluteman said:


> That's fine, and I'm sorry if my responses frustrated you.
> [...]


Thanks - no problem.



Luchesi said:


> I'm wondering how you do posts like that. I tried but I have so little time. Multi quote didn't work, at the time. So frustrating after 40 years of programming for the general public. Drafts, insert table, insert quote? I should read the instruction page. Maybe FAQ, I've forgotten since the April launch.


Just click "Quote" under each post you want to cite, then scroll to the "reply" box and click "insert quotes". A dialogue pops up, showing the quotes (you can delete any you decide you don't want) and you confirm their insertion. I copy and repeatedly paste any quotes I need to break into pieces.

Does that help?


----------



## Forster

hammeredklavier said:


> Or maybe it's "sentimental" (inspiring images of "Fate knocking on the door"), depending on how one perceives, maybe that's why, (which is not a bad thing). Btw, how would you describe the difference between "sentimentality" and "profundity" in these matters?


It's not for us to declare that what some describe as a 'profound' emotional response to music is something else (such as sentiment) though I think we are entitled to ask what the word 'profound' means if not just 'strong'.


----------



## Strange Magic

Forster said:


> It's not for us to declare that what some describe as a 'profound' emotional response to music is something else (such as sentiment) though I think we are entitled to ask what the word 'profound' means if not just 'strong'.


I still like my definition that the profound is that which A) asks questions about what we know about the reality around us; B) links together disparate facts/data points into a revelatory, cogent, predictive theory (story) of how the world or parts of it are assembled and/or operate; and C) that manner of communication which accurately and fully conveys the theory (story) to others. C) is profound because it is the carrier of profundity.


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> It's not for us to declare that what some describe as a 'profound' emotional response to music is something else (such as sentiment) though I think we are entitled to ask what the word 'profound' means if not just 'strong'.


As I said way back, the definition of "profound" that Stange Magic stubbornly sticks to here is a legitimate one in common usage. A broader, less precise, more colloquial definition, such as used by SanAntone above and by you now, is also accepted common usage. The original post here by KenOC invites us (challenges us?) to attempt to pin down 'profundity' in a more precise way, and I think suggests that the definition used by Strange Magic is the one that applies to this discussion. Otherwise, there is little one can say in response to KenOC other than to shrug, and quote Louis Armstrong when asked to define jazz: If you have to ask, you'll never know.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> OK, good. We agree there is no need to learn formal music theory or how to read scores to fully appreciate the music of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. Though I admit The Well-Tempered Clavier is a big bite to chew off. Bach helps the listener by beginning (relatively) simply, but by Book II, more careful and repeated listening is helpful.


"fully appreciate"? Not surprisingly, I could never agree with that. I would never tell a youngster that. Even grownup beginners succumb to laziness and relativism (and they say they really want stick to it this time!). It's all so natural.

If they want to know my opinion, my approaches, my strategies, to get them over the early problems and pitfalls (which is what they pay me for, IMV), their initial attitudes are very important. You have to work at changing your brain learning the new language, as an older beginner (painful).

But even for avid CM fans I would think that they want to learn all they can. I realize it's as distasteful to some people as learning higher math or fluid mechanics (many meteorologists I know still complain about having to learn fluid dynamics, they thought they would never use). I understand it seems a world apart from leaning back and just listening, which are all positive feelings..


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> OK, thanks. I get the point.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks - no problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Just click "Quote" under each post you want to cite, then scroll to the "reply" box and click "insert quotes". A dialogue pops up, showing the quotes (you can delete any you decide you don't want) and you confirm their insertion. I copy and repeatedly paste any quotes I need to break into pieces.
> 
> Does that help?


Thanks a lot. I was pressing and pressing Quote on MY reply instead the other replies! I thought it might get me into the process. Silly me.
When I programmed for the observatory fellow forecasters would ask me to make the operational functions more human friendly. More logical to them, with helpful hints, so that anyone could come in and warn the space shuttle and satellite controllers with the codes. They gave me good ideas and I think we succeeded.
IMO, young programmers need to learn, as a priority, what older people have issues with.


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> "fully appreciate"? Not surprisingly, I could never agree with that. I would never tell a youngster that. Even grownup beginners succumb to laziness and relativism (and they say they really want stick to it this time!). It's all so natural.
> 
> If they want to know my opinion, my approaches, my strategies, to get them over the early problems and pitfalls (which is what they pay me for, IMV), their initial attitudes are very important. You have to work at changing your brain learning the new language, as an older beginner (painful).
> 
> But even for avid CM fans I would think that they want to learn all they can. I realize it's as distasteful to some people as learning higher math or fluid mechanics (many meteorologists I know still complain about having to learn fluid dynamics, they thought they would never use). I understand it seems a world apart from leaning back and just listening, which are all positive feelings..


My opinion is the opposite of all of that. Then again, I am the son of an avid amateur classical musician who was listening to all classical music all the time by the age of 4 or earlier, and especially from 12 to 21. As a toddler I sat beneath the stands of my father's string quartet. I didn't turn my attention to other genres of music until I was 21.

It sounds like you started later and have listened to much less classical music than I have. I can play the Brahms violin concerto by ear, not because I have heard the recording, but because I have heard the recording literally hundreds of times.

Learning some formal theory is highly useful, even necessary, if you want to perform or compose. But being a good listener just takes lots of listening. "Lots" as in thousands of hours unless you are a one in a million prodigy.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> My opinion is the opposite of all of that. Then again, I am the son of an avid amateur classical musician who was listening to all classical music all the time by the age of 4 or earlier, and especially from 12 to 21. As a toddler I sat beneath the stands of my father's string quartet. I didn't turn my attention to other genres of music until I was 21.
> 
> It sounds like you started later and have listened to much less classical music than I have. I can play the Brahms violin concerto by ear, not because I have heard the recording, but because I have heard the recording literally hundreds of times.
> 
> Learning some formal theory is highly useful, even necessary, if you want to perform or compose. But being a good listener just takes lots of listening. "Lots" as in thousands of hours unless you are a one in a million prodigy.


Wow, you realize that you had a very very rare upbringing. Music comes far easier to you just by listening, concentrating, since you can remember fine details in the melody of a Brahms concerto.

Obviously my worries don't apply to a prodigy or a very self motivated young person, or a very intelligent older beginner, who understands human nature better than I do.

Yes, playing in a rock combo, I started late, late teens, finding my way through the piano works of the big CM names. Listening to orchestral works came later, but listening to them was never a high priority for me. Jazz, yes listening is crucial if you want to sound like traditional, bebop, modern jazz innovators, because so much of it is listening to their finest examples, playing freely, using relative pitch and jazz harmony.


----------



## hammeredklavier

-


----------



## pianozach

*OBJECTIVE GREATNESS IN ART*

Art is subjective.

But the criteria that people use to subjectively assess art can often be quantified objectively. But even that is only of partial relevance, as everyone has different tastes. Bob loves bold colors, Steve loves pastels, Jerry loves still life, Maurice loves Impressionism, Reid loves cubism. I think John Cage is overrated, and someone else thinks he's the Second Coming. 

We all VALUE different things in art, whether it's Fine Art, Classical Music, Pop Music, dancing, sculpture, film, or some other media. 

And the things I love, music included, are a flexible bunch of things. Today I'm in one mood. Tomorrow I'm in a different mood.

I have my entire digital music library on shuffle. I love me some *Iron Butterfly*, but _not_ first thing in the morning - and when it comes on first thing, I press the 'next' button. Ah, *Mozart*. 

*But*, let's say, for instance, that I could *quantify* music (and folks _have_ quantified music), breaking it down into several dozen components; things like bpm, keys, harmonic complexity, wavelengths, number of instruments and voices, formats, lyrics, etc. Then I feed in the *Top 500 Pop Hits *of all time into a computer for analysis (or maybe even just the *Top 30 Beatles Hits**), and ask that computer to write a sure-fire *Hit Song* based on that. Would that work? Maybe, and maybe not. 

THAT is because *objectivity* is *not* the last word when it comes to *ART.* People are diverse, cultures change, issues become relevant, styles fall out of favor.

*Objectivism* in regards to Art is only _half_ the story, or less. We see it in the *Film Scores* threads, where one person loves one piece of music for its depth and beauty, while another rips the same piece apart for its shallowness. 

There are some issues that I will pursue, and some I won't. I think that it's obvious that *Mozart* and *Beethoven* had far more impact on the development of Western Music than *Michael Haydn* . . . I haven't done THAT research personally, but I do rely on the expert opinions of learned musicologists, and most, while admitting that *M Haydn* has been unjustly overlooked, will confidently tell you that *Mozart* and *Beethoven* have had far more influence and impact.

As for *Bach*, his influence in his day may _not_ have been monumental, but his _*legacy*_ just keeps *growing* every decade since his passing, overshadowing both his contemporaries and predecessors. 

SO . . . Citing *Beethoven*'s use of "third modulations" is merely an objective tidbit. When Beethoven does this, it can be 'profound'. At other times it might sound 'generic'. It depends on the listener, the listener's mood, the intent of the listen. 

** *As a true *Beatles* fan, there have been people that have deliberately tried to write and record *"in the style of the Beatles"*. Todd Rundgren's *Utopia* did an entire album of songs that sounded Beatle-y, and the songs are pretty credible, although none became hits. *Klaatu* released several songs that sounded so much like the Beatles that people actually though the band WAS the Beatles in disguise. At the other end of the spectrum is the fake band *The Rutles*. What's amazing about the Rutles songs (all written by Neil Innes), is that while the songs all have identifiable elements of Beatles songs, for the most part they all suck, yet still sound like 'awful' Beatles. The lesson here is that one doesn't simply use objective components (types of guitar sounds, phrasings, subject matter, formats, hooks, etc) and produce GREAT music.

While I'm fairly well versed in Classical Music, I evidently have far more trivial expertise in Pop music. Here's some of those well-done Beatles examples:


----------



## Luchesi

I wonder, when you say "we", who do you have in mind? Your musician friends?

When I speak of objectivity (and what else is there?) I'm referring back to my musician friends. And that gets me in trouble..


----------

