# What are the Objective Qualities of Great Music and/or a Great Composer?



## Truckload

Are there objective standards that we can use as Classical Music Lovers to identify which music is great, or which composer is great, and if so what are they? Some believe there are no objective standards, that all music is of equal value and all opinions about music are of equal value. Leaving aside negative considerations, since that seems to be a source of friction for some, what do you think are the objective qualities of great music or a great composer?

I will begin by giving an example of an objectively positive quality. A composer who has demonstrated the ability to write well for a variety of types of music (opera, orchestral, solo, chamber music, etc) has demonstrated a great mastery of the art of composition. This diversity of output is an objectively positive factor and one of the marks of a truly Great Composer.


----------



## Chrythes

Popular = Good.
Irrefutable, and if you try - you automatically lose.


----------



## Truckload

Chrythes said:


> Popular = Good.
> Irrefutable, and if you try - you automatically lose.


Actually there is something in that. Something or someone truly good will likely be seen as such by a consensus of those interested in music. And I suppose a consensus of subjective judgements becomes an objective fact in itself. It is an objective fact that a consensus of music lovers think Beethoven is great.

OK, how about some others?


----------



## Polednice

I think popularity is irrelevant (I mean, come on, the popularity of commercial pop in comparison to the music we love would dictate that the great composers of classical music are ******), but seeing as this is irrefutable and beyond debate according to Chrythes, I won't bother going further into it.

More generally, I would say that all music is _not_ equal, and not all opinions are equally valid, but it does not follow that there are objective measures of quality. I don't believe there are. The _only_ worthwhile measure is pleasure and enjoyment. For me, that may be created by variety, by structure, by interesting harmony and melody _etc_, but these are not necessary for others and so are not objective.

And with brief regards to the OP, demonstrable ability across genres speaks only of the measure of a composer's career, not of their music.


----------



## Truckload

Polednice said:


> I think popularity is irrelevant (I mean, come on, the popularity of commercial pop in comparison to the music we love would dictate that the great composers of classical music are ******), but seeing as this is irrefutable and beyond debate according to Chrythes, I won't bother going further into it.
> 
> More generally, I would say that all music is _not_ equal, and not all opinions are equally valid, but it does not follow that there are objective measures of quality. I don't believe there are. The _only_ worthwhile measure is pleasure and enjoyment. For me, that may be created by variety, by structure, by interesting harmony and melody _etc_, but these are not necessary for others and so are not objective.
> 
> And with brief regards to the OP, demonstrable ability across genres speaks only of the measure of a composer's career, not of their music.


Obviously we are talking about a consensus of Classical Music devotees / participants, not pop culture. But even among the non-classical music loving masses, a survey question of "who is the greatest composer in history" might be likely to yield Beethoven or Mozart as a consensus answer.

Now you say that what appeals to you is variety, structure, interesting harmony and melody. These sound like some objective measures to me.

Let's take interesting harmony. A piece of music that only contains the I, IV and V chord with no modulation would sort of be the antipathy to interesting harmony. A piece of music that uses all of the techniques of functional harmony and perhaps even throws in some whole tone, or pentatonic or modal harmonies would be an example of interesting harmony. This can be objectively catalogued by an harmonic analysis. That is an objective observation and one element to consider in determining what makes a great piece of music. By itself it might not be a deciding factor but it is one element. For example Mozart and his friend JC Bach used about the same level of hamonic variety, but other factors might lead to objectively considering one a greater composer than the other.

Hopefully someone else will contribute some thoughts regarding structure and melody.


----------



## Polednice

Truckload said:


> Obviously we are talking about a consensus of Classical Music devotees / participants, not pop culture. But even among the non-classical music loving masses, a survey question of "who is the greatest composer in history" might be likely to yield Beethoven or Mozart as a consensus answer.
> 
> Now you say that what appeals to you is variety, structure, interesting harmony and melody. These sound like some objective measures to me.
> 
> Let's take interesting harmony. A piece of music that only contains the I, IV and V chord with no modulation would sort of be the antipathy to interesting harmony. A piece of music that uses all of the techniques of functional harmony and perhaps even throws in some whole tone, or pentatonic or modal harmonies would be an example of interesting harmony. This can be objectively catalogued by an harmonic analysis. That is an objective observation and one element to consider in determining what makes a great piece of music. By itself it might not be a deciding factor but it is one element. For example Mozart and his friend JC Bach used about the same level of hamonic variety, but other factors might lead to objectively considering one a greater composer than the other.
> 
> Hopefully someone else will contribute some thoughts regarding structure and melody.


I think there's a contradiction in your argument when you state that we can disregard people who don't listen to classical music, and then state that interesting harmony is an objective measure. What that _really_ means is: "Interesting harmony is an objective measure, except in those many cases where it isn't." Surely if interesting harmony were _truly_ objective, all people would like it more than the simplicity we see in pop music? If not, why not?


----------



## moody

Chrythes said:


> Popular = Good.
> Irrefutable, and if you try - you automatically lose.


So that means that Bolero and 1812 are great (as per the question) pices of music? Not to mention MacDonalds --or however you spell it!


----------



## Polednice

Another way of putting it is that the moment you start excluding people from your considerations (pop listeners excluded over classical ones, for example), you immediately enter a relativist discussion. For something to be objective, it _must_ be universal to all listeners regardless of preferred genre.

Now, I would not go so far as to state that because this objectivity doesn't exist, that, therefore, _within_ the classical framework everything is still ultra-relativist, and that nothing is better than anything else. I would agree that there are measures we can use to determine the value of a given piece of music - but these are objective measures _within_ a subjective framework, for want of a better way of putting it.


----------



## Ukko

Even though it is subject to consensus, 'great' is a subjective term. One definition of consensus is 100% agreement. Ain't going to happen if enough people are in the sample. So... 'great' is just an opinion held by one or more people.


----------



## Truckload

moody said:


> So that means that Bolero and 1812 are great (as per the question) pices of music? Not to mention MacDonalds --or however you spell it!


I think that you could say that Bolero is great because the orchestrations is so wonderful that it surpases other considerations. It is also great as a teaching/learning tool, one of the best for learning orchestration. Sometimes a piece of music or a composer can be so great in one area that other measures are dwarfed.

What dont you think is great about 1812? It is an overture after all and not a symphony. Do you find technical flaws or just dont like?


----------



## Lenfer

Polednice said:


> Another way of putting it is that the moment you start excluding people from your considerations (pop listeners excluded over classical ones, for example), you immediately enter a relativist discussion. For something to be objective, it _must_ be universal to all listeners regardless of preferred genre.
> 
> Now, I would not go so far as to state that because this objectivity doesn't exist, that, therefore, _within_ the classical framework everything is still ultra-relativist, and that nothing is better than anything else. I would agree that there are measures we can use to determine the value of a given piece of music - but these are objective measures _within_ a subjective framework, for want of a better way of putting it.


This pretty much sums up what I was going to say. While it may be fun for classical music lovers to sit around and debate/discus this sort of thing. The moment one starts to try and make a set of rules or a formula to determine what is great/good/"groovy". You've lost as there is no definitive answer. At least not one that hasn't been formed by your own personal preference and bias.

I think this especially true of classical music as it goes back centuries rather than decades. Someone at a modern rock concert can turn round and say they don't like the *Rolling Stones* but imagine the guffaws if someone at at classical recital said *Bach* was bit _merde_ excuse my *French*.


----------



## bigshot

Variety of Moods
Structure
Colorful Arrangement
Melody
Rhythm
Ideas

Just because there may be no objective answer to a question, it doesn't mean that a question isn't worth asking and the answers are not important. Some things are better than others. A Beethoven symphony is better than a crust of bread at the bottom of a trash can. Those who refuse to acknowledge that are just making excuses for mediocrity. I think that critical evaluation is the only way to improve and grow creatively. Anything else is being undiscerning.


----------



## bigshot

Truckload said:


> I think that you could say that Bolero is great because the orchestrations is so wonderful that it surpases other considerations. It is also great as a teaching/learning tool, one of the best for learning orchestration. Sometimes a piece of music or a composer can be so great in one area that other measures are dwarfed.


Too often in the modern world reductionism is used as an excuse. Having one good aspect and ignoring all the other aspects is not equal to a work that is working on all levels. Less is often less.


----------



## Truckload

Polednice said:


> Another way of putting it is that the moment you start excluding people from your considerations (pop listeners excluded over classical ones, for example), you immediately enter a relativist discussion. For something to be objective, it _must_ be universal to all listeners regardless of preferred genre.
> 
> Now, I would not go so far as to state that because this objectivity doesn't exist, that, therefore, _within_ the classical framework everything is still ultra-relativist, and that nothing is better than anything else. I would agree that there are measures we can use to determine the value of a given piece of music - but these are objective measures _within_ a subjective framework, for want of a better way of putting it.


Terrific, we seem to be getting a little closer together in our views. We agree that not all music is of equal value and not all opinions are equal. We agree that there are measures we can use to determine the value of a given piece of music. You qualify that statement by asserting that these measure are only based on a "subjective" framework. I do not qualify the statement.

I do not exclude anyone from these observations. Within a given genre, fans of that genre will naturally tend to gravitate towards what they believe to be the best of that genre. They will make conscious choices of what they believe to be good and bad based on music criteria at least somewhat similar to the criteria for appreciation of good art music.


----------



## Truckload

bigshot said:


> Too often in the modern world reductionism is used as an excuse. Having one good aspect and ignoring all the other aspects is not equal to a work that is working on all levels. Less is often less.


Very true. I agree completely. I was merely pointing out potentially objective positives about the piece, and why many people like it. Bolero is also a great crossover piece for stirring an interest in art music among the young.

I agree that in the long run all factors are and should be considered consciously or unconsciously. A work that is working on all levels is objectively better than a work that is only working on one level.


----------



## Argus

There is no such thing as _objectively_ great music (unless you mean 'great' as in 'large').

Anyone who thinks that some music is _objectively_ better than other music is a snob. Simple as that.

If you think Beethoven is _objectively_ better than Miley Cyrus, you are a snob.

The key word here is _objectively_.

If you say Beethoven is better than Miley Cyrus, as long as you are aware that this is only your opinion, you are not a snob. The subjective element is presumed, as it should be by any rational individual.

There is nothing inherently wrong with being a snob. Snobs are not bad people, they are just misinformed. Hopefully, this post should clear things up and inform these snobs that they are in fact snobs, so they can then take steps to not being snobs.


----------



## Truckload

Argus said:


> There is no such thing as _objectively_ great music (unless you mean 'great' as in 'large').
> 
> Anyone who thinks that some music is _objectively_ better than other music is a snob. Simple as that.
> 
> If you think Beethoven is _objectively_ better than Miley Cyrus, you are a snob.
> 
> The key word here is _objectively_.
> 
> If you say Beethoven is better than Miley Cyrus, as long as you are aware that this is only your opinion, you are not a snob. The subjective element is presumed, as it should be by any rational individual.
> 
> There is nothing inherently wrong with being a snob. Snobs are not bad people, they are just misinformed. Hopefully, this post should clear things up and inform these snobs that they are in fact snobs, so they can then take steps to not being snobs.


The very point of this thread is to point out the objective measures of compostional quality. Your view is very popular in our current culture but that has certainly not always been the case. I believe that the better informed a person is, the more likely they are to be able to make rational objective judgments. Obviously you are not opposed to all judgments, you seem to have judged that I am a snob. There does not seem to be a qualification like "in my opinion" or some such in your post. Therefor do you believe it is factually correct to say I am a snob? Have you made a values judgment? What were the objective criteria you used to arrive at this judgement?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Argus said:


> There is no such thing as _objectively_ great music (unless you mean 'great' as in 'large').
> 
> Anyone who thinks that some music is _objectively_ better than other music is a snob. Simple as that.
> 
> If you think Beethoven is _objectively_ better than Miley Cyrus, you are a snob.
> 
> The key word here is _objectively_.
> 
> If you say Beethoven is better than Miley Cyrus, as long as you are aware that this is only your opinion, you are not a snob. The subjective element is presumed, as it should be by any rational individual.
> 
> There is nothing inherently wrong with being a snob. Snobs are not bad people, they are just misinformed. Hopefully, this post should clear things up and inform these snobs that they are in fact snobs, so they can then take steps to not being snobs.


All music are of equal merit, right?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Truckload said:


> Are there objective standards that we can use as Classical Music Lovers to identify which music is great, or which composer is great, and if so what are they? Some believe there are no objective standards, that all music is of equal value and all opinions about music are of equal value. Leaving aside negative considerations, since that seems to be a source of friction for some, what do you think are the objective qualities of great music or a great composer?
> 
> I will begin by giving an example of an objectively positive quality. A composer who has demonstrated the ability to write well for a variety of types of music (opera, orchestral, solo, chamber music, etc) has demonstrated a great mastery of the art of composition. This diversity of output is an objectively positive factor and one of the marks of a truly Great Composer.


One way of thinking about this are the observable musical qualities of great composers' works. I'm talking about the consistency of whatever observation you might happen to come across from several great composers across time. This does not necessarily prove anything but it might be useful to assure some reasonable confidence. You already mentioned _a great mastery of the art of composition_. Take JS Bach and his mastery of fugues, or Verdi with his mastery of opera. Compare and contrast with other composers in those genres and observe for consistency in whatever it is that you might have identified. As I said, it does not prove anything but it's likely that observable consistencies can indicate something.


----------



## Argus

Truckload said:


> The very point of this thread is to point out the objective measures of compostional quality. Your view is very popular in our current culture but that has certainly not always been the case. I believe that the better informed a person is, the more likely they are to be able to make rational objective judgments. Obviously you are not opposed to all judgments, you seem to have judged that I am a snob. There does not seem to be a qualification like "in my opinion" or some such in your post. Therefor do you believe it is factually correct to say I am a snob? Have you made a values judgment? What were the objective criteria you used to arrive at this judgement?


I explicity said snobs aren't bad people. I didn't make a value judgement, I made a statement of fact based on what you believe. Any negative connotations attached to the term 'snob' are incidental.

Here is an example of a value judgement:

_Beethoven's Eroica is better than Miley Cyrus' Party in the USA._

Here's an example of a statement of fact:

_Beethoven's Eroica features more violins than Miley Cyrus' Party in the USA._

Any statement made about physical aspects of music (i.e. the soundwaves and factors integral to their production) can be verified as fact. Value judgements cannot.

That's all I'm going to say on this matter as it has been done to death on this forum many times before.


----------



## violadude

Something interesting to express, expressed in an interesting way.


----------



## Guest

Truckload said:


> TYour view is very popular in our current culture but that has certainly not always been the case. I believe that the better informed a person is, the more likely they are to be able to make rational objective judgments.


Here's a comment about the possibility of greatness. It was not written in our century. It was not written in the last century. It was written in 1852 (or earlier).

"...there is not a single production of the human mind, not one, you understand, that can command--I will not say the approval of all humanity, but even that of the infinitesimal fraction of humanity to which it is addressed. How many people does our largest theater seat today? Barely two thousand, and most theaters far fewer. Very well. Now, given an excellent performance, has it ever happened that even five hundred persons assembled together in a theater have agreed about the merits of Shakespeare, Moliere, Mozart, Beethoven, Gluck, or Weber?
...
Take four listeners occupying the same box at the same performance; the first is bored, the second entertained, the third is indignant, and fourth enthusiastic.
...
For unless absolute beauty is that which at all times, in all places, and by all men must be acknowledged as beautiful, I cannot imagine what it means or where it might reside. And that kind of beauty I am sure does not exist."

I believe that the better informed a person is, the less likely they are to search for absolutes, the less likely they will rely on objective categories, the more willing they will be to need anything to do with feelings, emotions, passions, aesthetics to be "objective" to be valuable.

Indeed, it is funny about this whole business of value--value is part of the subjective world. Objective has nothing to do with values. It has to do with facts. How we take those facts, what we make of them as far as importance, is all subjective. But somehow, we have come to value objectivity over subjectivity--not treating them as pointing to different realities but as pointing to the same reality, with one of them pointing better, more accurately, than the other. And since we value objectivity like that, it follows that we have to find objective values (pun intended) in the things we (subjectively) value.

Is that really necessary?

When I'm listening to a piece of music, for instance, I'm aware only of that piece. Its sounds, its shapes, its patterns. It makes no difference to my enjoyment (or lack thereof) that that piece is considered "great" or "second rate" or "atonal" or "baroque" or whatever other label it may have had applied to it. I'm enjoying it, now. Or not enjoying it.

And I suppose that if I'm not enjoying it, I am thinking more of why I'm not enjoying it, that's true. Because it's pastiche or whatever. But I don't really need to do that. My job is to try to enjoy whatever that particular piece is doing. Sometimes I fail. Less frequently, the older and more experienced I get. And failing less frequently means I enjoy more and more things.

Where's the down side of that?


----------



## Ukko

"Where's the down side of that?"

Becoming a gourmand rather than a gourmet?


----------



## bigshot

Argus said:


> There is no such thing as _objectively_ great music .


if you define your criteria for determining greatness, you can objectively reach a conclusion that a certain type of music is great.


----------



## moody

Truckload said:


> I think that you could say that Bolero is great because the orchestrations is so wonderful that it surpases other considerations. It is also great as a teaching/learning tool, one of the best for learning orchestration. Sometimes a piece of music or a composer can be so great in one area that other measures are dwarfed.
> 
> What dont you think is great about 1812? It is an overture after all and not a symphony. Do you find technical flaws or just dont like?


You are right, Bolero is an exercise and the orchestration is very good I am sure. It is also boring ,repetitive
and with no soul or meaning.1812 is also repetitive ,boring and nothing but flim-flam. 
Both of them are popular and good for showing off your hi-fi to visitors. But if you think either of them are GREAT then Heaven help you. I wonder what you call the "Eroica" or Brahms 1st GREAT,GREAT,GREAT ? Don'tbother with any more feathers because I can't hear them as they drop ---incidentally Tchaikovsky didn't apparently think too much of the 1812.


----------



## bigshot

some guy said:


> My job is to try to enjoy whatever that particular piece is doing.


The composer bears some responsibility too. After all, he's the one who created the music.


----------



## moody

Truckload said:


> Are there objective standards that we can use as Classical Music Lovers to identify which music is great, or which composer is great, and if so what are they? Some believe there are no objective standards, that all music is of equal value and all opinions about music are of equal value. Leaving aside negative considerations, since that seems to be a source of friction for some, what do you think are the objective qualities of great music or a great composer?
> 
> I will begin by giving an example of an objectively positive quality. A composer who has demonstrated the ability to write well for a variety of types of music (opera, orchestral, solo, chamber music, etc) has demonstrated a great mastery of the art of composition. This diversity of output is an objectively positive factor and one of the marks of a truly Great Composer.


Demonstrating a great mastery of the art of composition does not mean that all the music you turn out is great or even some of it is great.


----------



## Polednice

moody said:


> You are right, Bolero is an exercise and the orchestration is very good I am sure. It is also boring ,repetitive
> and with no soul or meaning.1812 is also repetitive ,boring and nothing but flim-flam.
> Both of them are popular and good for showing off your hi-fi to visitors. But if you think either of them are GREAT then Heaven help you. I wonder what you call the "Eroica" or Brahms 1st GREAT,GREAT,GREAT ? Don'tbother with any more feathers because I can't hear them as they drop ---incidentally Tchaikovsky didn't apparently think too much of the 1812.


This analysis really ought to grace the pages of a musicology journal.


----------



## Cnote11

Ravel has a dislike towards Bolero as well. Bolero isn't my go-to for Ravel and its not even close. I always found it interesting that it seems to be his most popular piece. I think this thread has inspired me to put on Bolero!


----------



## brianwalker

Consistency in popularity throughout different generations, especially posterity.

This is the only criteria.

Beethoven is great because people in the 19th century loved him as much as people in the 21st.

Pop music sucks because the next generation ignores the pop music of the previous generation, save a few monumental, token figures. Pop music is only *popular now.*











*Objective quality = popularity of music after 100 years. *

If you map a trajectory of the popularity of the Beatle's popularity, you'll see that it's going asymptotically to zero. Their popularity today is a small, minuscule fraction of their popularity then, and most of it comes from momentum.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/13/who-is-paul-mccartney_n_1274208.html
Mahler on the other hand, is way more popular now than he was ever alive.


----------



## Polednice

I think arguments about popularity are rather lazy and short-sighted. Even if we accept that popularity _is_ a marker of quality, it is a _marker_ not an attribute. We are still left with the question: _why_ has it become so popular? It certainly won't be due to chance (alone). Whatever the answers are to _that_ question are the real measures of quality.


----------



## Couchie

The great composers are those who can write a 16 hour opera and have (some) people actually willing to sit through it.


----------



## brianwalker

Polednice said:


> I think arguments about popularity are rather lazy and short-sighted. Even if we accept that popularity _is_ a marker of quality, it is a _marker_ not an attribute. We are still left with the question: _why_ has it become so popular? It certainly won't be due to chance (alone). Whatever the answers are to _that_ question are the real measures of quality.


If every single person who exists dislikes a piece of music, it's a bad piece of music.

Of course popularity matters. Mahler thought that the voice of the people was the voice of God.

What is long sighted? Aesthetics has been debated for hundreds of years.


----------



## Polednice

brianwalker said:


> If every single person who exists dislikes a piece of music, it's a bad piece of music.
> 
> Of course popularity matters. Mahler thought that the voice of the people was the voice of God.
> 
> What is long sighted? Aesthetics has been debated for hundreds of years.


Perhaps you'd like to read my post again.


----------



## brianwalker

Polednice said:


> Perhaps you'd like to read my post again.


The why has been thoroughly studied. Musicologists have studied and dissected music over and over again.

There can be no universal why, because there are people who love Wagner, and people who hate Wagner, and any explanation that focuses only on the attributes of the music and not the attributes of the listener cannot explain.

Suppose you had an explanation that said that Wagner's music is great because of x, y and z, that explanation would also explain why there are people to hate to it to varying degrees, and are indifferent to it on differing degrees.


----------



## violadude

brianwalker said:


> If every single person who exists dislikes a piece of music, it's a bad piece of music.


Fortunately, there is no such thing. That piece doesn't exist.


----------



## brianwalker

violadude said:


> Fortunately, there is no such thing. That piece doesn't exist.


We can imagine via the monkeys tapping on a keyboard analogy that there are infinite pieces of music, and there are bound to be pieces of music that no one likes, and that those non-realized pieces don't exist.


----------



## violadude

brianwalker said:


> We can imagine via the monkeys tapping on a keyboard analogy that there are infinite pieces of music, and there are bound to be pieces of music that no one likes, and that those non-realized pieces don't exist.


But until that piece exists you don't really have much of an argument, just some speculation. I don't believe there will ever be a piece of music written that everyone on earth hates. I know it doesn't seem like it when you look at pop culture, but there is vast diversity among the human race.


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> The composer bears some responsibility too. After all, he's the one who created the music.


But the problem with that argument is that then you have to ask to whom does the composer bare responsibility? A composer is always going to please some and displease others with his/her music, so which of those groups does he bare responsibility to?


----------



## brianwalker

violadude said:


> But until that piece exists you don't really have much of an argument, just some speculation. I don't believe there will ever be a piece of music written that everyone on earth hates. I know it doesn't seem like it when you look at pop culture, but there is vast diversity among the human race.


Ok, if no one likes it, is it good music?

You can randomly bang notes on the piano and no one would like that. No one.


----------



## violadude

brianwalker said:


> Ok, if no one likes it, is it good music?
> 
> You can randomly bang notes on the piano and no one would like that. No one.


I randomly bang notes on the piano all the time and I love it. Banging notes on the piano can create some unexpected harmonies that are quite expressive at times 

I can't help but wonder why guys like you and bigshot so often assume without a doubt that absolutely no one likes something that you don't like. Like I said, the human race and their brains, they way they think of things, are perhaps much more diverse than you think.


----------



## Guest

No violadude, you should know by now that if you like something that say HarpsichordConcerto dislikes, you are by definition deviant and perverted!!

How dare you like something that brianwalker or bigshot or or or or or dislike? They are the NORM. All hail the NORM.:lol:


----------



## violadude

some guy said:


> No violadude, you should know by now that if you like something that say HarpsichordConcerto dislikes, you are by definition deviant and perverted!!
> 
> How dare you like something that brianwalker or bigshot or or or or or dislike? They are the NORM. All hail the NORM.:lol:


WARNING: a bit of a PG-13 (or R, not sure) post here.

Indeed. I must be quite a strange individual.

Anyway, Brianwalker, I'll give you perhaps a bit of an edgy example of what I mean by the diversity of human thought and psychology. Hopefully it will give you some perspective. 

Did you know that on this very internet that we are using, there are numerous pornography websites that are dedicated to scat pornography, in other words, sex with some fecal matter added in the mix.

Now, obviously, there has to be numerous enough people across the world that are sexually attracted in some way to poop for there to be a market for those websites, or else they wouldn't exist, correct? And if that's true, if there are that many people that include poo in their sexual fantasies and perhaps in their real sex life, something that the majority of people on earth undoubtedly find atrociously gross, then is it really so inconceivable that there are people out there that enjoy the sound of banging on the piano? or whatever other deemed "unpleasant" sound you can think of? I'm telling you bro, people are extremely diverse.


----------



## Cnote11

violadude said:


> I randomly bang notes on the piano all the time and I love it. Banging notes on the piano can create some unexpected harmonies that are quite expressive at times
> 
> I can't help but wonder why guys like you and bigshot so often assume without a doubt that absolutely no one likes something that you don't like. Like I said, the human race and their brains, they way they think of things, are perhaps much more diverse than you think.


It is a common phenomenon that the average person greatly overestimates the amount of people that share their viewpoints, values, opinions, etc. It is a common human logic error. If you keep this conscious in your daily life you probably will begin to notice the trend. On the flipside, people like to attribute a uniqueness to their talents, even though they aren't unique whatsoever. Basically, people try to maximize their importance in their own minds, by thinking they have correct opinions/tastes by default, leading them to believe that because their opinions are so "right" that others must believe the same things as well. This also extends to actions, where somebody thinks that because they do it, everybody else would most likely choose to do the same thing, because if they chose to do it then it is obviously the "right" thing to do.


----------



## Guest

In psychology, this is known as insecurity.

It can be cured. I know.

Anyway, along Cnote's line here, I have a colleague in music whose response to whenever I mention a piece that he also likes is to congratulate me on my good taste.

My good taste? What the ? That's very much like my mom remarking after my first symphony concert as a kid, "Well, we've had our culture for the evening." Culture? What the ?

None of that is anything like what I experience when I listen to music. There's no taste or culture or anything like that. There's just those glorious sounds.

Wow.

Music is pretty cool. Y'all should try it sometime.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

some guy said:


> No violadude, you should know by now that if you like something that say HarpsichordConcerto dislikes, you are by definition deviant and perverted!!
> 
> How dare you like something that brianwalker or bigshot or or or or or dislike? They are the NORM. All hail the NORM.:lol:


No, not any music I dislike. To clarify, only the extreme-noisy-cacophonic. Understand? Good.


----------



## Polednice

Cnote11 said:


> It is a common phenomenon that the average person greatly overestimates the amount of people that share their viewpoints, values, opinions, etc. It is a common human logic error. If you keep this conscious in your daily life you probably will begin to notice the trend. On the flipside, people like to attribute a uniqueness to their talents, even though they aren't unique whatsoever. Basically, people try to maximize their importance in their own minds, by thinking they have correct opinions/tastes by default, leading them to believe that because their opinions are so "right" that others must believe the same things as well. This also extends to actions, where somebody thinks that because they do it, everybody else would most likely choose to do the same thing, because if they chose to do it then it is obviously the "right" thing to do.


And I suppose it's everyone but you who has a distorted sense of number.


----------



## Chrythes

I wasn't serious claiming that quality is only determined by the popularity of the piece. I just remembered that in one of these topics someone actually made this argument so I just went ahead and presented it in a poorly constructed sarcastic comment.
It might be a good piece in a sense that it actually makes a lot of people happy, but I guess it's not the point here. 

Bigshot, you presented a number of qualities that make a certain piece a "good" piece. I believe that the judges would be musicologists, as they are the most "qualified". But essentially your "qualities" are not objective. What is the colorful in the colorful arrangement? How do you objectively measure a good melody? How do you objectively measure good ideas? 
Even those "judges" disagree with each other about the greatness of certain pieces, despite analyzing it to the core.
What if a piece scores 10 in each of these qualities but still remains for some reason unenjoyable for some experts?

Btw, has anyone actually tried doing EKG, MRI or any other tests comparing the blood flow or the response of the brain when played Beethoven's 5th against Miley Cyrus's Party in The USA?


----------



## Truckload

Cnote11 said:


> It is a common phenomenon that the average person greatly overestimates the amount of people that share their viewpoints, values, opinions, etc. It is a common human logic error. If you keep this conscious in your daily life you probably will begin to notice the trend. On the flipside, people like to attribute a uniqueness to their talents, even though they aren't unique whatsoever. Basically, people try to maximize their importance in their own minds, by thinking they have correct opinions/tastes by default, leading them to believe that because their opinions are so "right" that others must believe the same things as well. This also extends to actions, where somebody thinks that because they do it, everybody else would most likely choose to do the same thing, because if they chose to do it then it is obviously the "right" thing to do.


That is a very astute observation of the human condition. You could apply this argument to everything from politics to food choices. Also a very good reason to seek objective measures based on standards of excellence.


----------



## Polednice

I think perhaps the way potential answers are being considered is fundamentally wrong - we shouldn't be thinking about qualities that are certain to be correlated with quality and popularity in all instances, but a variety of qualities, some contradictory but none exclusive, that have the potential to make a great piece though they are not necessary.


----------



## Chrythes

Haven't the majority decided that even a single pitch lasting for eternity can be considered a great piece?


----------



## Cnote11

Polednice said:


> And I suppose it's everyone but you who has a distorted sense of number.


I never implied that and I find your assertion quite rude. Afterall, I did say the "average person", meaning there are a whole bunch of people who do not do this. On that note, I know for a fact majority of people, at least where I am located, do not share my general viewpoints, nor would I assume that they did or did not on a more specific level without evidence first. It, after all, is my job.


----------



## Truckload

Polednice said:


> I think perhaps the way potential answers are being considered is fundamentally wrong - we shouldn't be thinking about qualities that are certain to be correlated with quality and popularity in all instances, but a variety of qualities, some contradictory but none exclusive, that have the potential to make a great piece though they are not necessary.


Oh yes. Exactly. People who like country music might focus on lyrics and melody (which also exist in vocal art music) but use modified criteria compared to people who like art music. But in all vocal music of all genres the quality of the lyrics and the melody are valid elements to consider.


----------



## Chrythes

Truckload said:


> Oh yes. Exactly. People who like country music might focus on lyrics and melody (which also exist in vocal art music) but use modified criteria compared to people who like art music. But in all vocal music of all genres the quality of the lyrics and the melody are valid elements to consider.


But isn't is self evident that each genre highlights different aspects of music?
Of course someone who listens to Techno is looking for something different than a person who listens to Classical. 
But this thread is not about finding out what aspects people look for in Rap or Rock music, but what makes certain pieces great.
Some people might think that a certain Country song is better than the other, despite it not having a very good melody or lyrics... but then again, I have no idea how you define good melody. 
And still the problem is that - who decides that it's a great piece - is it a consensus achieved by critics/musicologists/"less experiences/more experienced" listeners?


----------



## Cnote11

I believe that one reason pop music, as in the pop music that scores high on the radio charts, is so touching to a lot of people is because the lyrics are very poor (that part is just my opinion) They are very hollow, general, and vague. This allows for everybody to make it "their song", because the lyrics are so non-specific that every person can shove their own life experiences into the song, thereby making it very personal for that person. In that way, the type of writing in a lot of pop music is highly effective at creating a bond with somebody. I guess that is where vague cliches really come in handy. We mustn't forget that music isn't something we just hear, but something we meet halfway and interpret based on our previous experiences through life to color the music different from a individual perspective.


----------



## Truckload

Chrythes said:


> But isn't is self evident that each genre highlights different aspects of music?
> Of course someone who listens to Techno is looking for something different than a person who listens to Classical.
> But this thread is not about finding out what aspects people look for in Rap or Rock music, but what makes certain pieces great.
> Some people might think that a certain Country song is better than the other, despite it not having a very good melody or lyrics... but then again, I have no idea how you define good melody.
> And still the problem is that - who decides that it's a great piece - is it a consensus achieved by critics/musicologists/"less experiences/more experienced" listeners?


My point being that lyrics (if present) and melody are key elements that we can examine in order to find objective measures of quality. I personally would not be interested in determining the "greatest" country music. But I am interested in finding objective ways to value art music. And it may be that the exact criteria might have to altered for differnt genre and / or different musical periods / styles.

You last point "who decides" is an important consideration. How does a music publisher decide what to publish? How does a symphonic music director decide what to program? How does a composition contest judge determine the winner? In the past I have been one of the judges in little musical composition contests. I have also, many years ago, taught music and music appreciation, and may, now that I am more financially secure, do so again on a part time basis. So how do you decide which are the most exemplary of works? I do not claim to have found the definitive answer to these thorny issues, but I see the possiblities.


----------



## Truckload

Cnote11 said:


> I believe that one reason pop music is so touching to a lot of people is because the lyrics are very poor (that part is just my opinion) They are very hollow, general, and vague. This allows for everybody to make it "their song", because the lyrics are so non-specific that every person can shove their own life experiences into the song, thereby making it very personal for that person. In that way, the type of writing in a lot of pop music is highly effective at creating a bond with somebody. I guess that is where vague cliches really come in handy. We mustn't forget that music isn't something we just hear, but something we meet halfway and interpret based on our previous experiences through life to color the music different from a individual perspective.


I don't know enough about pop music in total to know if you are right about this generalization. And I suppose a lot depends on what you consider pop and non-pop. Would a broadway show count? I do know there are established mega-hits that have lyrics that seem to express profound emotions that are relevant to the human condition and transcend generations. Everything from "Memory" from Cats to - well - I could list others, but I really dont want to get to distracted by popular music.


----------



## bigshot

I am a fan of country music, and many of the qualities of good jazz, good classical and good rock music are shared with country. It is possible to come up with criteria that applies to a wide variety of different music. You just have to think in terms of fundamental aspects of music, not specific techniques.


----------



## Cnote11

Truckload said:


> I don't know enough about pop music in total to know if you are right about this generalization. And I suppose a lot depends on what you consider pop and non-pop. Would a broadway show count? I do know there are established mega-hits that have lyrics that seem to express profound emotions that are relevant to the human condition and transcend generations. Everything from "Memory" from Cats to - well - I could list others, but I really dont want to get to distracted by popular music.


Sorry, I will be more specific as I realise that pop does cover a wide spectrum. I will edit my post, but let you know here that I mean the popular music you typically find on the radio charts. The pop of the pop, if you will.


----------



## Guest

How about some fundamental defining?

We're using words to communicate; we should have a pretty good idea of what those words mean. Of _how_ words mean.

Posters keep talking about coming up with objective ways to value, but the word "value" does not belong to the objective side of things. It makes the same kind of sense as "I'd like to measure love," or "How much does anger weigh?"

This whole venture is a flat impossibility. By definition.

Words like "great" "good" "bad" "horrible" are all words from the subjective side of things. They do not point to objective reality. They are valuations, that is, conclusions drawn from subjective experience.

Subjective is different from objective. Not worse. Not better. Different. It points to different things.

The objective qualities (tricky word there--refers both to "attributes" and to "value") of any piece of music are the same: duration, instrumentation, rhythms and so forth. We respond to those qualities (attributes) in various ways. Those responses are all subjective.

The phrase "objective qualities of great music" mixes vocabulary from two different aspects of reality, the factual, measurable aspect and the subjective, evaluative aspect. "Great music" is not an objective category. "Music" might be. Sound waves can be measured, instruments can be counted, rhythms can be identified and examined. But that's for all music. Putting a word like "great" in front of music changes the game. It makes the pretense that greatness is an objective, factual thing.

Before we could ever discover the qualities of "great music," the word "great" would have to become a word pointing to objective reality. It's not. It's an evaluative word. And all words of valuation are subjective. That's just a fundamental principle of language.


----------



## violadude

Ive said this before on this forum and Ill say it again. I really don't see why finding objective qualities of great really matters. I don't think having a discussion about music is about coming to any kind of conclusion about anything. It's just about gaining perspective. If you talk to someone about music then each of you is going to bring your own idea about what's great and what isn't to the table and you can learn from them and they can learn from you, but why try to come to a final conclusion? Music is just music, it's not a game show that you have to win by finding the right answer. I don't know why you would need to prove that Beethoven's 5th is objectively better than a Debussy Prelude for example, unless you just want to feel nice and fuzzy about your favorite piece being objectively the best piece in the world.


----------



## Polednice

I think it can be interesting to say why a Beethoven symphony is good, and why a Debussy prelude is good - all compositionally speaking - and your Brahms talks, for example, show an interest in discussing concrete qualities that make a piece of music good. I don't think it is an endeavour to be completely disregarded, but it is certainly pointless to use these ideas as a way of ranking and comparing.


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> I think it can be interesting to say why a Beethoven symphony is good, and why a Debussy prelude is good - all compositionally speaking - and your Brahms talks, for example, show an interest in discussing concrete qualities that make a piece of music good. I don't think it is an endeavour to be completely disregarded, but it is certainly pointless to use these ideas as a way of ranking and comparing.


Agreed. That's what I meant, was that it is interesting to discuss great qualities of different piece but not to try and come to a conclusion that one thing is obj. greater than another.


----------



## PetrB

Ravel's poor beleaguered Bolero, a piece the composer made on commission, and decided to entertain himself in the writing by setting himself the problem of turning the entirety into a calculated technical exercise of the purely orchestral crescendo. 

All the orchestral parts are either labeled without a dynamic, or 'mf' - no carat marks anywhere, no other dynamic musical directives. The layered addition of instruments being what creates the amplitude. For 'What it is' it does it perfectly.

If executed properly, no player in the ensemble is playing any louder at the end of the piece than the players were playing in the first few measures of the piece. (And it almost goes without saying that it is massively overexposed, that is, until you are talking with the person who has just heard it for the first time

To the question - there is no one set of criteria that allows for an objective rating of how great a composer is or was. 

Tastes change from century to century, and even the most authoritarian current tomes from real experts will vary. Who is greater or lesser will vary from tome to tome depending upon which nation that tome is from  - Shocking I know, but there is not only cultural bias but a very legitimate shift in what is deemed 'beautiful.' as well, just from another aesthetic viewpoint than that of the next-door neighbor.

The usual suspects, then, in the usual order, and more specific writing about the composer's strong suits, is what would help an individual better understand 'why' a composer is considered great. Even more informative is to read similar on a composer whose work you do not care for, then you are being a bit more 'clinical' and objective yourself. For the bias that shows up in even an 'objective' Tome such as the Groves, look no further than its withering catty-nasty entry on Rachmaninov. 

Look up the same composer in Groves, the Larousse Encyclopedia of Music and Musicians, and similar books from different sources, and you will get a sense of the general criteria, and also that one Objective set of criteria, well - not so far achieved.

Experts have been trying to evaluate classical music for about seven hundred years, and there is yet to be found a consensus on what all the criteria are, and how to use those critical tools.

One sort of discussion game has these criteria on the list:
Multiple masterpieces in every genre: chamber music, keyboard music, symphonic music, concerti, choral music, opera.

While including all past and present composers, and even allowing Bach his B-minor mass and St. Matthew passion in lieu of opera, Mozart comes out on top each time. Endgame? -- or just one way of going about the ratings game? You decide.

P.s. 'melody and harmony' are far too 'basic' an element to toss in so generally. There have been dramatic shifts in what was thought good or beautiful. There have been dramatic shifts in form and structure (just one of several important radical shifts was from the Baroque to the classical era.) Some of the greatest melodists have been less than great composers, or 'second tier' greats, ala Tchaikovsky, and some who almost lacked that gift entirely (Beethoven) are right up there as the greatest 'of all time.'


----------



## bigshot

Chrythes said:


> 1) What is the colorful in the colorful arrangement? How do you objectively measure a good melody? 2) How do you objectively measure good ideas? 3) What if a piece scores 10 in each of these qualities but still remains for some reason unenjoyable for some experts?


1) "Colorful arrangement" is another sort of variety... Variety of timbres and contrasting layers of sound.
2) Good ideas are ones that are multilayered and lead to thought, as opposed to simple, obvious ones.
3) "Unenjoyable" is different than "objectively good". Enjoyment involves personal taste. Objectively good involves quality.


----------



## bigshot

some guy said:


> Subjective is different from objective. Not worse. Not better. Different. It points to different things.


Subjective points inside you. Objective is shared with others. One is a matter of taste, the other is a matter of quality.

One's selection of criteria for judging may be subjective, but that doesn't mean that the application of the criteria is. If one defines their criteria and applies it to a work, it can illuminate the subject even for those who have different criteria and different results. That is the value of objective analysis. It means something to other people. Subjective taste doesn't.


----------



## bigshot

PetrB said:


> Some of the greatest melodists have been less than great composers, or 'second tier' greats, ala Tchaikovsky, and some who almost lacked that gift entirely (Beethoven) are right up there as the greatest 'of all time.'


The goal isn't to decide which is the best of all. Objective reasoning is simply a way to determine general quality or lack of quality and to define what aspect of quality is there (or is lacking).


----------



## Truckload

I suggest that a way forward is to focus the discussion on something more specific that will hopefully lead to more specific coments. 

Mozart is one of the greatest composers of all time. Perhaps the greatest acording to some. I suggest that if you compare Mozart as a composer, and his music, to his contemporaries, there are objective reasons why he and his music are considered at a higher level. Pick a genre and a contemporary of Mozart, and when you compare a sample work of each, I believe it should become apparent based on use of harmony, melodic invention, orchestration, perfection of form, etc. that the music of Mozart is objectively superior. I do not believe it is simply that such a wide consensus of music lovers find his music superior based on "feelings" alone, even if it is subconscious.


----------



## Cnote11

What form was perfected and why was it superior? Why is his usage of harmony superior? Is harmony always necessary to be a superior piece of music? Why is that? I think the main way to look at music is not to cross-compare, but rather analyze the music individually. Mozart succeeds at what he attempts to do with his music, making him a great composer. Others attempt to do something completely different than Mozart, which makes it so that the criteria with which you judge Mozart's music would not apply to another composer. The idea that they should all compose in one way in order to be taken seriously as great seems bizarre to me. This is, in my opinion, how you achieve something "objective" within a context, but other than that it begins trivial and pointless.


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> *Subjective points inside you. Objective is shared with others. One is a matter of taste, the other is a matter of quality.
> *
> One's selection of criteria for judging may be subjective, but that doesn't mean that the application of the criteria is. If one defines their criteria and applies it to a work, it can illuminate the subject even for those who have different criteria and different results. That is the value of objective analysis. It means something to other people. Subjective taste doesn't.


Very wrong, just because a feeling is shared by others doesn't make it objective by a long shot.


----------



## Cnote11

52 percent of people in Mississippi in a new poll declared that they believe Obama is a Muslim. I guess it must be so.


----------



## moody

Polednice said:


> This analysis really ought to grace the pages of a musicology journal.


It's funny that you should say that because I was thinking of sending it off with that in mind. Now that I've received this accolade from you I know that I am guaranteed entry anywhere.


----------



## moody

violadude said:


> Ive said this before on this forum and Ill say it again. I really don't see why finding objective qualities of great really matters. I don't think having a discussion about music is about coming to any kind of conclusion about anything. It's just about gaining perspective. If you talk to someone about music then each of you is going to bring your own idea about what's great and what isn't to the table and you can learn from them and they can learn from you, but why try to come to a final conclusion? Music is just music, it's not a game show that you have to win by finding the right answer. I don't know why you would need to prove that Beethoven's 5th is objectively better than a Debussy Prelude for example, unless you just want to feel nice and fuzzy about your favorite piece being objectively the best piece in the world.


Glad somebody can talk basic sense.


----------



## Truckload

violadude and Cnote11 - is it your contention that Mozart is NOT one of the greatest composers in the history of music? If you believe that he is one of the greatest, there must be some reason for that conclusion. Saying there is no objective diffence does not make it factually correct that there is no objective difference. 

We all kow the rules and uses of functional harmony. We are focused on the functional harmony of the late classical era. If you are teaching Music Theory II at your university, students will submit papers having completed excercises in harmony. Are you not going to be capable of grading those papers? Will you assign grades simply based on your "feelings" about their work? And how will you answer your students when you give student #1 an A and student #2 a D. Will you tell them "actually there is no way to place a value judgment on music and therefor you received a D because that was just my opinion, which is of equal value with your opinion."


----------



## Polednice

Truckload said:


> violadude and Cnote11 - is it your contention that Mozart is NOT one of the greatest composers in the history of music? If you believe that he is one of the greatest, there must be some reason for that conclusion. Saying there is no objective diffence does not make it factually correct that there is no objective difference.
> 
> We all kow the rules and uses of functional harmony. We are focused on the functional harmony of the late classical era. If you are teaching Music Theory II at your university, students will submit papers having completed excercises in harmony. Are you not going to be capable of grading those papers? Will you assign grades simply based on your "feelings" about their work? And how will you answer your students when you give student #1 and A and student #2 a D. Will you tell them "actually there is no way to place a value judgment on music and therefor you received a D because that was just my opinion, which is of equal value with your opinion."


Personally, I would go only so far as to call Mozart "a very good composer" - which in itself deserves discussion with regards to whats and whys - but there are many other composers worthy of that label. I find talk of "greatest" composers rather useless, and I think it is an unfortunate remnant of each successive generation being taught to venerate a handful of artists without question. We then grow up thinking that of course these men were the absolute greatest, and then look for evidence to support the bias when it ought to be the other way round. I don't think there is a place for spotlights and pedestals in the arts.


----------



## violadude

Truckload said:


> violadude and Cnote11 - is it your contention that Mozart is NOT one of the greatest composers in the history of music? If you believe that he is one of the greatest, there must be some reason for that conclusion. Saying there is no objective diffence does not make it factually correct that there is no objective difference.
> 
> We all kow the rules and uses of functional harmony. We are focused on the functional harmony of the late classical era. If you are teaching Music Theory II at your university, students will submit papers having completed excercised in harmony. Are you not going to be capable of grading those papers? Will you assign grades simply based on your "feelings" about their work? And how will you answer your students when you give student #1 and A and student #2 a D. Will you tell them "actually there is no way to place a value judgment on music and therefor you received a D because that was just my opinion, which is of equal value with your opinion."


Mozart is certainly one of my favorite composers. And I will say that he was one of the most talented composers at melody, form, and a host of other things especially given the somewhat restricted style he was working within. However, whether that translates to him being one of the greatest composers ever objectively IMO depends on what aspects of music you find important.

The classroom example is kind of silly, no offense. Papers are graded based on a standard that is determined by the classes textbooks and curriculum. It has little to do with actually judging music's universal objective qualities which are not limited by the standard of one class and one curriculum.

I'm in a harmony class right now in fact, and I can tell you that most of the exercises we do would probably bore most people to tears as actual pieces of music.


----------



## Cnote11

Honestly, I'm not following truckload. When we're talking about how harmony works structurally then we can analyze it and I can grade based on that. That also can lead me to say that Mozart has great usage of harmony in his works, but how does harmony in itself mean that the music is great piece? That was my question. I said we can be objective in context. If we're talking about usage of harmony then I could objectively say that Mozart was a master. This doesn't in itself make it by default a criteria for which you judge music as great.


----------



## Cnote11

violadude said:


> Mozart is certainly one of my favorite composers. And I will say that he was one of the most talented composers at melody, form, and a host of other things especially given the somewhat restricted style he was working within. However, whether that translates to him being one of the greatest composers ever objectively IMO depends on what aspects of music you find important.
> 
> The classroom example is kind of silly, no offense. Papers are graded based on a standard that is determined by the classes textbooks and curriculum. It has little to do with actually judging music's universal objective qualities which are not limited by the standard of one class and one curriculum.
> 
> I'm in a harmony class right now in fact, and I can tell you that most of the exercises we do would probably bore most people to tears as actual pieces of music.


That last line has to be the truest thing said in this thread, as well as being the funniest.


----------



## Truckload

PetrB said:


> Ravel's poor beleaguered Bolero, a piece the composer made on commission, and decided to entertain himself in the writing by setting himself the problem of turning the entirety into a calculated technical exercise of the purely orchestral crescendo.
> 
> All the orchestral parts are either labeled without a dynamic, or 'mf' - no carat marks anywhere, no other dynamic musical directives. The layered addition of instruments being what creates the amplitude. For 'What it is' it does it perfectly.
> 
> If executed properly, no player in the ensemble is playing any louder at the end of the piece than the players were playing in the first few measures of the piece. (And it almost goes without saying that it is massively overexposed, that is, until you are talking with the person who has just heard it for the first time
> 
> To the question - there is no one set of criteria that allows for an objective rating of how great a composer is or was.
> 
> Tastes change from century to century, and even the most authoritarian current tomes from real experts will vary. Who is greater or lesser will vary from tome to tome depending upon which nation that tome is from  - Shocking I know, but there is not only cultural bias but a very legitimate shift in what is deemed 'beautiful.' as well, just from another aesthetic viewpoint than that of the next-door neighbor.
> 
> The usual suspects, then, in the usual order, and more specific writing about the composer's strong suits, is what would help an individual better understand 'why' a composer is considered great. Even more informative is to read similar on a composer whose work you do not care for, then you are being a bit more 'clinical' and objective yourself. For the bias that shows up in even an 'objective' Tome such as the Groves, look no further than its withering catty-nasty entry on Rachmaninov.
> 
> Look up the same composer in Groves, the Larousse Encyclopedia of Music and Musicians, and similar books from different sources, and you will get a sense of the general criteria, and also that one Objective set of criteria, well - not so far achieved.
> 
> Experts have been trying to evaluate classical music for about seven hundred years, and there is yet to be found a consensus on what all the criteria are, and how to use those critical tools.
> 
> One sort of discussion game has these criteria on the list:
> Multiple masterpieces in every genre: chamber music, keyboard music, symphonic music, concerti, choral music, opera.
> 
> While including all past and present composers, and even allowing Bach his B-minor mass and St. Matthew passion in lieu of opera, Mozart comes out on top each time. Endgame? -- or just one way of going about the ratings game? You decide.
> 
> P.s. 'melody and harmony' are far too 'basic' an element to toss in so generally. There have been dramatic shifts in what was thought good or beautiful. There have been dramatic shifts in form and structure (just one of several important radical shifts was from the Baroque to the classical era.) Some of the greatest melodists have been less than great composers, or 'second tier' greats, ala Tchaikovsky, and some who almost lacked that gift entirely (Beethoven) are right up there as the greatest 'of all time.'


That was a great post. Loved your comments about Bolero. I have read many different "explanations" for Bolero over the years. I really like yours. Before going on, I remember reading in program notes about Bolero somewhere that one reason Ravel chose to limit himself to such an extent was that he wanted to prove to all that he was the greatest living orchestrator and not Rimsky-Korsokov, while also producing what would become a handy teaching tool for his students. Don't know if its true, but it is an enjoyably juicy story.

As you say "experts have been trying to evaluate classical music . . . and there is yet to be found a consensus". Trying to do so has many benefits. It forces one to think in specifics, to be precise, and even limited concensus has the desired affects of building community and giving direction to those seeking direction.

Your comments about the changes in thinking about music over time remind me of loooking through back issues of Groves in the 1980's for just this sort of thing. Do music libraries still keep the old printed copies? Anyway, I get the feeling that you may not agree with my premise, but at least you understand the perspective.


----------



## bigshot

Truckload said:


> I suggest that if you compare Mozart as a composer, and his music, to his contemporaries, there are objective reasons why he and his music are considered at a higher level. Pick a genre and a contemporary of Mozart, and when you compare a sample work of each, I believe it should become apparent


Does Haydn count? Because he could be a contender.


----------



## bigshot

violadude said:


> Very wrong, just because a feeling is shared by others doesn't make it objective by a long shot.


I guess I didn't state that clearly. I was using the word "shared" with a different meaning. (Subjective is internal. Objective is external.)

Subjective reactions are unique to the individual. Objective observations are self evident. The way you put together your objective observations to support your argument based on your criteria is how you strengthen your case.

Perhaps they don't teach logic or debate in school any more. These aren't difficult concepts.


----------



## Truckload

Polednice, Cnote11 and Violadude - I believe that there really is no point in continueing to debate the issue. I thought that Polednice and I at least were approaching some similarity of view, but apparently not. If our basic paradigm of music is so completely different, I see no hope of reaching agreement.

Violadude - if you get a bad grade on a harmony assignment, why not try out your relativistic arguments with your teacher? However, I would not recomend sharing your views on the limited significance of the course and curriculum until after the class is over and you have your grade.


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> I guess I didn't state that clearly. Subjective reactions are unique to the individual. Objective observations are self evident. The way you put together your objective observations to support your criteria is how you strengthen your argument.
> 
> Perhaps they don't teach logic or debate in school any more. These aren't difficult concepts.


I am well aware of what subjective and objective mean and what their functions are in a debate. But where you're confused is that "good" and "bad" are two subjective concepts that can't be concluded upon objectively no matter how many objective facts you use to support your theory.


----------



## violadude

Truckload said:


> Polednice, Cnote11 and Violadude - I believe that there really is no point in continueing to debate the issue. I thought that Polednice and I at least were approaching some similarity of view, but apparently not. If our basic paradigm of music is so completely different, I see no hope of reaching agreement.
> 
> Violadude - if you get a bad grade on a harmony assignment, why not try out your relativistic arguments with your teacher? However, I would not recomend sharing your views on the limited significance of the course and curriculum until after the class is over and you have your grade.


That makes no sense at all. Judging the quality of music is completely different from judging a musical assignment for a class. One has a specific requirement, one does not. How are you not getting this?


----------



## bigshot

violadude said:


> I am well aware of what subjective and objective mean and what their functions are in a debate. But where you're confused is that "good" and "bad" are two subjective concepts that can't be concluded upon objectively no matter how many objective facts you use to support your theory.


They can be if you define your criteria.

Simple example...

Criteria
Good music has structure.
Good music has a tune you can hum.
Good music has harmony.

Applying these criteria, is the sound of a jackhammer music?

The answer can be reached objectively.


----------



## Ukko

violadude said:


> I am well aware of what subjective and objective mean and what their functions are in a debate. But where you're confused is that "good" and "bad" are two subjective concepts that can't be concluded upon objectively no matter how many objective facts you use to support your theory.


Excellent. 100% agreement among x-thousand people 'in the know' that a piece of music is 'good', is a a useful, valuable datum. It's still a subjective judgement though. 'Good' just isn't good enough.


----------



## Ukko

bigshot said:


> They can be if you define your criteria.


Nope. Then, even if your criteria are very carefully drawn, you are 'special casing' it.


----------



## Truckload

bigshot said:


> I guess I didn't state that clearly. I was using the word "shared" with a different meaning. (Subjective is internal. Objective is external.)
> 
> Subjective reactions are unique to the individual. Objective observations are self evident. The way you put together your objective observations to support your argument based on your criteria is how you strengthen your case.
> 
> Perhaps they don't teach logic or debate in school any more. These aren't difficult concepts.


I think you may be correct that logic and debate may no longer be a part of the standard curriculum.

But in any event, you mentioned Haydn. He was certainly a great composer, but I am not sure if we will find enough difference between the two (Mozart and Haydn) to serve as a clear example of how objective analysis can assist us in making musical value judgments. It might make for an easier comparison to use someone else, attractive but less skilled, like Dittersdorf (who wrote 120 symphonies) or Michael Haydn (younger brother of Joseph who wrote 40 symphonies).


----------



## bigshot

violadude said:


> Judging the quality of music is completely different from judging a musical assignment for a class. One has a specific requirement, one does not.


judging always requires discernment, which involves establishing requirements and applying them as a rule. It's the same for a classroom assignment, recommending what to have for dinner or expressing your position on the quality of art. If you don't apply some sort of a standard then everything is good and everything is equal, which is obviously false. Judging is part of human nature. How well you judge determines how useful your conclusions are.


----------



## bigshot

Hilltroll72 said:


> Nope. Then, even if your criteria are very carefully drawn, you are 'special casing' it.


I'm afraid the term "special casing" is throwing me. I'm not sure what your point is.


----------



## Polednice

Truckload said:


> Polednice, Cnote11 and Violadude - I believe that there really is no point in continueing to debate the issue. I thought that Polednice and I at least were approaching some similarity of view, but apparently not. If our basic paradigm of music is so completely different, I see no hope of reaching agreement.


I'm actually still conflicted - reading some of my comments, I still have some inconsistencies floating around in my head. Give me the evening to sleep on it, and I'll see if I move in your direction.


----------



## Truckload

violadude said:


> That makes no sense at all. Judging the quality of music is completely different from judging a musical assignment for a class. One has a specific requirement, one does not. How are you not getting this?


I completely get it that you do not understand. That is not a problem. Either at some point you will understand or you will not but it is not the end of the world. You will still have a life, learn, love, grow in wisdom (or not) and life will go on. I can point out that there is a reason why all good (there it is another value judgment) music schools REQUIRE all music students to study harmony. It is not that they just want to provide a job for one of their friends teaching harmony. But why should we continue to argue about it? Life is too short to waste hours in futile debate.


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> judging always requires discernment, which involves establishing requirements and applying them as a rule. It's the same for a classroom assignment, recommending what to have for dinner or expressing your position on the quality of art. If you don't apply some sort of a standard then everything is good and everything is equal, which is obviously false. Judging is part of human nature. How well you judge determines how useful your conclusions are.


Ok seriously you guys, bigshot and truckload, I know you are smarter than this. It seems like you are grasping at straws to try to prove me wrong. So once again I will lay it out for you...

When I have an assignment in theory class, that assignment has *specific instructions* that I have to follow to complete the assignment. The purpose of this assignment is to learn about the subject. For example, if I am in an 18th century harmony class, my requirement might be "Write a I-IV-V-I harmonic progression using voice leading stylistic of the 18th century." If I don't fill those *specific requirements* then I fail the assignment. Again, this is so I can learn about how people used harmonic progressions in the 18th century.

When I write a piece of music, there is no assignment telling me any requirements. I don't need to fill any, I can write whatever I want. There is no teacher judging my piece based on specific requirements like in the classroom. The only people judging my piece are the people who listen to it and , unlike the classroom example where there was one set of requirements, everyone comes with their own set of requirements for a piece of music that they base their judgement of my music on. So since that is the case, these requirements on my piece are *subjective* because everyone comes with a personalized set of requirements. While the requirements in the classroom are *objective* because there is one requirement that everyone needs to fill based on the curriculum of the class. This is in order to learn the subject of the class, while writing a piece of music is in order to give people something to listen to.

Have I made my point clear enough?


----------



## Truckload

bigshot said:


> judging always requires discernment, which involves establishing requirements and applying them as a rule. It's the same for a classroom assignment, recommending what to have for dinner or expressing your position on the quality of art. If you don't apply some sort of a standard then everything is good and everything is equal, which is obviously false. Judging is part of human nature. How well you judge determines how useful your conclusions are.


I wish I had said that. That was closely reasoned my friend.


----------



## violadude

Truckload said:


> I completely get it that you do not understand. That is not a problem. Either at some point you will understand or you will not but it is not the end of the world. You will still have a life, learn, love, grow in wisdom (or not) and life will go on. I can point out that there is a reason why all good (there it is another value judgment) music schools REQUIRE all music students to study harmony. It is not that they just want to provide a job for one of their friends teaching harmony. But why should we continue to argue about it? Life is too short to waste hours in futile debate.


Good music schools require the study of harmony to give the students a well rounded foundation to compose with. This is so when you are composing a piece of music, you have more things in your "toolbox" to work with to create a piece of music. Those requirements in the class don't necessarily apply when you are actually composing music... obviously. You either don't understand common sense or you are pretending not to in order to try and prove me wrong...


----------



## Ukko

The situation here is that we may have a big truckload of 'shot' to deal with. An euphemism may be involved, maybe.


----------



## Truckload

violadude said:


> Ok seriously you guys, bigshot and truckload, I know you are smarter than this. It seems like you are grasping at straws to try to prove me wrong. So once again I will lay it out for you...
> 
> When I have an assignment in theory class, that assignment as *specific instructions* that I have to follow to complete the assignment. The purpose of this assignment is to learn about the subject. For example, if I am in an 18th century harmony class, my requirement might be "Write a I-IV-V-I harmonic progression using voice leading stylistic of the 18th century." If I don't fill those*specific requirements* then I fail the assignment. Again, this is so I can learn about how people used harmonic progressions in the 18th century.
> 
> When I write a piece of music, there is no assignment telling me any requirements. I don't need to fill any, I can write whatever I want. There is no teacher judging my piece based on specific requirements like in the classroom. The only people judging my piece are the people who listen to it and since, unlike the classroom example where there was one set of requirements, everyone comes with their own set of requirements for a piece of music that they base their judgement of my music on. So since that is the case, these requirements on my piece are *subjective* because everyone comes with a personalized set of requirements. While the requirements in the classroom are *objective* because there is one requirement that everyone needs to fill based on the curriculum of the class. This is in order to learn the subject of the class, while writing a piece of music is in order to give people something to listen to.
> 
> Have I made my point clear enough?


You are making this discussion way too personal. This is precisely why I was trying to limit our discourse to music of long ago, so that neither you nor anyone else would feel threatened by it. I have no interest in trying to prove you personally wrong (or right)about this or anything. You were not even alive yet when I began my musical journey. How could it be that I have formed my views just to try to prove you wrong?

By the way "I know your are smarter than this" is another value judgment, an attempt to make what you believe to be a factually correct objective statement. Why throw that in when you are trying to argue against making value judgments?

At this point, I think that any further explanations I might offer about the reasons for studying harmony might actually be counter productive. I judge, based on my experience, that anything I offer, even perhaps that the sky is blue, would immediately cause you to try to come up with an argument against that point. So why don't we both just move on?


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> They can be if you define your criteria.
> 
> Simple example...
> 
> Criteria
> Good music has structure.
> Good music has a tune you can hum.
> Good music has harmony.


And who decides all of that? I certainly don't think music needs a tune you can hum to be good. I enjoy music that is completely devoid of hummable tunes.


----------



## violadude

Truckload said:


> *By the way "I know your are smarter than this" is another value judgment, an attempt to make what you believe to be a factually correct objective statement. Why throw that in when you are trying to argue against making value judgments?
> *
> At this point, I think that any further explanations I might offer about the reasons for studying harmony might actually be counter productive. I judge, based on my experience, that anything I offer, even perhaps that the sky is blue, would immediately cause you to try to come up with an argument against that point. So why don't we both just move on?


Actually, I was just giving you a courteous benefit of the doubt. I see you are not going to debate any of my actual points using any sort of reason at all. So I'll just say that if you talk down to someone you get talked down to back. That's how life works buddy and I'm no exception.


----------



## PetrB

bigshot said:


> The goal isn't to decide which is the best of all. Objective reasoning is simply a way to determine general quality or lack of quality and to define what aspect of quality is there (or is lacking).


'

Simply repeating that 'experts' who have been honing their skill to discern for a lifetime, generations of them over hundreds of years, have still not come up with the ultimate list of qualifiers you seem to hope exist, if not actually yearn for.

So I wish you luck on that, with all your logic and yearning for something 'systematized' which will serve that function.

Art, like good sex, is messy, sloppy, and not 'clean.' I just don't think you're going to come up with a set of criteria by which you can measure, generally, all of it.


----------



## Truckload

violadude said:


> Actually, I was just giving you a courteous benefit of the doubt. I see you are not going to debate any of my actual points using any sort of reason at all. So I'll just say that if you talk down to someone you get talked down to back. That's how life works buddy and I'm no exception.


You are just taking this discussion way too personally. And talking "down to me" is not going to effect me even a little. I like my opinions just as you like yours. I would like other people to agree with me, just as you would like others to agree with you. Once you, or anyone, including me, start to dislike someone, we are far less likely to find anything they say worthwhile. That is just human nature. Our ability to think logically becomes distorted by our emotions. That is why I hesitate to continue debating with you. Not becuase I want to hurt you. But because as the argument continues and your dislike for me grows, because I do not agree with you, we are less and less likely to find anything to ever reach agreement.

Regarding the purpose of studying harmony, I believe that there are many more reasons to study harmony than you mentioned. If you think about it from my viewpoint, which I have been explaining at some length, I'm sure you can think of the reasons I would give. You are smart (and I am not just trying to be polite) so I would guess that you enjoy intellectual stimulation. If you make a temporary assumption that there are objective criteria for valueing music, you can come up with your own reasons for why the study of harmony would be valuable to all music lovers and music students (performers, future teachers, band directors, musicologists, and also, students interested in composition). Thinking about an issue from the opposing perspective can be a very stimulating experience.

I have written this not to talk down to you but to try to be of help, and to try and do the best job I can to support my own understing of music and my own opinios about music. We all hope that we can persuade others to agree with us, and I include myself. But I have found over the years that most people change a core opinion not based on someone elses argument, but based upon changes in their own understanding, knowledge, experience and introspection that occurs over a long time. People who are not introspective and do not grow in knowledge and understanding do not often change their opinions. Maybe some of these are lucky enough to have hit on the absolutely correct perspective on their first attempt. (HA!)


----------



## violadude

Truckload said:


> Regarding the purpose of studying harmony, I believe that there are many more reasons to study harmony than you mentioned. If you think about it from my viewpoint, which I have been explaining at some length, I'm sure you can think of the reasons I would give. You are smart (and I am not just trying to be polite) so I would guess that you enjoy intellectual stimulation. If you make a temporary assumption that there are objective criteria for valueing music, you can come up with your own reasons for why the study of harmony would be valuable to all music lovers and music students (performers, future teachers, band directors, musicologists, and also, students interested in composition). Thinking about an issue from the opposing perspective can be a very stimulating experience.


Ok so are you saying that if I were to make a temporary assumption that there is a universal objective criteria which to base music off of, then I would come to the conclusion that people study harmony so they can find out what the best possible harmony there is for a piece of music based on the objective criteria? But then who decides what the best possible harmonies are?


----------



## brianwalker

Good music has structure.
Good music has a tune you can hum.
Good music has harmony.


We only know this because when we investigate the nature of the music we like, we find it afterwards that it has all of these things.


----------



## Truckload

PetrB said:


> '
> 
> Simply repeating that 'experts' who have been honing their skill to discern for a lifetime, generations of them over hundreds of years, have still not come up with the ultimate list of qualifiers you seem to hope exist, if not actually yearn for.
> 
> So I wish you luck on that, with all your logic and yearning for something 'systematized' which will serve that function.
> 
> Art, like good sex, is messy, sloppy, and not 'clean.' I just don't think you're going to come up with a set of criteria by which you can measure, generally, all of it.


I believe you are obviously correct that we are not going to come up with "a set of criteria which can measure, generally, all of it" and be agreed to by everyone. And I am just speaking of art music in this post. Obviously criteria must be devised based on genre and style. But there would still be similarilties between the criteria regarding these elements. You could probably use the exact same criteria for the Classical Era and the Early Romantic. You might need to adjust for genre (obviously orchestration is not going to be a category in evaluating a solo piano piece) but I believe that the attempt to create the criteria and to study music based on that criteria illuminates the repetoire and strengthens the skills of the listener in a more meaningul way that just listening to 27 different interpretations on CD ever can.

Staying with art music before say 1890 to keep from getting into an argument about modern music, I find the process of objective valuation extremely stimulating. And fun. I like to try to find composers and compositions that are not on the list of the greats. Then I try to determine, what is it about this piece of music, this composer, that did not "measure up". It is extremely stimulating. Not only do I enjoy what I learn about the music, but as my discernment grows, I find ever more and more to enjoy about the Greats!


----------



## violadude

brianwalker said:


> Good music has structure.
> Good music has a tune you can hum.
> Good music has harmony.
> 
> 
> We only know this because when we investigate the nature of the music we like, we find it afterwards that it has all of these things.


Who is "we"?


----------



## tdc

violadude said:


> Ok so are you saying that if I were to make a temporary assumption that there is a universal objective criteria which to base music off of, then I would come to the conclusion that people* study harmony so they can find out what the best possible harmony there is for a piece of music based on the objective criteria*? But then who decides what the best possible harmonies are?


I'm not taking sides on this one just pointing out you kind of answered your own question on this one...people would decide what the best possible harmonies are based on the objective criteria.


----------



## Truckload

violadude said:


> Ok so are you saying that if I were to make a temporary assumption that there is a universal objective criteria which to base music off of, then I would come to the conclusion that people study harmony so they can find out what the best possible harmony there is for a piece of music based on the objective criteria? But then who decides what the best possible harmonies are?


Exactly one of the things I would say! There are more reasons.

But lets talk about your question and the reason you worte about.

The idea of the best harmonies has changed over time. At one point open fifths was the norm. Then you have modalism and so forth. The system that has reached the greatest worldwide usage is the system of diatonic functional harmony. What you are studying in your harmony class.

Now let us say that at some point you decide to forsake the world of art music and become a composer for film. Lots of money, exciting parties, plenty of girls falling all over you, (or boys if you are into that) so you want to be a great film composer. How are you going to do it? You know John Williams is big time, so why? His film scores are very much in the romantic tradition. And while he is often compared to Wagner, Williams harmonies are capable of being much brighter and lighter while still exploring a great diviersity of functional harmonic relationships. But you wont even begin to understand what makes his music so good, if you do not understand diatonic functional harmony. It is the combination of his orchestration and his harmony that earn him the big bucks!

There probably is not a "best possible harmony" but as you start to practice comparing you can easily tell the difference between a pro and an amateur. Can you be original and still "follow the rules"? I think so. Elfman's Batman, everthing is based on movements in minor thirds. Once you study it you will recognize his music instantly.

Beethoven Prometheus Overture (I think that is the one, have to check but dont want to do it now), everything is seventh chords. Like 90% of the harmonies. Wow! The standard rules for his time were not to over use severnth chords. He broke the rules! Does he get a higher score because he broke the rules, or a lower score because he broke the rules? We have to think about why he did it, and did he do it well or poorly? Now our understanding and appreciation and joy and pleasure in the Prometheus overture just grows and grows as new insights are uncovered like mining for gold. I get giddy thinking about it.

Gosh I could go on all night (HA!) I LOVE MUSIC!


----------



## regressivetransphobe

I always found the objective way of looking at art creepy, it sets the precedent for a whole world of soulless number-crunching and over-reliance on populism & convention.


----------



## violadude

tdc said:


> I'm not taking sides on this one just pointing out you kind of answered your own question on this one...people would decide what the best possible harmonies are based on the objective criteria.


Well exactly my point. People would decide...but different people will decide on different things. where is the objectivity in that?


----------



## violadude

Truckload said:


> Exactly one of the things I would say! There are more reasons.
> 
> But lets talk about your question and the reason you worte about.
> 
> The idea of the best harmonies has changed over time. At one point open fifths was the norm. Then you have modalism and so forth. The system that has reached the greatest worldwide usage is the system of diatonic functional harmony. What you are studying in your harmony class.
> 
> Now let us say that at some point you decide to forsake the world of art music and become a composer for film. Lots of money, exciting parties, plenty of girls falling all over you, (or boys if you are into that) so you want to be a great film composer. How are you going to do it? You know John Williams is big time, so why? His film scores are very much in the romantic tradition. And while he is often compared to Wagner, Williams harmonies are capable of being much brighter and lighter while still exploring a great diviersity of functional harmonic relationships. But you wont even begin to understand what makes his music so good, if you do not understand diatonic functional harmony. It is the combination of his orchestration and his harmony that earn him the big bucks!
> 
> There probably is not a "best possible harmony" but as you start to practice comparing you can easily tell the difference between a pro and an amateur. Can you be original and still "follow the rules"? I think so. Elfman's Batman, everthing is based on movements in minor thirds. Once you study it you will recognize his music instantly.
> 
> Beethoven Prometheus Overture (I think that is the one, have to check but dont want to do it now), everything is seventh chords. Like 90% of the harmonies. Wow! The standard rules for his time were not to over use severnth chords. He broke the rules! Does he get a higher score because he broke the rules, or a lower score because he broke the rules? We have to think about why he did it, and did he do it well or poorly? Now our understanding and appreciation and joy and pleasure in the Prometheus overture just grows and grows as new insights are uncovered like mining for gold. I get giddy thinking about it.
> 
> Gosh I could go on all night (HA!) I LOVE MUSIC!


That's great and all. But it still doesn't make those harmonies by John Williams or Beethoven "objectively great". I am sure there are plenty of people that aren't familiar with western functional harmony that would not find those harmonies so pleasing. To them, it is not great. Yes you are right. No one would know how to do what Beethoven and John Williams did without studying functional harmony, and that's why composers study it so they can have a strong foundation in order to do those things. But it takes a bit of a leap in logic to say that those harmonies are great because of that. You could possibly make a point that they are innovative or original though.


----------



## tdc

violadude said:


> Well exactly my point. People would decide...but different people will decide on different things. where is the objectivity in that?


There only would be objectivity in it if this magical 'objective criteria' existed...I am just saying that if this hypothetical situation existed then your question would be answered, since you said for a moment you would make such a temporary assumption, then you had your answer, but without the assuming and the hypothetical situation, we are left with not much. :lol:


----------



## violadude

tdc said:


> There only would be objectivity in it if this magical 'objective criteria' existed...I am just saying that if this hypothetical situation existed then your question would be answered, since you said for a moment you would make such a temporary assumption, then you had your answer, but without the assuming and the hypothetical situation, we are left with not much. :lol:


Oh ya haha. I forgot to extend my suspension of disbelief into the next time I posted.


----------



## Cnote11

I would say that their work is stellar based on the structure of functional harmony. Although, I know a poster or two who would have your throat for talking about John Williams in such a positive light.


----------



## brianwalker

violadude said:


> Who is "we"?


People who find Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven's music wonderful.

Which includes most, if not all, musicologists.


----------



## Cnote11

brianwalker said:


> People who find Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven's music wonderful.
> 
> Which includes most, if not all, musicologists.


That still doesn't prove your point. I love Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven's music. This doesn't mean that I believe good music has "structure", a "tune you can hum", or "harmony". You didn't even qualify the harmony bit. It could be some bland use of harmony, then what? I walk around humming avant-garde tunes. What do you make of that? I believe that avant-garde has inherent structure. So maybe I do believe good music has those things, but I happen to find them in other music as well.

The real point being, your post makes zero sense and your follow up post about musicologists doesn't support your previous post in any way. Loving Bach and loving "structureless" music are not mutually exclusive, and your post fails to prove anything.


----------



## Truckload

violadude said:


> That's great and all. But it still doesn't make those harmonies by John Williams or Beethoven "objectively great". I am sure there are plenty of people that aren't familiar with western functional harmony that would not find those harmonies so pleasing. To them, it is not great. Yes you are right. No one would know how to do what Beethoven and John Williams did without studying functional harmony, and that's why composers study it so they can have a strong foundation in order to do those things. But it takes a bit of a leap in logic to say that those harmonies are great because of that. You could possibly make a point that they are innovative or original though.


Actually the system of western music, the scales, the harmonies, have pretty much spread over the whole world. I would argue there is a reason for this. An objective reason that lies in the physics of music and the anatomy of the human ear. If you have the privaledge of having a good Physics of Music course, you know what I mean.

It is not just composers who study harmony. At a good music school every music major studies harmony. Not just to compose but to help one be a better performer, or a better teacher, or simply to give the students the tools to better understand and appreciate great music.

Is innovation and originality something you value? Do you find that composers that exhibit originality and innvoation seem to please you more, impress you more, or keep your interest more easily. Staying with music before 1890 so that we do not get into a big fuss about modern music, innovation and originallity are not that difficult to spot with a little practice and with knowledge of the standards of excellence that existed at that time.

It may not be possibly to have one set of standards for all time, but it is certainly possible to have one set of standards for a given musical epoh or genre. Obviously someone who has no interest in fast cars will not appreciate the design of the Shelby Cobra. Someone with no interest in art music will not recognize the difference between Dittersdorf and Mozart. But a trained composer or theorist, should have little difficulty in analyzing the harmonies used in a Dittersdorf Symphony and those used in a Mozart Symphony and quickly seeing that Mozart had a greater mastery of harmony. His use of harmony is superior. It is better. If you took Dittersdorf's themes and set them to harmonies such as Mozart would have used the result will be a more beautiful, more memorable, more impressive piece of music. The harmonies of Mozart and Beethoven and John Williams are great becuase they "get the job done" more effectively than bad harmonies would.


----------



## Cnote11

Harmony is apparently the only thing that matters in a piece. I actually agree with your last post, truckload, and it is what I mean about "objective within context", but when you try to expand it past that idea itself is where it falls apart for me.


----------



## violadude

Truckload said:


> Actually the system of western music, the scales, the harmonies, have pretty much spread over the whole world. I would argue there is a reason for this. An objective reason that lies in the physics of music and the anatomy of the human ear. If you have the privaledge of having a good Physics of Music course, you know what I mean.


Would you follow then that other harmonic systems are inferior to that of Western Functional harmony? If what you say is true why is Western Functional Harmony something that wasn't used the way we know it to be used for over 1,500 years?

[/QUOTE]It is not just composers who study harmony. At a good music school every music major studies harmony. Not just to compose but to help one be a better performer, or a better teacher, or simply to give the students the tools to better understand and appreciate great music.[/QUOTE]

Of course, studying it makes you a well rounded musician. But that has nothing to do with objective greatness in anything. 
I am also studying atonal theory this semester to. Would you then argue that that is great too because students study it? Or is that something that a "bad" music school does?

[/QUOTE]Is innovation and originality something you value? Do you find that composers that exhibit originality and innvoation seem to please you more, impress you more, or keep your interest more easily. Staying with music before 1890 so that we do not get into a big fuss about modern music, innovation and originallity are not that difficult to spot with a little practice and with knowledge of the standards of excellence that existed at that time.[/QUOTE]

Yes...but what does that have to do with objective greatness? Again, when on earth did I ever say that studying tonal harmony wasn't a good thing?

[/QUOTE]It may not be possibly to have one set of standards for all time, but it is certainly possible to have one set of standards for a given musical epoh or genre. Obviously someone who has no interest in fast cars will not appreciate the design of the Shelby Cobra. Someone with no interest in art music will not recognize the difference between Dittersdorf and Mozart. But a trained composer or theorist, should have little difficulty in analyzing the harmonies used in a Dittersdorf Symphony and those used in a Mozart Symphony and quickly seeing that Mozart had a greater mastery of harmony. His use of harmony is superior. It is better. If you took Dittersdorf's themes and set them to harmonies such as Mozart would have used the result will be a more beautiful, more memorable, more impressive piece of music. *The harmonies of Mozart and Beethoven and John Williams are great becuase they "get the job done" more effectively than bad harmonies would.*[/QUOTE]

Tell me what "job" they are getting done with the harmony they provide?


----------



## Truckload

Cnote11 said:


> Harmony is apparently the only thing that matters in a piece. I actually agree with your last post, truckload, and it is what I mean about "objective within context", but when you try to expand it past that idea itself is where it falls apart for me.


Well at least we can agree on that one point. I hope I haven't done more harm than good by continueing to express this idea of objective value. One of the good reasons for art is to bring people together, not divide them. Remember when the Berlin Wall came down and they played Beethoven's 9th on the old dividing line? What a day!

I am worn out and must go to bed now. I am going to pretend that perhaps something I have contributed might in some small way help someone to find ever greater joy, pleasure and understanding in music.


----------



## Guest

Very revealing posts on the whole. Very useful to me for understanding how people think, and why they draw the conclusions they draw. The posts about what objective and subjective mean, for instance. Very interesting. Outside and inside. That's a very rudimentary way to look at it. And so close. But then we have a bunch of insides getting together and adding up all their inside things and drawing a conclusion, and somehow, magically, all these insides all together turn into an outside.

Hmmmm. But I think I understand the whole urge to turn subjective things into objective ones a little more than I did before. And that's always nice.*

Here's something I have an anecdote about. Anecdote's are nice.



Truckload said:


> At one point open fifths was the norm.


When Berlioz took a trained choir from Paris to the rural area around where he had grown up, he got the following response to their part singing: "Well, they seem like really nice people, but they can't sing in tune."

And what, for these villagers was "singing in tune"? Octaves and unisons. Only. Not even fifths. And this was in the 1830s.

And here's something I'm sure about now. It's nice to be sure. Even better to be right, of course....



Truckload said:


> John Williams['] ... film scores are very much in the romantic tradition.


You hear this kind of thing a lot. I think it's wrong. John Williams' film scores are very much not in the Romantic tradition. John Williams' film scores mimick certain patterns and shapes and sounds of music from the Romantic era (or a bit after, if you accept the musicological (and contemporaneous) idea that Romanticism was pretty much over by 1848). But there was nothing in Romanticism about mimicking patterns and shapes and sounds of earlier times. In fact, Romanticism was just about the antithesis of that. It was about realism, about living in the real world, and making ones' own way. Not in imitating the used up forms of the past. (Barzun, who spent a very long life time thinking about Romanticism and the Romantic era, puts it as "their refusal to go on imitating forms whose contents had evaporated.")

I'm sure that will be a hard sell, though. John Williams' film scores still sound "romantic" to people. They sound like the mid to late nineteenth century music they imitate. They have big, lush orchestral sounds and sweeping melodies and pre-Schoenbergian harmonies. And that means "romantic." Well, it's not what meant romantic to the Romantics anyway. To them or to their auditors. It only seems like that now, to us, with our ears conditioned by decades of familiarity with those sounds.

John Williams' music, in that regard, can be describes as not an imitation of Romantic music but as an imitation of what "romantic" music sounds like _now,_ to us. Safe, predictable, familiar. Two removes, that is, from _Romanticism,_ not just one. (And, if you use the 1848 date, actually three removes.)

*Here's the definitions of objective and subjective I was working with: Objective is the things that can be measured. Weight, distance, amount. Stuff like that. Factual stuff. (Even arbitrary stuff like "twelve inches to a foot.") Subjective is all the rest. What we think about those things. How we react to them. Our evaluations of their relative importances. Objective is things in and of themselves. Subjective is us perceiving and valuing.

By that definition, "objective evaluation" is an oxymoron. Freezing fire. Or perhaps more appropriate to the discussion, unbiassed opinion.

Evaluation may indeed use objective facts. It will most usually use a mix of fact and opinion. The result will be purely subjective.


----------



## Guest

While I was writing my last post, I was doing lots of other things. And for sure, I should ONLY do those other things. But no. Anyway, one of the comments that came in while I was lazily typing my last post, and interrupting that dilatory pecking with other activities, was this one:


Truckload said:


> Mozart had a greater mastery of harmony. His use of harmony is superior. It is better. If you took Dittersdorf's themes and set them to harmonies such as Mozart would have used the result will be a more beautiful, more memorable, more impressive piece of music.


This is a prime example of something I mentioned recently in another post, the practice of supporting and assertion with another assertion. In this case, a whole string of synonyms. The net effect? Mozart's harmony is better. It's better. It's better. It's better.

What we're missing here is real support. A real argument, with assertions backed up by something else (I'm tempted to say "anything else"!) besides a bunch of other assertions.

This is from the thread starter, who expressed a desire for objective criteria. Well, a string of assertions ain't that.


----------



## tdc

So according to some guy, John Williams music mimics some aspects of Romanticism yet is not Romantic, and it is safe, predictable and familiar. Yet, none of these things are value judgements in of themselves about the actual music. If a person values safe, predictable and familiar music, then John Williams might be just the composer for that individual. Are _dangerous_, _unpredictable_ and _unfamiliar_ traits that are generally considered to be more desirable in a musical piece? I'm not sure...maybe the ideal is somewhere in between? Maybe it depends on the person.

I wonder how much I should concern myself with such things if I find myself enjoying one of his pieces...


----------



## Guest

I wouldn't concern myself with them at all while listening to his music. (I know, you weren't really wondering.)

And the only reason I brought any of that up was because truckload called his music romantic. Well, maybe it could be argued that it's romantic. But it's certainly not Romantic, that was my point, and my only excuse for posting. It is decidedly anti-Romantic in any historical, ideological, philosophical sense.

As to its value to any individual listener, I have nothing to say. If it is valuable to an individual listener, it is valuable to that listener. (There's a nice, knockdown argument for ya!)


----------



## bigshot

regressivetransphobe said:


> I always found the objective way of looking at art creepy, it sets the precedent for a whole world of soulless number-crunching and over-reliance on populism & convention.


I work with artists, many of them great, and I have never known a great artist who isn't interested in analyzing what makes art great. That's how they learn to make it.

A friend of mine is a movie director. He's from Brooklyn and is very outspoken. We were watching a video interview with a movie critic who said, "Movies are like ice cream... a million different flavors- all good." My director friend nearly fell off his chair laughing... "Yeah ice cream! sheist flavored ice cream... dirt flavored ice cream... **** flavored ice cream... He loves it all!"


----------



## bigshot

violadude said:


> And who decides all of that?


Each person defines his own set of criteria to find his own objective angle on the truth. All of the angles together form a picture of the whole. The ones that describe the truth the best are the ones that have the most well chosen criteria supported by the strongest objective observation.


----------



## bigshot

brianwalker said:


> We only know this because when we investigate the nature of the music we like, we find it afterwards that it has all of these things.


Experience leads to better criteria and stronger supporting arguments. It's a process, not a destination.


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> Each person defines his own set of criteria to find his own objective angle on the truth. All of the angles together form a picture of the whole. The ones that describe the truth the best are the ones that have the most well chosen criteria supported by the strongest objective observation.


How do you know which ones describe "the truth" the most? What is "the truth" when it comes to music? Is there even a truth to music? I don't think that there is really.


----------



## bigshot

violadude said:


> How do you know which ones describe "the truth" the most? What is "the truth" when it comes to music? Is there even a truth to music? I don't think that there is really.


The argument that best describes the truth is the one that is best defined and supported. Truth exists, but it can seem to be elusive. You'll never even get close to it if you don't try. Rational thinking is a tool to do that.


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> The argument that best describes the truth is the one that is best defined and supported. Truth exists, but it can seem to be elusive. You'll never even get close to it if you don't try. Rational thinking is a tool to do that.


So you're saying that if enough people define and support something than it is a truth?


----------



## bigshot

Here is an analogy... You are with a group of people in a pitch black room with an unknown large animal. You turn on a flashlight to illuminate part of the animal. If your angle on it is really good, you'll see it has a trunk. If enough people join you in in shining a light, you'll see more of the elephant.

The elephant is the truth. Critical thinking is the flashlight. Your angle on it is your own criteria for judging. A group of people with a variety of different criteria will define the outlines of the truth better.


----------



## tdc

some guy said:


> I wouldn't concern myself with them at all while listening to his music. (*I know, you weren't really wondering*.)
> 
> And the only reason I brought any of that up was because truckload called his music romantic. Well, maybe it could be argued that it's romantic. But it's certainly not Romantic, that was my point, and my only excuse for posting. It is decidedly anti-Romantic in any historical, ideological, philosophical sense.
> 
> As to its value to any individual listener, I have nothing to say. If it is valuable to an individual listener, it is valuable to that listener. (There's a nice, knockdown argument for ya!)


No, I really was wondering. Maybe I was more wondering what you thought than myself, but I didn't mean it in a sarcastic or snide way. Its not the first time that kind of question has jumped out at me when reading one of your posts...so just thought I'd throw that out there, but I do agree with your answer.


----------



## Guest

Yeah. Hard to tell sometimes.

But when we're both such obviously nice people.

(And we are obviously nice people.)


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> Here is an analogy... You are with a group of people in a pitch black room with an unknown large animal. You turn on a flashlight to illuminate part of the animal. If your angle on it is really good, you'll see it has a trunk. If enough people join you in in shining a light, you'll see more of the elephant.
> 
> The elephant is the truth. Critical thinking is the flashlight. Your angle on it is your own criteria for judging. A group of people with a variety of different criteria will define the outlines of the truth better.


What is truth in regards to music then? What are we searching for?


----------



## bigshot

Quality...


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> Quality...


What kind of people are these shining a flashlight on the elephant truth of quality then? Are they only classical music fans? Only people who study music? Everyone?


----------



## mmsbls

There are many interesting ideas stated in this thread. I've read posts to this thread several times now, and after thinking about these issues, I believe that _in some sense_ I agree with both sides on the objective/subjective divide. Individuals believe that certain works are great for subjective reasons; but, in theory, someone could experimentally determine an objective set of reasons that would explain why many/most people believe a certain work is great.

1) Subjective. Presumably we could delineate a large set of objective metrics (qualities) used for valuing works. One objective metric might be the number of C's in the work, but I assume few, if any, people would actually use that metric. Other metrics might be complex descriptions of harmony, melodies, innovation, novelty, etc. We all have reasons for liking/valuing works, and, in theory, a comprehensive list could be made. The difficulty with making these metrics objective is that, although the metric itself may be objective, the weight given to that metric would vary from person to person making the overall assessment subjective. I might value aesthetic beauty much more than structure; whereas, someone else might value them equally. There seems to be no way to set the weighting of metrics objectively.

2) Objective. I'm not sure anyone actually has this particular view of objective value in mind, but perhaps some are thinking of something like what i will describe. We can do surveys of composers or works (many have been done on TC and elsewhere) and measure people's relative assessment of them. For example, surveys show that Mozart is considered one of the best composers by a large percentage of people. People presumably have reasons for valuing Mozart's works as they do. In theory, someone or something (e.g. an artificial intelligence) could measure all the reasons (along with the weightings for those reasons) why Mozart is considered a great composer by the people who consider him great. An objective assessment could then be given answering the question, "Why do a large percentage (whatever the actual percentage is) of people consider Mozart great?" The reasons that individuals believe Mozart is great would vary somewhat, but the general consensus would be supported by some set of metrics with weightings. The incredibly interesting question is how much variation is there from person to person. I suspect the variation is relatively modest _for those believing Mozart is a great composer_.

So in the senses described above there are both subjective reasons why people value works or composers and objective reasons.


----------



## moody

Truckload said:


> violadude and Cnote11 - is it your contention that Mozart is NOT one of the greatest composers in the history of music? If you believe that he is one of the greatest, there must be some reason for that conclusion. Saying there is no objective diffence does not make it factually correct that there is no objective difference.
> 
> We all kow the rules and uses of functional harmony. We are focused on the functional harmony of the late classical era. If you are teaching Music Theory II at your university, students will submit papers having completed excercises in harmony. Are you not going to be capable of grading those papers? Will you assign grades simply based on your "feelings" about their work? And how will you answer your students when you give student #1 an A and student #2 a D. Will you tell them "actually there is no way to place a value judgment on music and therefor you received a D because that was just my opinion, which is of equal value with your opinion."


I don't know the rules of functional harmony, I'm just somebody who likes music . So why talk over my head, you are not addressing a bunch of academics, this is gettiong so annoying. I and people like me do base our judgement on feelings and whether the sound of a work appeals to us.


----------



## moody

mmsbls said:


> There are many interesting ideas stated in this thread. I've read posts to this thread several times now, and after thinking about these issues, I believe that _in some sense_ I agree with both sides on the objective/subjective divide. Individuals believe that certain works are great for subjective reasons; but, in theory, someone could experimentally determine an objective set of reasons that would explain why many/most people believe a certain work is great.
> 
> 1) Subjective. Presumably we could delineate a large set of objective metrics (qualities) used for valuing works. One objective metric might be the number of C's in the work, but I assume few, if any, people would actually use that metric. Other metrics might be complex descriptions of harmony, melodies, innovation, novelty, etc. We all have reasons for liking/valuing works, and, in theory, a comprehensive list could be made. The difficulty with making these metrics objective is that, although the metric itself may be objective, the weight given to that metric would vary from person to person making the overall assessment subjective. I might value aesthetic beauty much more than structure; whereas, someone else might value them equally. There seems to be no way to set the weighting of metrics objectively.
> 
> 2) Objective. I'm not sure anyone actually has this particular view of objective value in mind, but perhaps some are thinking of something like what i will describe. We can do surveys of composers or works (many have been done on TC and elsewhere) and measure people's relative assessment of them. For example, surveys show that Mozart is considered one of the best composers by a large percentage of people. People presumably have reasons for valuing Mozart's works as they do. In theory, someone or something (e.g. an artificial intelligence) could measure all the reasons (along with the weightings for those reasons) why Mozart is considered a great composer by the people who consider him great. An objective assessment could then be given answering the question, "Why do a large percentage (whatever the actual percentage is) of people consider Mozart great?" The reasons that individuals believe Mozart is great would vary somewhat, but the general consensus would be supported by some set of metrics with weightings. The incredibly interesting question is how much variation is there from person to person. I suspect the variation is relatively modest _for those believing Mozart is a great composer_.
> 
> So in the senses described above there are both subjective reasons why people value works or composers and objective reasons.


Well I don't know, didn't I just say all that!!


----------



## Ukko

mmsbls said:


> [...]
> So in the senses described above there are both subjective reasons why people value works or composers and objective reasons.


Your treatise is an excellent example of the 'special casing' term I mentioned above somewhere. There would be no point is specifying criteria except to create exclusions. And in your scenario there must be accepted subjective judgements all over the place. You think that conclusions derived from that mess are objective?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

A great composer knows the balance between how much they should stick to the rules, and when they can break one effectively.

As I've gone through study of theory currently at my college, something struck me a few weeks ago: how much theorists today can't explain certain musical phenomenon. For example, my theory teacher is absolutely adamant about 2nd inversion chords having no harmonic direction in and of themselves, that they are only passing and neighbor chords. Well, aren't there tons of composers that have used 2nd inversion chords which drew attention to themselves and not to other chords around them? Same with the cadential 6/4 chord, is that a chord by itself, or a chord with a bunch of suspensions? Plenty of real composers used the cadential 6/4 chord like a real chord all by itself, but theorists insist it's not a real chord. Huh. It goes to show that theory can't explain music fully, even to this day. Some teachers, including my own, also insist on petty things like I-IV-I isn't a real progression, and that one shouldn't even _compose _such a progression. Bah! If it's not real, why is it used? Just because it doesn't fit into the "Theory" doesn't mean it's obsolete. Even further more, it's not Theory that should _dictate _music, but music that should dictate Theory!


----------



## violadude

Huilunsoittaja said:


> A great composer knows the balance between how much they should stick to the rules, and when they can break one effectively.
> 
> As I've gone through study of theory currently at my college, something struck me a few weeks ago: how much theorists today can't explain certain musical phenomenon. For example, my theory teacher is absolutely adamant about 2nd inversion chords having no harmonic direction in and of themselves, that they are only passing and neighbor chords. Well, aren't there tons of composers that have used 2nd inversion chords which drew attention to themselves and not to other chords around them? Same with the cadential 6/4 chord, is that a chord by itself, or a chord with a bunch of suspensions? Plenty of real composers used the cadential 6/4 chord like a real chord all by itself, but theorists insist it's not a real chord. Huh. It goes to show that theory can't explain music fully, even to this day. Some teachers, including my own, also insist on petty things like I-IV-I isn't a real progression, and that one shouldn't even _compose _such a progression. Bah! If it's not real, why is it used? Just because it doesn't fit into the "Theory" doesn't mean it's obsolete. Even further more, it's not Theory that should _dictate _music, but music that should dictate Theory!


when you're teacher gives you restrictions like that, he isn't saying that those are strict rules you need to stick to in composition. It's just a certain style (most likely 17th and 18th century harmony) that you are being taught about and that is how _they_ treated those chords and harmonies.


----------



## bigshot

violadude said:


> What kind of people are these shining a flashlight on the elephant truth of quality then? Are they only classical music fans? Only people who study music? Everyone?


Everyone who thinks about a subject critically and shares their discoveries with others.


----------



## mmsbls

moody said:


> Well I don't know, didn't I just say all that!!


In general I was trying to restate what others have collectively said. I do think there are one or two new ideas in what I presented (especially the idea of weighting the metrics), but, if not, then I agree with you .



Hilltroll72 said:


> Your treatise is an excellent example of the 'special casing' term I mentioned above somewhere. There would be no point is specifying criteria except to create exclusions. And in your scenario there must be accepted subjective judgements all over the place. You think that conclusions derived from that mess are objective?


You misunderstood. It would be critical to discover criteria _and not create exclusions_; otherwise, one would likely not have a good model of how people value music. The process I described is very similar to understanding why certain cars are more aerodynamic than others. Each car may be unique, and there are many factors (metrics. qualities) that effect the result. Nevertheless, scientists can study the problem and determine what factors are most important in producing an aerodynamic car, which factors vary the most, and how each factor contributes.

In both cases (studying aerodynamic cars and valuations of music) scientists would begin with objective facts - how aerodynamic various cars are and people's _stated perceptions of music greatness or value_. They would develop models based on objective criteria that would explain those objective facts. And, yes, I would expect that the conclusions derived from both studies would be objective to the extent that any science is objective.


----------



## Ukko

/\ "people's _stated perceptions of music greatness or value_".

But sir, what people, and how can their opinions be anything other than subjective?

Their opinions are _not_ likely to be identical, so you must set up _more criteria_ for your qualitative analysis of the data you have assembled. I suppose you have to value quantity, so if 953 people say Hovhaness' "Mount Saint Helen' is great, and 47 people don't mention Hovhaness at all...

What a tangled web you weave.


----------



## bigshot

Opinions are not all created equal. Some are simply subjective personal taste, and others are based on objective analysis. You can't generalize about opinions or how people reach them. You can only judge them by the facts supporting them.

Just because you reach a conclusion objectively, it doesn't mean that you reach the exact same conclusion that everyone else who is applying rational analysis reaches. The criteria for judging is going to be different from person to person. The criteria are the filter that allow you to view a certain aspect of the truth... Just like different filters on astronomers' photos of the sun reveal different aspects of the surface.


----------



## bigshot

Of course it's a lot easier to go through life saying "I like this" or "I don't like that" without having to back up your opinions. Critical thinking is a lot of work and you have to be open to having your opinions challenged. It's not a technique for intellectually lazy people or for people who speak entirely for their own benefit.


----------



## Guest

The Objective is clearly something that is valued by many people. And the Subjective is just as clearly not valued. So in order to make the subjective things that we still want to be important seem valuable, we just redefine them so that they, too, are Objective.

No matter how many times it's explained that fire cannot produce ice, we so many of us want to be able to make some nice ice cubes with our blowtorch, that we're going to keep trying it. And keep insisting that we've succeeded, too. Ah, the magic of language.

That's not a terribly scientific way of going about your business, but so strong is the worship of the Objective (and so strong the desire to make the still desirable subjective things _seem_ Objective) that I don't see this situation going away any time soon.

So instead of trying to argue it away (it's irrational, so _cannot_ be argued away), how about if we try to understand why things are like this? Why do people want to have objective criteria in situations where such criteria are nonexistent? (Aerodynamics is objective. Measurable phenomena in the physical world. Not at all equivalent to perceptions of music, which are not measurable or objective. Even less so for the "stated" part, which drags in all sorts of other subjective things--the desires to be accepted, to impress, to win arguments, to have what one values be accepted as valuable by other people, and so forth.)

Far as I can see, the latter is probably the strongest desire in discussions of this sort. I really value Gluck, say, so I want other people to value Gluck, too. I want other people to acknowledge Gluck's mastery, to place him among the greats of the classical era. I also value Objectivity, of course, so in order to bolster my subjective feelings about Gluck and my irrational desires to have him universally acknowledged (and thereby have my own tastes validated, just by the way), I come up with, or attempt to come up with, all sorts of "objective" reasons why Gluck should be considered great by everyone.

Gluck is a god, and I shall prove scientifically that he is worthy of your worship.


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> Everyone who thinks about a subject critically and shares their discoveries with others.


What if everyone who thinks critically about the subject comes to different conclusions?


----------



## bigshot

violadude said:


> What if everyone who thinks critically about the subject comes to different conclusions?


Then they're obviously using dfferent criteria. By comparing their arguments and cnclusions with others with different arguments and conclusions, they have the opportunity to refine their criteria to more completely illuminate the subject.


----------



## Ukko

bigshot said:


> Of course it's a lot easier to go through life saying "I like this" or "I don't like that" without having to back up your opinions. Critical thinking is a lot of work and you have to be open to having your opinions challenged. It's not a technique for intellectually lazy people or for people who speak entirely for their own benefit.


Ah. I seem to have qualified as an 'intellectually lazy' person in your estimation. This is a good thing, though not a great thing.

(I wish I could say the same for the last bottle of wine I opened.)


----------



## bigshot

some guy said:


> The Objective is clearly something that is valued by many people. And the Subjective is just as clearly not valued. So in order to make the subjective things that we still want to be important seem valuable, we just redefine them so that they, too, are Objective.


intellectual dishonesty is something everyone has to work to resist. There are tools for idetifying that so you can avoid it.


----------



## mmsbls

Hilltroll72 said:


> But sir, what people, and how can their opinions be anything other than subjective?


Any sample of people. Larger samples would include more variation, and therefore, produce a more accurate model. I believe that individual opinions are subjective (see my #1 from the original post) so I'm not sure what your point is here.



Hilltroll72 said:


> Their opinions are _not_ likely to be identical, so you must set up _more criteria_ for your qualitative analysis of the data you have assembled. I suppose you have to value quantity, so if 953 people say Hovhaness' "Mount Saint Helen' is great, and 47 people don't mention Hovhaness at all...
> 
> What a tangled web you weave.


Yes, opinions will vary, just like car designs vary. The model would have to account for the variation and give reasons why that variation exists. If 953 believe that Hovhaness' _Mount Saint Helen_ is great, the model would show what reasons account for that _fact_ (i.e. that those 953 people say _Mount Saint Helen_ is great).

I think there may be confusion between to separate ideas:

1) An objective model could show which works are great.
2) An objective model could show _why people believe certain works are great_. It would describe the various metrics used, how those metrics are weighted, what neural conditions lead to various weightings, etc. This mode would be extraordinarily complex.

I am talking about the second and _not_ the first. I believe you think I'm talking about the first.


----------



## Ukko

mmsbls said:


> [...]
> I think there may be confusion between to separate ideas:
> 
> 1) An objective model could show which works are great.
> 2) An objective model could show _why people believe certain works are great_. It would describe the various metrics used, how those metrics are weighted, what neural conditions lead to various weightings, etc. This mode would be extraordinarily complex.
> 
> I am talking about the second and _not_ the first. I believe you think I'm talking about the first.


Aha; you are correct. I have doubts about the usefulness, even the extent of validity of the conclusions, but at least you are not charging a windmill.


----------



## bigshot

some guy said:


> Aerodynamics is objective. Measurable phenomena in the physical world. Not at all equivalent to perceptions of music, which are not measurable or objective.


You're defining your argument in terms of your desired conclusion. Art is not purely subjective. Artists make rational aesthetic choices all the time. That's how they create and refine their art. Artistic creation isn't magic. It's a process of making decisions, and those decisions are based on a conscious set of aesthetic criteria. Art can be discussed rationally. People do it all the time in the media and on the internet, just like we're doing right now.

You point out a valuable concept about wrapping your ego around being right. That is just as dangerous in a discussion of aerodynamics as it is in a discussion of art. You have to be willing to be challenged; and if a challenge is stronger than your support, you have to be willing to switch horses to the stronger argument. That's the goal of rational analysis. The goal isn't just to be right yourself. That's a subjective desire.


----------



## bigshot

mmsbls said:


> Any sample of people. Larger samples would include more variation, and therefore, produce a more accurate model.


Not necessarily. The best supported arguments provide the most accurate results, not the average of a bunch of not necessarily informed opinions. In rational analysis, one really well supported set of arguments can win out over a million weak ones.


----------



## tdc

I think a weighting system could be devised that took into consideration things like - opinions of scholars and experts in the field, influence, innovation, over-all popularity, how the piece's popularity has done over time (ie - a lot of pop music becomes very popular, but is then quickly forgotten when the next no. 1 comes out etc.). One of the key indicators I think would be time. Perhaps eventually more accurate ways of measuring neural activity in the brain related to pieces of music will also become available. I think taking all of these things together could certainly provide a reasonably accurate framework for a piece's 'greatness'. I just don't think it'll ever be the exact science some are hoping for.


----------



## Guest

Refine is a different sort of activity from changing. At the end of this process, "comparing... arguments and c[o]nclusions" one still has one's same criteria, criteria that are still different from everyone else's.

So everyone gets better and better (more refined) at being different from each other.

I don't want to draw attention away from my previous post, which is so important and so vital to understand (and I can prove it scientifically, too), but "oh, well."

I think that in this situation, there is no "subject"* to be illuminated. That's what's wrong with the whole "objective" idea. Music is not some static thing out there separate from us listening, or not exclusively, anyway. The situation is one in which the objective things that make up a piece of music--instrumentation, duration, volume, frequencies--are responded to by listeners, each with their own backgrounds, experiences, biasses. It's an active, a dynamic relationship we're talking about here. So it will change from person to person and from concert to concert (or playback to playback).

*You meant "object" here, right? As in the elephant we're illuminating with our flashlights? Because the subject, "are there objective qualities of great music," can be "illuminated," of course. Why, I'm doing it; I'm doing it now!


----------



## bigshot

tdc said:


> I think a weighting system could be devised that took into consideration things like - opinions of scholars and experts in the field, influence, innovation, over-all popularity


Appeal to Authority and Bandwagon Arguments are both common logical fallacies.

It's interesting how little people seem to know about this subject. I was lucky enough to run into a brilliant critical thinker when I was first starting out in the film business. In order to keep up with him, I had to run out and get a book on logic and bone up on how it works. It isn't necessarily an intuitive process.


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> Appeal to Authority and Bandwagon Arguments are both common logical fallacies.
> 
> It's interesting how little people seem to know about this subject. I was lucky enough to run into a brilliant critical thinker when I was first starting out in the film business. In order to keep up with him, I had to run out and get a book on logic and bone up on how it works. It isn't necessarily an intuitive process.


Well I guess I better stop arguing with you then since you're such a brilliant thinker and know the answer to everything.


----------



## mmsbls

bigshot said:


> Not necessarily. The best supported arguments provide the most accurate results, not the average of a bunch of not necessarily informed opinions. In rational analysis, one really well supported set of arguments can win out over a million weak ones.


I agree with your statement, but I was talking about something different. A larger sample will allow a model, _that tries to understand how people, in general, assess music_, to be more accurate. The result is not "which music is best" but rather "this is how people value music".


----------



## Guest

I just reread my last post, after reading all the new posts the preceded it.

I'd like to simplify, if I may.

There are people who want works of art to be static, immutable objects. Great now and forever.
There are people who acknowledge that art is about experience, about relationships, which are dynamic and mutable, changing and shifting from auditor to auditor and within each auditor from one experience to the next.

I don't see any common ground between these two groups. Perhaps there isn't any.

If there is, the person who discovered that would be truly great.:tiphat:


----------



## bigshot

some guy said:


> Refine is a different sort of activity from changing. At the end of this process, "comparing... arguments and c[o]nclusions" one still has one's same criteria


Not at all. The criteria are what change and refine. The goal is to come up with a theory and a set of rules and test them. If they can stand the test, they last. If not, both the theory and the criteria can change.

Music is an idea expressed as a sound. Any idea can be tested and analyzed. Artists do that every second of every day they create art. Listening can be a passive exercise unless you are thinking while you are listening. Analytical thinking can move the listener closer to understanding the ideas behind the sounds and make them a part of the process.

There is nothing wrong with enjoying music simply as a subjective experience like taking a hot bath or feeling a breeze blow over your face. But if you want to share your experience with others, you need to take it beyond just your subjective experience. It's fine if you want to lay on your bed and play Mozart as you drift off to sleep, but that doesn't tell me anything about Mozart that I can relate to. Only active listening (thinking as you listen) can be expressed in a way that means something to someone else.


----------



## bigshot

mmsbls said:


> I agree with your statement, but I was talking about something different. A larger sample will allow a model, _that tries to understand how people, in general, assess music_, to be more accurate. The result is not "which music is best" but rather "this is how people value music".


That tells us about people, but it doesn't say a lot about the music.


----------



## mmsbls

some guy said:


> (Aerodynamics is objective. Measurable phenomena in the physical world. Not at all equivalent to perceptions of music, which are not measurable or objective. Even less so for the "stated" part, which drags in all sorts of other subjective things--the desires to be accepted, to impress, to win arguments, to have what one values be accepted as valuable by other people, and so forth.)


Perceptions of music are currently not measurable. Stated preferences are measurable and are facts. I agree that stated preferences can disguise true preferences. I expect that perceptions of music may be measurable someday (not soon). Science has a _very_ long history of finding ways to measure and understand things that were believed unmeasurable or not understandable (even by scientists). If we are talking about the near future, people's perceptions of music will not be facts. In the far future I think they could be.


----------



## Philip

Have you guys ever read anything about art criticism, philosophy of art, reception theory... ? That might give you a hint, because right now this thread is going nowhere.


----------



## tdc

bigshot said:


> Appeal to Authority and Bandwagon Arguments are both common logical fallacies.
> 
> It's interesting how little people seem to know about this subject. I was lucky enough to run into a brilliant critical thinker when I was first starting out in the film business. In order to keep up with him, I had to run out and get a book on logic and bone up on how it works. It isn't necessarily an intuitive process.


Yet I fail to see how your guidelines would create anymore objectivity. Have you not just created another Appeal to Authority scenario, you've just changed the wording from 'scholars and experts' to 'critically thinking observers'?


----------



## bigshot

some guy said:


> There are people who acknowledge that art is about experience, about relationships, which are dynamic and mutable, changing and shifting from auditor to auditor and within each auditor from one experience to the next


It's interesting that you're putting all of the credit for art's value on the spectator, as if the act of listening is automatically creative. I don't believe that. I believe that the artist who creates the art is *communicating*. He makes conscious choices to express himself. Depending on how well he does this, the art may communicate his ideas to the audience. Those who think while perceiving stand a better chance of getting something out of the experience than someone who looks at it with dead fish eyes.

Art isn't something that magically appears and it's up to the viewers to make sense of it. The Mona Lisa didn't suddenly appear lying on the bed next to DaVinci one morning and he said, "Gee! Let's hang it on the wall and see what people think of it." DaVinci expressed an idea on canvas... an idea expressed though millions of conscious decisions about color and shade and form... Hopefully the idea gets across forcefully to the people viewing the painting, even viewers centuries in the future. That is the measure of greatness in art.


----------



## bigshot

tdc said:


> Have you not just created another Appeal to Authority scenario, you've just changed the wording from 'scholars and experts' to 'critically thinking observers'?


No, because critical thinking is a verb, not a noun... it's a process, not a person.


----------



## bigshot

mmsbls said:


> Perceptions of music are currently not measurable.


Not on a thermometer. But perceptions can be tested with logic.


----------



## bigshot

Philip said:


> Have you guys ever read anything about art criticism, philosophy of art, reception theory... ?


"Reception theory" and other 60s navel-gazing hippie concepts are exactly why art has declined so much in the past half century.


----------



## Philip

bigshot said:


> "Reception theory" and other 60s navel-gazing hippie concepts are exactly why art has declined so much in the past half century.


Just another useless comment in a useless thread on a useless topic.


----------



## PetrB

brianwalker said:


> Good music has structure.
> Good music has a tune you can hum.
> Good music has harmony.
> 
> We only know this because when we investigate the nature of the music we like, we find it afterwards that it has all of these things.




"...the nature of the music we like" - is wholly subjective, basically tossing those three points resoundingly in the trash can as far as logical argument goes. But they are valid musical qualities, so let's have a look at them more impartially...

1.) Good music has structure. 
Yes, even the contemporary music so many seem to dislike has structure.

Structured:
Guillaume Dufay ~




Jean Barraque ~ Piano Sonata





2.) Good music has a tune you can hum.
No, that is kindergarten simplistic and a matter of your personal taste. Pity that is, if once taught it, what you are now reflexively repeating.

The music in all the links I have posted have, by definition, a melody or a melody coming out of the texture. Feel free to record yourself humming the tune of each - in its entirety, and post it for us in a link -- If You Cannot hum any of them, that is not the fault of the composers nor a criterion by which anyone can absolutely state the pieces do not have a melody: your 'humming technique' and / or hearing are not at fault, but are merely 'not up to the task.'

3.) Good music has harmony.
Right again -- in a way -- except technically "harmony" exists when two or more discrete pitches are sounding. 
Your definition excludes all of monophonic Gregorian chant, for example.

"Harmonious" is subjective: by definition, atonal music and many other genres, including non-western musics: Antique Korean sacred choral music / Chinese Imperial court music / Polyphonic chant of African Pygmies... etc. are all 'Harmonious."

Here are two movements both famous for their beautiful and long-spun melodies. Try and hum either: unless you are a highly trained singer with a very wide vocal range, you will not be able to hum either in their entirety.
Bach ~ Italian Concerto, II - Largo




Barber ~ Piano Concerto, II - Canzone





Michael Gordon ~ Decasia (part 6)








or Harry Partch's 'Exordium'





all of the above have (good) structure, (good) harmony. and (good) melody. Without the further qualifications, your ABC's of the necessary elements for what makes music great could take us no further than "How Much Is That Doggy In The Window."




There ya go - Good music with structure, a tune you can hum, and harmony.


----------



## PetrB

bigshot said:


> No, because critical thinking is a verb, not a noun... it's a process, not a person.


The logic of critical thinking available to us in a verbal linguistic format cannot come close to approaching the wildly loose syntax of music. The flexibility of syntax available to music allows the possibility of a myriad of varied 'great truths' within that medium. That is light years beyond the 'legitimate' constructs available in the medium of any written verbal language.

Yet, other than another piece of music as comment upon music, language is all we've got to discuss the most abstract of the plastic arts.

Of course critical and objective' thinking are necessary to get anywhere in discussing the works from media where extreme subjective reactions and opinions exist. Rather than the 'hard logic' structures from language, the words 'discernment' and 'aesthetics' must enter the discussion: since they must be present to make any worthwhile assessment, that, de facto, immediately takes the entire discussion out of the realms of utter objectivity - if you are discussing any sort of art, utter objectivity is impossible - subjectivity will enter the argument.

I think it is a big mistake - and a common enough desire - to wholesale transfer a standard format of what mechanics are best used to prove something in the media of language, maths, and science to try and 'rate' music or the visual arts. It seems those who are primarily involved or inclined to those disciplines who are also attracted to art think their discipline should be able to account 'for all and everything.' The fault in that thinking might be more readily understood if music theorists started to apply all the technical procedures and written language of music theory to parse out the inexorable logic or greatness of written language, maths, and science. That done, the complete weakness of a syntax best suited to music would become clearly 'inadequate' to the task of defining "what is great verbal logic or critical reasoning in language or maths."

When discussing music, it is necessary to know from the musicians and the composers what 'their logic' is. If you interview the most methodical of those artists, I think a language, maths, or science oriented thinker would find there is still a maddening amount of intuition and what would appear to be 'arbitrary' choice going on in the process which makes and accounts for 'great music.' Much of the musicians thinking is 'non-verbal, and non-numeric' which instantly forms a chasm between music and the other three disciplines.

Music, too, is a process. [Fugue is a process, not a form or formula.] The fact music's syntax is so wildly flexible while it can still make 'great truths' should be a tip-off that the other disciplines have a logos inadequate to parsing out the logos of music, or what makes it great.

"The best comment on a piece of music is another piece of music." ~ Igor Stravinsky


----------



## PetrB

Huilunsoittaja said:


> A great composer knows the balance between how much they should stick to the rules, and when they can break one effectively.
> 
> As I've gone through study of theory currently at my college, something struck me a few weeks ago: how much theorists today can't explain certain musical phenomenon. For example, my theory teacher is absolutely adamant about 2nd inversion chords having no harmonic direction in and of themselves, that they are only passing and neighbor chords. Well, aren't there tons of composers that have used 2nd inversion chords which drew attention to themselves and not to other chords around them? Same with the cadential 6/4 chord, is that a chord by itself, or a chord with a bunch of suspensions? Plenty of real composers used the cadential 6/4 chord like a real chord all by itself, but theorists insist it's not a real chord. Huh. It goes to show that theory can't explain music fully, even to this day. Some teachers, including my own, also insist on petty things like I-IV-I isn't a real progression, and that one shouldn't even _compose _such a progression. Bah! If it's not real, why is it used? Just because it doesn't fit into the "Theory" doesn't mean it's obsolete. Even further more, it's not Theory that should _dictate _music, but music that should dictate Theory!


Theory is in textbooks after the fact of the composers from whose works the examples are taken. Often, if resurrected, they would not recognize the terminology now used to 'explain what they had done.' Theory is invaluable, is not a set of rules, but a set of tools.

Theory shows perhaps what a composer did, in a very clinical and incomplete way, at that. It does not explain fully, ever, Why the Composer did it, and In That Place -- or Why that makes the piece brilliant or interesting as music.


----------



## PetrB

bigshot said:


> Everyone who thinks about a subject critically and shares their discoveries with others.


So far, my take on a lot of what you've posted is more a matter of your prominently displaying / promoting to all that you are a great critical thinker vs. any genuine interest in solving the problem of how one can assess art well.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> No, because critical thinking is a verb, not a noun... it's a process, not a person.


Actually, "critical thinking" _is_ a noun.*

The process (another noun) is indeed not a person, but in your original phrase "critically thinking observers" the noun "observers" does mean persons.

And I do not put all the credit (I don't even think in such terms) for art's value on the spectator. Art's value is the result of the relationship, between the creator, the work of art, and the spectator. (Beauty resides neither in the object _nor_ in the "eye of the beholder" but in the dynamic relationship that occurs when spectating happens.)

This might be a rather passive relationship--your hot bath--or it might be a more active relationship--your thinking while listening--but both are relationships. That's what's missing in your reference to the artist "communicating," there's no message and no recipient. But for communication to take place, there has to be a sender AND a message AND a recipient. And the relationships between those three are in constant flux.

*Or more accurately a noun _phrase,_ the noun "thinking" modified by the adjective "critical."


----------



## bigshot

PetrB said:


> I think a language or maths oriented person would find there is still a maddening amount of intuition and what would appear to be 'arbitrary' choice going on in the process which makes and accounts for 'great music.' Much of the musicians thinking is 'non-verbal, and non-numeric' which instantly forms a chasm between music and the other two disciplines.


My friends are almost all artists and musicians. A few of them are truly great at what they do and are well known for it. The difference I've noticed between truly great artists and ones that are just good is that the great ones can clearly articulate what they are doing. They may be too impatient to stop and explain it to a layman, because their minds are working at lightning speed making decisions as they create. It can stall them to have to explain as they go, so they charge forward working it all out in their head. Eventually this gets so intuitive to them that it looks like they're acting on pure inspiration, but that isn't entirely true.

The ability to make the right decisions can be fickle. You'll find creative people at the top of their field will often suffer from depression or self doubt. They'll also go through dry spells where they aren't thinking at the top of their form. At these times, they'll either retreat to some formula they're comfortable with, or perhaps grind to a halt altogether.

Creative genius is a complex thing, but as much as the popular image of artists is one of resting on a velvet pillow waiting for the muse to inspire magic, that isn't at all the way it works. It involves hard work and concentrated thinking. It may not always be a logic that can be completely expressed in words, but it's logical nonetheless.


----------



## bigshot

PetrB said:


> So far, my take on a lot of what you've posted is more a matter of your prominently displaying / promoting to all that you are a great critical thinker vs. any genuine interest in solving the problem of how one can assess art well.


I'm not a great critical thinker, but I know a few and I aspire to be more like them. One of my primary interests is coming up with ways to develop creativity. It's my job in fact

I've found that sitting and waiting for a stroke of genius to come along never works. What works is to first acquire a mastery of the fundamentals, then study their application in other people's art. If you can get to that stage, what you've learned can be synthesized into creating something yourself. Even if you're at the top of your field, you still will make mistakes, but if you're analyzing as you go, you'll learn not to repeat them.

Of course, every jewel has a lot of different facets and there are a lot of different angles to approachong and understanding great art. The common denominator between all those angles is that they all require your brain to be on and humming.


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> I'm not a great critical thinker, but I know a few and I aspire to be more like them. One of my primary interests is coming up with ways to develop creativity. It's my job in fact
> 
> I've found that sitting and waiting for a stroke of genius to come along never works. What works is to first acquire a mastery of the fundamentals, then study their application in other people's art. If you can get to that stage, what you've learned can be synthesized into creating something yourself. Even if you're at the top of your field, you still will make mistakes, but if you're analyzing as you go, you'll learn not to repeat them.
> 
> Of course, every jewel has a lot of different facets and there are a lot of different angles to approachong and understanding great art. The common denominator between all those angles is that they all require your brain to be on and humming.


Your definition of Genius is subjective.


----------



## bigshot

It's based on experience working as a right hand man to geniuses.


----------



## Ukko

Looks like you, _bigshot_, and _PetrB_ are operating on separate, roughly parallel tracks (both of them a bit beyond my reach, but I'm used to that).

I wonder if it's worthwhile to consider, given _bigshot_'s description of the creative process, that the listener/viewer is not party to that process. Especially(?) in the case of instrumental music, what is communicated to the listener is not directly related to anything the composer thought about.

I recall from years ago listening to a Varese work before reading the notes, which quoted the composer on what he had in mind. Hah; nothing even vaguely resembling what I took away from my listening.

So...


----------



## Polednice

OK, there are a lot of new posts on this thread since the last time I looked that I am not going to read, partly because I think there have been repetitions of a great deal of material in new words, and partly because it makes me cringe to have to read through emotive retorts and thinly veiled personal insults. These, however, are my latest thoughts on the question since last night.

First, foremost, and most fundamentally, I think there are two very different approaches to this question which are vitally important to separate, as I get the feeling that people have been speaking at cross-purposes. Consider, then, two ways of assessing what is good about a piece of music:

1) The attributes of a piece that, in its historical and stylistic context, can be appraised in terms of their compositional skill. Beginning with the general assumption that innovation is praise-worthy, it follows that interesting uses of form, structure, melody, harmony _et. al._, when executed with its intended effects, can be said to be the hallmarks of a good piece and a good composer.

2) The attributes of a piece that stir in any given individual an array of feelings that lead them to appreciate the music.

Thus, when we talk about a "good" piece of music, or a "great" composer, we can _either_ be talking about technical, professional skill, or about aesthetics. In terms of objective evaluation, I believe that the latter is untouchable. You simply cannot state that any piece of music is aesthetically better than any other, as this is the sole domain of personal taste.

I am not, however, a complete relativist. I do not think that the merits of a piece of music are only to be found in an individual's reaction to them. For example, in my case, I find Bach utterly boring to listen to, but I nevertheless concede that he was a good composer - equally, it is possible to imagine a piece of music that is contextually lacking in inspiration which is nevertheless greatly enjoyable. So how do we reconcile subjective opinions with contrary assessments of value? Well it's all about distinguishing points 1 and 2 above - aesthetically, Bach may do nothing for me, but, _in its proper historical and stylistic context_, I recognise that his music towered with great skill.

Nevertheless, can any objective compositional values be laid out? We can say that Bach was a master of fugues, but are fugues an intrinsically good thing? I don't think there are any objective values here. All you have to do is think cross-stylistically, and you can make arguments for any of the constituents of the following contradictory pairs being virtuous: traditionalism/innovation; simple, hummable melodies/complex, erratic melodies; tight, well-developed structure/minimal, ambient structure; simple, pulsing rhythms/complex, interesting rhythms, and the list can go on. There are _no_ attributes that we can use as a standard _across_ pieces, composers, and styles.

The word "objective", then, is a complete red herring, and largely useless. There is still something to be salvaged though. _In context_, we can still say that a composer's music was definitively (compositionally) good. For example, when we speak of Mozart being a great composer, we should not make the mistake of thinking that his music is so transcendent that it is great in all possible contexts for eternity - if assessed under the subjective framework of country music, Mozart is appalling - however, coming to understand Mozart in his own historical and stylistic context, with the conventions, intentions and environment that we know him to have been a part of, we can nevertheless state that Mozart was indeed a brilliant composer, and we can state that as a fact, not as a subjective opinion. *We thus can assess the skill of any given piece of music regardless of personal taste, but we also have to accept that this is a historical, contextual, academic, analytical endeavour that has no bearing on aesthetic value*.

In brief, stay away from absolutes; don't think that any assessment is valid across all styles and times; always question the validity of comparing composers whose works are not very closely related; and, though it is important to reject the idea of objectivity in the arts, don't think that complete relativism is what must naturally follow.


----------



## PetrB

bigshot said:


> My friends are almost all artists and musicians. A few of them are truly great at what they do and are well known for it. The difference I've noticed between truly great artists and ones that are just good is that the great ones can clearly articulate what they are doing. They may be too impatient to stop and explain it to a layman, because their minds are working at lightning speed making decisions as they create. It can stall them to have to explain as they go, so they charge forward working it all out in their head. Eventually this gets so intuitive to them that it looks like they're acting on pure inspiration, but that isn't entirely true.
> 
> The ability to make the right decisions can be fickle. You'll find creative people at the top of their field will often suffer from depression or self doubt. They'll also go through dry spells where they aren't thinking at the top of their form. At these times, they'll either retreat to some formula they're comfortable with, or perhaps grind to a halt altogether.
> 
> Creative genius is a complex thing, but as much as the popular image of artists is one of resting on a velvet pillow waiting for the muse to inspire magic, that isn't at all the way it works. It involves hard work and concentrated thinking. It may not always be a logic that can be completely expressed in words, but it's logical nonetheless.


Well, thank Apollo that came out of you. You know then, too, that after a lifetime of involvement and all the training and its technical terminology, that 'logical language' falls short of the job you propose, so regularly one may as well say it fails consistently. You will recall those artists are great critical thinkers, at least within their medium. Often they are highly articulate about their medium and the aesthetics and other messier aspects of talking about it.

You know too, then. the majority of the time what is spoken by those articulate artists consistently borders on "Poetic Analogy," leaving the arena of 'logic in language' in another galaxy far, far, away. If you do know that, what is with the effort to get at the problem of naming the criteria to asses with the clinical logic of language alone?

That dreadful and sad list of 'structure, a melody you can hum, and harmony' -- the most egregious way too many are introduced to music, if at all, in the public schools in my country, is where that attempt can end up - though I am not suggesting anything that simple and reductionist would be anything you propose, the dynamic of 'where it could all go' using only the tools you propose is fraught with the real possibility of arriving at something similar.

The clearest language possible used when describing 'Aesthetic' is neither specific or logical, as seems to be the mode you hunger to apply to this problem. I'm repeating myself, but there is an inevitable chthonic messiness to making art, and that same anti-rational non-logical messiness comes into discussing the arts.


----------



## PetrB

Philip said:


> Have you guys ever read anything about art criticism, philosophy of art, reception theory... ? That might give you a hint, because right now this thread is going nowhere.


Well, you dare to make a distinction between the plebes, the dilettantes and the pros, and I commend you for your bravery.

If you look at the older thread proposing the assembling of Yet Another List of collected repertoire, the mentioned one specifically choral works, and then notice there are pages and pages of participants in a very long thread -- ala the town meeting -- where all are putting in their two cents on 'what they think might qualify as a choral piece, well... over that six or more pages not one member states 'a choral piece is ______' and 'an a cappella choral work is ____.'

That is forums.

Something very similar is going on here, I wholeheartedly agree. 80% about logic and the logic of language, the pretense to determine a set of criteria for determining if one artwork is better than another, or what makes it great. This, as you already know, with mountains of varied yet similar printed information readily available to all on the subject.


----------



## bigshot

PetrB said:


> You know too, then. the majority of the time what is spoken by those articulate artists consistently borders on "Poetic Analogy," leaving the arena of 'logic in language' in another galaxy far, far, away.


Oh no! You must have never met any really accomplished artists. They aren't what you see in movies, and they don't talk that flowery bullcrap that academics deal in. They speak about the nuts and bolts of technique, details of the piece they're working on, other artists that influence them, and the things in the world around them that they're drawing upon to create. It can be on a higher level than most people can follow because it requires the knowledge of all of the terminology and works they are referring to, but it's all VERY practical and down-to-earth stuff.

The job of a composer, painter, film director or designer is a job. It doesn't happen by itself. No one is born being a great artist. They have to work at becoming one. That requires analytical thinking about their artform and what they are doing. People who aren't in the field themselves believe the hype about the "magic of spontaneous creation" and the flowery academic buzzwords. But get in the studio with a working artist and you'll see what really goes on.


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> It's based on experience working as a right hand man to geniuses.


Circular reasoning...


----------



## bigshot

Hilltroll72 said:


> I wonder if it's worthwhile to consider, given _bigshot_'s description of the creative process, that the listener/viewer is not party to that process. Especially(?) in the case of instrumental music, what is communicated to the listener is not directly related to anything the composer thought about. I recall from years ago listening to a Varese work before reading the notes, which quoted the composer on what he had in mind. Hah; nothing even vaguely resembling what I took away from my listening.


I'm not one to speculate on what Varese thought. I can't make head nor tail out of a lot of his work. But I know that the artists I've worked with are very interested in what the audience for their works thinks. They have specific things that they are trying to get across and the audience doesn't always get it. In those cases, the artist generally licks his wounds and regroups himself to move on to the next thing resolved to not make the same mistake twice. The audience certainly has a part in the creation and consumption of art, it's just that they don't define the meaning of it.

One of my best friends is an independent film director. He made a movie over 40 years ago that spawned a riot at the premiere. The studio distributing it got cold feet and pulled distribution, afraid that there would be fist fights in the theaters. It changed the course of his whole career. He had to reinvent himself to continue to make movies. Now four decades later, people are rediscovering his film and hailing it as a unique and uncompromising work. In its day, the film was run out of town on a rail... now Quentin Tarantino and Spike Lee say it's genius. He's screened it all over the country at colleges and art theaters and young audiences love it. The interesting thing about it is that the film has stayed the same... only the audience has changed. The audience can have a huge effect on an artist and his work.


----------



## mmsbls

bigshot said:


> But I know that the artists I've worked with are very interested in what the audience for their works thinks. They have specific things that they are trying to get across and the audience doesn't always get it. In those cases, the artist generally licks his wounds and regroups himself to move on to the next thing resolved to not make the same mistake twice. The audience certainly has a part in the creation and consumption of art, it's just that they don't define the meaning of it.


Are the artists you work with composers or visual artists (or other)? If composers, I'm surprised that they would hope to be able to express specific things through their art. I've always thought that's close to impossible unless what you wish to express is rather vague.


----------



## Ukko

bigshot said:


> I'm not one to speculate on what Varese thought. I can't make head nor tail out of a lot of his work. But I know that the artists I've worked with are very interested in what the audience for their works thinks. They have specific things that they are trying to get across and the audience doesn't always get it. In those cases, the artist generally licks his wounds and regroups himself to move on to the next thing resolved to not make the same mistake twice. The audience certainly has a part in the creation and consumption of art, it's just that they don't define the meaning of it.


"they don't define the _meaning_ of it." (italics mine)

It's suddenly hard to believe we're on the same planet.


----------



## bigshot

mmsbls said:


> Are the artists you work with composers or visual artists (or other)? If composers, I'm surprised that they would hope to be able to express specific things through their art. I've always thought that's close to impossible unless what you wish to express is rather vague.


I have friends who are musicians, artists and filmmakers.

Vague isn't the right word... Vagueness is never good in art. Music conveys ideas that are more about feelings and universal concepts of humanity. Actually, all art does that, but pictures do it with images, books do it with words, and music does it with sound. But peel away the specifics of the medium and it's all the same underneath. Communication doesn't only take place with words.


----------



## bigshot

Hilltroll72 said:


> It's suddenly hard to believe we're on the same planet.


Welcome to Mars!


----------



## Polednice

bigshot said:


> Vague isn't the right word... Vagueness is never good in art. Music conveys ideas that are more about feelings and universal concepts of humanity. Actually, all art does that, but pictures do it with images, books do it with words, and music does it with sound. But peel away the specifics of the medium and it's all the same underneath. Communication doesn't only take place with words.


Of course not, but instrumental sounds are at least five-thousand-seven-hundred-and-fifty-six times less able than words to communicate ideas.


----------



## moody

bigshot said:


> Of course it's a lot easier to go through life saying "I like this" or "I don't like that" without having to back up your opinions. Critical thinking is a lot of work and you have to be open to having your opinions challenged. It's not a technique for intellectually lazy people or for people who speak entirely for their own benefit.


I'm surprised at you!
You should go though life saying that you like or dislike this or that. There is no reason on earth why you should have to justify your opinions, who to in any case? If you challenge my opinion I shall tell you to get lost. in the case of music I will listen to what i like and spend my money on what I like---I don't care about the opinions of others, why should I ?If I tell you I like Liszt are you going to tell me why I should not---intellectually I mean?This sounds like something from 1984, a nightmare world run by musical "intellectuals". No wonder classical music is losing support if some of the stuff on this thread is being forced down peoples throats.
Mind you, I am happy to explain to anyone why I like such and such.
In any case Nietsche said that there are no facts, only interpretations.


----------



## PetrB

tdc said:


> So according to some guy, John Williams music mimics some aspects of Romanticism yet is not Romantic, and it is safe, predictable and familiar. Yet, none of these things are value judgements in of themselves about the actual music. If a person values safe, predictable and familiar music, then John Williams might be just the composer for that individual. Are _dangerous_, _unpredictable_ and _unfamiliar_ traits that are generally considered to be more desirable in a musical piece? I'm not sure...maybe the ideal is somewhere in between? Maybe it depends on the person.
> 
> I wonder how much I should concern myself with such things if I find myself enjoying one of his pieces...


I think the question is better put: do you buy, to eat, the fish-like object which is made of ground-up bits of dozens of stale fish, with a less fresh or distinct flavor (and perhaps less nutritional value), or do you purchase the fresh whole fish? Back to the junk food / gourmand / gourmet analogy. That has nothing to do with dangerous or unpredictable - more to do with familiar and decidedly unadventurous.


----------



## chee_zee

the only objectivity is whether we know for sure the tune was made for art's sake vs for money.


----------



## brianwalker

violadude said:


> I randomly bang notes on the piano all the time and I love it. Banging notes on the piano can create some unexpected harmonies that are quite expressive at times
> 
> I can't help but wonder why guys like you and bigshot so often assume without a doubt that absolutely no one likes something that you don't like. Like I said, the human race and their brains, they way they think of things, are perhaps much more diverse than you think.


Uh, I don't assume that. I know the opposite is true. I don't hate popular music, I enjoy it to the same degree as other people (I listen to tons of pop music) but I can evaluate its relative merits.

*You confuse "dislike" with "not holding in the highest esteem."* For example, I don't "dislike" rap, I think it overrated (for example, there are people who seriously think that Tupac is on par with Beethoven). I listen to Eminem once in a lunar eclipse, maybe. I enjoy it to, and as much as they do even, but I enjoy other things more. I don't listen to country because in the small amount of time allotted for popular music, other things take up all of that space.

I've rocked out to Avril Lavigne and I still do. My scope is expansive, not narrow at all.

It's a question of superior and inferior taste. Simple as that; if you have perfect vision, you'll get tired of staring at the tree in front of you, and will gaze at the wonderful Alps and the vast, expansive sunset beyond the horizon. People with poor vision will never be able to behold (assume no glasses, aiding technology) the brilliance of the heights of Bavaria and the wonder of the glorious beyond. The tree has its humble splendor too, I don't deny that, but the things beyond are more wonderful to behold.

There's very little music I actively dislike, it's just a measure of varying merits. For example, I can enjoy metal even.

For *really really obscure pain-inducing music, * the people who love those things are simple deviants and fiends. I don't have to name them, you know what they are.

There are men who copulate with animals, and there are cannibals too and pedophiles who veer towards the low single digits, that doesn't mean that animals are beautiful in that way or that human flesh is good to eat or that their desire is valid. They're freaks and monsters.

Some men have perfect vision, some men have poor vision, and there are madmen that see phantasmagorical things.


----------



## chee_zee

I'mma have to disagree, you make it sound as if people who enjoy cage or sorabji are subhuman. I can honestly see why someone who has been listening and studying mewzach for years would enjoy that kind of music. in your eyes, listening to several hundred hours of scarlatti piano pieces is superhuman and listening to nancarrow is subhuman.


----------



## Guest

brianwalker said:


> For *really really obscure pain-inducing music, * the people who love those things are simple deviants and fiends.


Of course. If you cannot argue an idea, go for the people. Yeah. Discredit the people, and then you don't even have to deal with their ideas.

BTW, my friends and family, even the ones who do not like the same kinds of music I do, would be very surprised at hearing me referred to as a deviant and a fiend.

Well, OK, as a fiend, anyway.


----------



## brianwalker

chee_zee said:


> I'mma have to disagree, you make it sound as if people who enjoy cage or sorabji are subhuman. I can honestly see why someone who has been listening and studying mewzach for years would enjoy that kind of music. in your eyes, listening to several hundred hours of scarlatti piano pieces is superhuman and listening to nancarrow is subhuman.


They're blinded by political and aesthetic ideology.

Is Stalin subhuman? You know that he loved Mozart's Piano Concerto no. 20. Lenin loved the Appassionata so much he was often moved to tears just thinking about it.

In my eyes? And your eyes are judicious and tells you *the truth right? * Your eyes are better than my eyes?

*So what I'm saying is something that I project, and arbitrary assertion, but you're not projecting right? Because your eyes are the ultimate adjudicator?*

Who made *you* the judge of the universe?



some guy said:


> Of course. If you cannot argue an idea, go for the people. Yeah. Discredit the people, and then you don't even have to deal with their ideas.
> 
> BTW, my friends and family, even the ones who do not like the same kinds of music I do, would be very surprised at hearing me referred to as a deviant and a fiend.
> 
> Well, OK, as a fiend, anyway.


I never mentioned anyone.


----------



## bigshot

Polednice said:


> Of course not, but instrumental sounds are at least five-thousand-seven-hundred-and-fifty-six times less able than words to communicate ideas.


Not if you listen to good music. Bach and Beethoven and Django Reinhart and Louis Armstong were all quite eloquent at putting across ideas without words.


----------



## bigshot

moody said:


> I'm surprised at you!
> You should go though life saying that you like or dislike this or that. There is no reason on earth why you should have to justify your opinions, who to in any case? If you challenge my opinion I shall tell you to get lost. in the case of music I will listen to what i like and spend my money on what I like---I don't care about the opinions of others, why should I ?If I tell you I like Liszt are you going to tell me why I should not---intellectually I mean?


Anyone who says "I like what I like and I don't care why" shouldn't be hanging out in internet discussion forums!


----------



## Polednice

bigshot said:


> Not if you listen to good music. Bach and Beethoven and Django Reinhart and Louis Armstong were all quite eloquent at putting across ideas without words.


If you are seriously suggesting that a piece by Beethoven is _equally_ capable of transmitting ideas as a novel by Tolstoy, you are deluded.


----------



## chee_zee

when did I say I was supreme being? I simply said people who listen to sorabji aren't subhuman as your post implies. how does my post imply that I'm stating I'm God by pointing out the obvious logical fallacy of ad hominem that another user (right after me!) also pointed out? take a hit of dope and chill down dude, people who like a certain music doesn't make them super or subhuman, their actions toward others and their character determines that. I think you've shown on which side you lay today. mozart's music isn't evil and wicked and stupid nor is it necssarily for the evil and wicked and stupid, but it's not necessarily good, nor is it necessarily for the good and intelligent, neither is any other composer. even that 'jew-hater' wagner. 

logical fallacy has no place in a discussion of objectivity, I'm pointing out the obvious fact that sorabji and schoenberg enthusiasts aren't necessarily subhuman, you're committing a logical fallacy and throwing around your opinion as fact, attempting to twist words to make it seem like those in the know are committing that very fallacy in which you are guilty, rather juvenile, it didn't slip by any of the members here that much is crystal. I simply stated 'I'mma have to disagree". Your emboldings bear a clear tone of snarkiness, no one made ME the arbitrator of truth, I'm but one human that knows what ad hominem is good sir, I suggest you read up on the art of logic before continuing your time on the internet. 

to be clear, I wasn't giving an opinion, I was pointing out a logical fallacy in your argument/opinion as to why people who listen to 'noise/obscure' music (I'm assuming this means atonal, experimental stuff like schoenberg, sorabji, nancarrow, cage, reich, etc). it's not that my opinion is to be taken as fact and yours not, it's that your opinion had a clear logical fallacy and you decided to take on a demeanor of jerkarsery in retaliation for your public humiliation, I s'ppose I was specifically targeted by you in a quote simply because I managed to beat 'some guy' to the punch.


----------



## Guest

brianwalker said:


> They're blinded by political and aesthetic ideology.


And you're not?

(I know. Too easy. But somebody had ta ask it.)


----------



## bigshot

Polednice said:


> If you are seriously suggesting that a piece by Beethoven is _equally_ capable of transmitting ideas as a novel by Tolstoy, you are deluded.


Well, now it's my turn to say all things are equal! Music is capable of expressing ideas as profound as books, paintings, sculptures or dance. The fact that it's a non-verbal medium makes no difference.


----------



## chee_zee

not exactly, as polednice is into neuroscience I'm sure he'll be first (well second now) to tell you that, while music is almost like a language, there are a few key items missing so it can't quite convey the same things as images/symbols/letters/words/text, merely as a suggestive and personally unique tool, nor as efficiently. if two people were to read the sentence 'there is a red dog', there would be very very very very very similar interpretations between the two (or 2 billion people for that matter). If I were to play the beethy symph 5 motif to 20 billion people, you would at best get a generalized plethora of verbs like 'vigorous', 'driving', 'heavy' or 'loud'. how many would imagine seeing a big red dog chasing beethoven in his lsd induced nightmare? that's something that you need an author for, programmatic music was made for a reason, and only goes so far imo. if you were to listen to a tone poem without knowing say the title, or reading the program notes, I highly doubt you'd come up with something similar as the story the composer intended, besides hitting basic emotions like 'sad' or 'angry'.


what I do enjoy about music however, especially in an incidental setting such as rpgs and horror vidya games, is the atmosphere. specifically, ambivalence of emotions, indescribable, can't put it into words (at least I can't). If you could conjure that up, you'd be a hell of an author. (course it takes a hell of an orchestrator an composer to do so as well).


----------



## Polednice

bigshot said:


> Well, now it's my turn to say all things are equal! Music is capable of expressing ideas as profound as books, paintings, sculptures or dance. The fact that it's a non-verbal medium makes no difference.


I'm not talking about profundity, I'm talking about content.


----------



## bigshot

The fact that music isn't able to convey the same sorts of ideas as words doesn't mean that it doesn't convey ideas. The words "sad" or "angry" don't begin to describe the emotions in Tchaikovsky's Pathetique, so words can be inadequate too.

Again, this is something artists understand. I know a brilliant artist who once told me that I could pick any great drawing and show it to him and he could speak for two hours about all the things the artist was thinking as he drew it. But a non-artist would only be able to say, "That's a picture of a duck."


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> *The fact that music isn't able to convey the same sorts of ideas as words doesn't mean that it doesn't convey ideas.* Again, this is something artists understand. I know a brilliant artist who once told me that I could pick any great drawing and show it to him and he could speak for two hours about all the things the artist was thinking as he drew it. But a non-artist would only be able to say, "That's a picture of a duck."


Yes but what were saying is what those ideas are are up to interpretation.


----------



## Cnote11

I highly disagree with chee_zee saying that you'd only get back generalized *adjectives* to describe a music piece. Many people do set very vivid stories to the music they listen to. It may not have been the one the author intended, but music does conjure up stories and images, quite strongly for many I may add. This doesn't mean its an equivalent to language in conveying, especially on the behalf of the author, but atmosphere by itself can lead to associations with those sounds, leading to images associated with them, and thereby very strong vivid stories to accompany the music.


----------



## bigshot

violadude said:


> Yes but what were saying is what those ideas are are up to interpretation.


It's the same with words.


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> It's the same with words.


Wow. you're really stretching this aren't you bro.

Well if I say "I am on a warm sandy beach with a blue sky eating a ham and cheese sandwich on rye bread" do you think anyone would interpret that any differently than what it says?...


----------



## clavichorder

bigshot said:


> It's the same with words.


http://www.talkclassical.com/18359-possible-if-so-wouldnt.html

Maybe when I have my stroke of genius some day.


----------



## Polednice

bigshot said:


> Again, this is something artists understand. I know a brilliant artist who once told me that I could pick any great drawing and show it to him and he could speak for two hours about all the things the artist was thinking as he drew it. But a non-artist would only be able to say, "That's a picture of a duck."


I believe that is called [email protected]!ting. You have been duped because you're so starstruck by your genius friends. Anyone could speak for hours about what an artist _could_ have been thinking when creating a painting or a piece of music, but it can _never_ be as exact as when we talk about their intentions behind a piece of writing. I'm not being all or nothing as you seem to suggest - I'm not saying that music is utterly incapable of transmitting ideas - I'm just making the very obvious point that you're being rather hyperbolic in the amount of information you suggest music is capable of telling.

Take violadude's example sentence above - can you translate that into music? If in musical form, could it be reliably decoded by every listener?


----------



## moody

bigshot said:


> Anyone who says "I like what I like and I don't care why" shouldn't be hanging out in internet discussion forums!


You are right to this degree, I should not be part of this thread because it has descended into psychobabble in an effort to prove that yours is bigger than his.If this is what talking about music truly is then I don't want to know.
If a crowd of music teachers were taking part in some sort of conference fair enough, but it has nothing to do with normal music lovers. Note how few members have actually taken part in this thread so maybe I've got a point or maybe the people who have are the elite--the tone adopted rather suggests this.
Finally I don't know why I like what I like, because of the sound it makes I suppose----and that is what is important. I mean I like "My Boy Lollipop" of all things , should I analyse that ?
Also, with all due respect to you and the other clever d---s, it is up to the individual where they hang out on the internet--after all we've got all you geniuses (or is that genii) to put us right.


----------



## Ukko

moody said:


> Finally I don't know why I like what I like, because of the sound it makes I suppose----and that is what is important. I mean I like "My Boy Lollipop" of all things , should I analyse that ?
> Also, with all due respect to you and the other clever d---s, it is up to the individual where they hang out on the internet--after all we've got all you geniuses (or is that genii) to put us right.


You may be thinking of djin (djinni seems to be an alternative form). _Bigshot_'s notion of 'meaning' does seem to have come from a bottle.


----------



## violadude

I'll take another whack at this, but first I need to clear up what I mean by objectivity and subjectivity. For something to be _objectively_ good or bad it needs to be good or bad on its own terms, it needs to be intrinsically good or bad. As soon as you add a context, or frame of reference, to your description of goodness or badness you are automatically placing a level of subjectivity on those terms by which you can then define whatever you are describing as good or bad.

I don't think it is possible to say a composer is good or bad without putting a context on it. If you say that Beethoven was a great composer because he revolutionized music, you are describing the greatness of his music within the context of historical relevance. If you say Mahler was a great composer because his music is epic you are describing his greatness from whatever frame of reference you use to define and determine "epic." Let's even say that you figure that music which is harmonically interesting is great because of that. It may be true of classical music but it usually isn't true of say pop music, where interesting harmonies would most likely be perceived as strange and undesirable to those that listen to it. Therefore, you need to put it in a context that says harmonically interesting music is good within classical music but bad within pop music and so can be neither, objectively.

If something were intrinsically good or bad and we could define it as objective it would work like a law of nature. It would affect everybody in the same way, like gravity affects everyone (and everything) the same way. In the case of "good" or "bad", music with those intrinsic qualities would affect everyone either positively or negatively. If it doesn't then we would need to put the piece's goodness or badness within the context of anyone's perception of that piece. Since there is no known music (that I know of anyway) that affects everyone on earth positively or negatively we can only make the conclusion that there is at least some subjectivity in every possible judgement of any musical piece. Truckload earlier said John Williams was a great composer because his harmonies are effective. However, they aren't positively effective to everyone so we can only assume that there is a level of subjectivity involved in that judgement call.

I'm not sure if I can be much clearer than that.


----------



## Cnote11

Could you elaborate on that, violadude.


----------



## Cnote11

On the topic of aesthetics and quality of artworks, I would rather encourage active thinking about art instead of putting so much emphasis on ranking works. I have something to say about ranking works, but I'll save that for later. It is too beautiful outside to stay in here arguing about this!


----------



## Truckload

violadude said:


> I'll take another whack at this, but first I need to clear up what I mean by objectivity and subjectivity. For something to be _objectively_ good or bad it needs to be good or bad on its own terms, it needs to be intrinsically good or bad. As soon as you add a context, or frame of reference, to your description of goodness or badness you are automatically placing a level of subjectivity on those terms by which you can then define whatever you are describing as good or bad.
> 
> I don't think it is possible to say a composer is good or bad without putting a context on it. If you say that Beethoven was a great composer because he revolutionized music, you are describing the greatness of his music within the context of historical relevance. If you say Mahler was a great composer because his music is epic you are describing his greatness from whatever frame of reference you use to define and determine "epic." Let's even say that you figure that music which is harmonically interesting is great because of that. It may be true of classical music but it usually isn't true of say pop music, where interesting harmonies would most likely be perceived as strange and undesirable to those that listen to it. Therefore, you need to put it in a context that says harmonically interesting music is good within classical music but bad within pop music and so can be neither, objectively.
> 
> If something were intrinsically good or bad and we could define it as objective it would work like a law of nature. It would affect everybody in the same way, like gravity affects everyone (and everything) the same way. In the case of "good" or "bad", music with those intrinsic qualities would affect everyone either positively or negatively. If it doesn't then we would need to put the piece's goodness or badness within the context of anyone's perception of that piece. Since there is no known music (that I know of anyway) that affects everyone on earth positively or negatively we can only make the conclusion that there is at least some subjectivity in every possible judgement of any musical piece. Truckload earlier said John Williams was a great composer because his harmonies are effective. However, they aren't positively effective to everyone so we can only assume that there is a level of subjectivity involved in that judgement call.
> 
> I'm not sure if I can be much clearer than that.


Wow, we are actually getting a lot closer together is our views. Not entirely, but I find your basic reasoning makes perfect sense to me if I simply adjust my terminology to fit yours.


----------



## Truckload

Why not talk about orchestration, or use of instruments a bit. Every instrument has a physical limit to its range. Every instrument has different strengths and weaknesses. Every instrument has different sound qualities (timbre) in different parts of its range.

A regular flute, such as you will find in any highschool band, can not play a note 2 octaves below middle C. Can't do it. Impossible. A composer who writes such a note for that instrument has made a misstake. That is bad writing. And before you say that would never happen, I have graded plenty of papers from student composers who did write notes impossible for the instrument to play. Why put a note on the paper if it is not going to be possible to be played? Can we agree this is bad?

You will not find examples of this in published works, since anything that demonstrably bad is not going to get played or published. But sometimes we will find examples of missuse of instruments, or poor use of instruments, or less than ideal use of instruments.

Staying with the flute, the instrument has the ability to be very beautiful, and very penetrating, but will not penetrate in the low end of its range. If an orchestral passage has the primary melody or motif being carried by the flute in the low end of its range it better be a solo, because the flute sound will easily be covered up by the other instrument. Expecting the flute to carry the melody or motif alone, without doubling, in a tutti passage is bad writing. This is a misstake. 

Good writing for the flute makes use of its strong points. The flute can be very nimble, fast passages, leaps, trills, embellishments. The flute can also be a beautiful melody istrument in its best range and if not covered up by other instruments. (Many examples of both). Writing that makes effective use of the instrument by utilizing its strong points is good writing. It is not bad. It is better than bad writing.


----------



## Truckload

Effective in the above post refers to accomplishing the purposes of the composer, carrying the melody or adding embellishment, or producing a certain timbre.

As we build up our knowledge of instruments (or voices) we start to see other very specific musical factors that can be described as 'good' or 'bad' writing. A composition that has lots and lots of good orchestration features and no bad orchestration features will then be an example of "good" orchestration, and we can point to good orchestration as a factor (or a "context" if you prefer) to be considered in discerning the difference between mediocre works and great works.


----------



## bigshot

violadude said:


> Well if I say "I am on a warm sandy beach with a blue sky eating a ham and cheese sandwich on rye bread" do you think anyone would interpret that any differently than what it says?...


Did you intend for me to think you were naked?

Humor aside, visual arts are even better at conveying this sort of information than verbal ones. A painting of you on the beach would show me who you are, which beach you are lying on, the time of day and a million other pieces of information that would be difficult to express in words. But that doesn't mean visual art is more eloquent than words. It's just a part of the particular medium. Art is better at conveying certain types of information, words convey another kind, and music another kind still.


----------



## bigshot

Polednice said:


> I believe that is called [email protected]!ting. You have been duped because you're so starstruck by your genius friends.


i'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about and if you go down this road, you never will. I'll give you the respect of offering a clue.

Anyone can write and read. They teach us that in school. Artists learn *other* ways of communicating that have their own particular grammar, syntax and vocabulary. It's always easier to understand a language on a rudimentary level, but it's harder to speak it eloquently. Artists study the rules and techniques of their language the way we study spelling and penmanship. The difference between spoken language and art is that other than the tone of voice, a spoken language is totally indeciferable to a non-speaker. Music and the arts communicate on a rudimentary level to everyone. It's part of us as humans, like a mother tongue. But unless it's developed and trained, that understanding remains on a "baby talk" level. A great artist, whose profession it is to speak in their own artform, is probably the most developed and most trained individual in his particular area, and is able to speak about the ideas behind art better than any non-artist. This shouldn't be a surprise to you. Read Truffault's interviews with Hitchcock, or study Leonardo's sketchbooks where he is making notes for himself, or listen to Bernstein's Harvard lectures. There is a lot more there than you seem to realize.

I find it amazing that someone in a classical music forum would not realize this. I think you do realize it, but at this point you're more argumentative than you are communicative.


----------



## Argus

bigshot said:


> i'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about and if you go down this road, you never will. I'll give you the respect of offering a clue.
> 
> Anyone can write and read. They teach us that in school. Artists learn *other* ways of communicating that have their own particular grammar, syntax and vocabulary. It's always easier to understand a language on a rudimentary level, but it's harder to speak it eloquently. Artists study the rules and techniques of their language the way we study spelling and penmanship. The difference between spoken language and art is that other than the tone of voice, a spoken language is totally indeciferable to a non-speaker. Music and the arts communicate on a rudimentary level to everyone. It's part of us as humans, like a mother tongue. But unless it's developed and trained, that understanding remains on a "baby talk" level. A great artist, whose profession it is to speak in their own artform, is probably the most developed and most trained individual in his particular area, and is able to speak about the ideas behind art better than any non-artist. This shouldn't be a surprise to you. Read Truffault's interviews with Hitchcock, or study Leonardo's sketchbooks where he is making notes for himself, or listen to Bernstein's Harvard lectures. There is a lot more there than you seem to realize.
> 
> I find it amazing that someone in a classical music forum would not realize this. I think you do realize it, but at this point you're more argumentative than you are communicative.


You are a very good example of an indoctrinated person. To understand what the sensible people in this thread are saying, first you must become _tabula rasa_.


----------



## Truckload

bigshot said:


> i'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about and if you go down this road, you never will. I'll give you the respect of offering a clue.
> 
> Anyone can write and read. They teach us that in school. Artists learn *other* ways of communicating that have their own particular grammar, syntax and vocabulary. It's always easier to understand a language on a rudimentary level, but it's harder to speak it eloquently. Artists study the rules and techniques of their language the way we study spelling and penmanship. The difference between spoken language and art is that other than the tone of voice, a spoken language is totally indeciferable to a non-speaker. Music and the arts communicate on a rudimentary level to everyone. It's part of us as humans, like a mother tongue. But unless it's developed and trained, that understanding remains on a "baby talk" level. A great artist, whose profession it is to speak in their own artform, is probably the most developed and most trained individual in his particular area, and is able to speak about the ideas behind art better than any non-artist. This shouldn't be a surprise to you. Read Truffault's interviews with Hitchcock, or study Leonardo's sketchbooks where he is making notes for himself, or listen to Bernstein's Harvard lectures. There is a lot more there than you seem to realize.
> 
> I find it amazing that someone in a classical music forum would not realize this. I think you do realize it, but at this point you're more argumentative than you are communicative.


That was so well put. I think one problem is that music is such an abstract art that it is more difficult than most arts to verbalize about it without either being a) so specific that you totally turn off non-professionals or b) so general that people just see it as a matter of opinion.

I think composers have as hard a time as we are having here. Rimsky-Korsakov, in his book, one of the very best on orchestration, never really EXPLAINS very well. He just says in effect 'this is the way you do it'. Same thing in Tchaikovkys book on harmony, no real explanation just 'do it like this'. Or how about Copland's book? Not a textbook, and not intended for one, but he has a very difficult time, I think, expressing himself about his own compositions.


----------



## bigshot

moody said:


> Finally I don't know why I like what I like, because of the sound it makes I suppose----and that is what is important. I mean I like "My Boy Lollipop" of all things , should I analyse that ?


I have a friend who could write a book on dowop. He is a guitarist and it's his job to know the history of his medium.

It may be a difference in age. When you're 25 and you're just discovering the world, you soak everything up like a sponge without a lot of processing. That's a good thing. I did it myself when I was 25. After a decade or so, you start to see the lay of the land and that allows you to begin to organize what you've experienced on a rudimentary level. If you work alongside great artists, you're required to get to a very advanced level of organization very fast if you want to keep up.

That's been my experience. For the past 30 years, I've been living and breathing the visual arts, and music has been my "minor" so to speak. I'm always on the lookout for people with new ideas on the subject because it's my passion. I'm not here to compare lengths, I'm here to compare notes. Perhaps that isn't what most people come to an internet chat forum for.


----------



## Polednice

bigshot said:


> I find it amazing that someone in a classical music forum would not realize this. I think you do realize it, but at this point you're more argumentative than you are communicative.


How ironic.

As soon as you start talking about grammar, syntax and vocabulary outside written and spoken language, you immediately start getting caught up in _metaphor_ - not facts - and as everyone but you in this thread can tell, you're twisting yourself round in knots.

Here's a very simple way of putting it - the more universally comprehensible the "language" or medium of expression, the less complex information it can carry. The very reason why language is _in_comprehensible to non-natives is because the information contained within it is a great deal larger than in other forms of communication. Music is comprehensible to a greater number of people _precisely_ because it carries less information. To deny this is wilful ignorance in the face of common sense facts.


----------



## Truckload

Polednice said:


> How ironic.
> 
> As soon as you start talking about grammar, syntax and vocabulary outside written and spoken language, you immediately start getting caught up in _metaphor_ - not facts - and as everyone but you in this thread can tell, you're twisting yourself round in knots.
> 
> Here's a very simple way of putting it - the more universally comprehensible the "language" or medium of expression, the less complex information it can carry. The very reason why language is _in_comprehensible to non-natives is because the information contained within it is a great deal larger than in other forms of communication. Music is comprehensible to a greater number of people _precisely_ because it carries less information. To deny this is wilful ignorance in the face of common sense facts.


Well of course that is true. And that does not even include non-verbal messages such as tone, inflection, gestures, and postures. You both have great points, so why does there have to be acrimony?


----------



## bigshot

Truckload said:


> That was so well put. I think one problem is that music is such an abstract art that it is more difficult than most arts to verbalize about it without either being a) so specific that you totally turn off non-professionals or b) so general that people just see it as a matter of opinion.


That's probably quite true. I don't have a lot of experience talking with non-professionals about this. When I'm called upon to do that publicly, I usually smile a lot and speak in terms of generalities. The artists I know don't do that. They rarely break things down to a level the average person operates on. They'll go into an interview and just speak the same as they do to the artists that work under them. This usually makes people mad because they really don't understand what's being said. I guess sharing information without sugar coating it gives one the reputation of a troublemaker.


----------



## brianwalker

Polednice said:


> If you are seriously suggesting that a piece by Beethoven is _equally_ capable of transmitting ideas as a novel by Tolstoy, you are deluded.


Of course language is less ambiguous and has* greater capability in representational content,* but language is still ambiguous, it's not totally un-ambiguous.

Oftentimes poems are more ambiguous than music - a Yeats sonnet (there's lot of enigmatic poetry) vs. a low mass or a requiem, for example.

Scholars and poets alike are still bickering over the meaning of Hamlet.

when did I say I was supreme being? I simply said people who listen to sorabji aren't subhuman as your post implies. how does my post imply that I'm stating I'm God by pointing out the obvious logical fallacy of ad hominem that another user (right after me!) also pointed out? take a hit of dope and chill down *dude, people who like a certain music doesn't make them super or subhuman, their actions toward others and their character determines that.*
And this is separate how? 
For example, the crime rate of the attendants at Bayreuth vs. a Lil Wayne concert. Can there not be an inextricable connection?

I think you've shown on which side you lay today. mozart's music isn't evil and wicked and stupid nor is it necssarily for the evil and wicked and stupid, but it's not necessarily good, nor is it necessarily for the good and intelligent, neither is any other composer. even that 'jew-hater' wagner. 
Is anything necessarily anything? Hume; induction.

logical fallacy has no place in a discussion of objectivity, I'm pointing out the obvious fact that sorabji and schoenberg enthusiasts aren't necessarily subhuman, you're committing a logical fallacy and throwing around your opinion as fact, attempting to twist words to make it seem like those in the know are committing that very fallacy in which you are guilty, rather juvenile, it didn't slip by any of the members here that much is crystal. I simply stated 'I'mma have to disagree". Your emboldings bear a clear tone of snarkiness, no one made ME the arbitrator of truth, I'm but one human that knows what ad hominem is good sir, I suggest you read up on the art of logic before continuing your time on the internet. 
Good sir, who decides what's a logical fallacy? A book on logical fallacies?

to be clear, I wasn't giving an opinion, I was pointing out a logical fallacy in your argument/opinion as to why people who listen to 'noise/obscure' music (I'm assuming this means atonal, experimental stuff like schoenberg, sorabji, nancarrow, cage, reich, etc). it's not that my opinion is to be taken as fact and yours not, it's that your opinion had a clear logical fallacy and you decided to take on a demeanor of jerkarsery in retaliation for your public humiliation, I s'ppose I was specifically targeted by you in a quote simply because I managed to beat 'some guy' to the punch.
Again, this begs the question of what is a logical fallacy, or why logical fallacies get to adjudicate things, for many great thinkers have also made logical fallacies; read Nietzsche, he's full of them.


----------



## brianwalker

violadude said:


> I'll take another whack at this, but first I need to clear up what I mean by objectivity and subjectivity. For something to be _objectively_ good or bad it needs to be good or bad on its own terms, it needs to be intrinsically good or bad. As soon as you add a context, or frame of reference, to your description of goodness or badness you are automatically placing a level of subjectivity on those terms by which you can then define whatever you are describing as good or bad.
> 
> I don't think it is possible to say a composer is good or bad without putting a context on it. If you say that Beethoven was a great composer because he revolutionized music, you are describing the greatness of his music within the context of historical relevance. If you say Mahler was a great composer because his music is epic you are describing his greatness from whatever frame of reference you use to define and determine "epic." Let's even say that you figure that music which is harmonically interesting is great because of that. It may be true of classical music but it usually isn't true of say pop music, where interesting harmonies would most likely be perceived as strange and undesirable to those that listen to it. Therefore, you need to put it in a context that says harmonically interesting music is good within classical music but bad within pop music and so can be neither, objectively.
> 
> If something were intrinsically good or bad and we could define it as objective it would work like a law of nature. It would affect everybody in the same way, like gravity affects everyone (and everything) the same way. In the case of "good" or "bad", music with those intrinsic qualities would affect everyone either positively or negatively. If it doesn't then we would need to put the piece's goodness or badness within the context of anyone's perception of that piece. Since there is no known music (that I know of anyway) that* affects everyone on earth positively or negatively* we can only make the conclusion that there is at least some subjectivity in every possible judgement of any musical piece. Truckload earlier said John Williams was a great composer because his harmonies are effective. However, they aren't positively effective to everyone so we can only assume that there is a level of subjectivity involved in that judgement call.
> 
> I'm not sure if I can be much clearer than that.


*Is HIV objectively harmful? There are some people who are immune to it. 
*
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/ragon-paper-0506.html

HIV isn't harmful for everyone on this good earth.


----------



## bigshot

Polednice said:


> the more universally comprehensible the "language" or medium of expression, the less complex information it can carry.


That's quite true if you never take the language beyond the level of universal comprehension. But a Mahler symphony or a Bill Evans piano solo is operating on a level that a totally untrained ear won't even come close to comprehending. Any language, even inborn ones like music and art, don't become eloquent without study and understanding.

I don't play an instrument myself, other than plunking out a few cowboy chords on my Gibson. But I realize that those who do have an understanding of the language of music that I don't have... And those who are masters of their instrument and are able to take the next step into composition understand much, much more. That was my point in mentioning my artist friend who can discuss a drawing for two hours. I guarantee you not one second of that discussion would be fluff and nonsense. He is like a laser beam about his craft and artform and is able to put it into words... sometimes at a level that is difficult to understand if you're not on the same level as he is. I feel that way at times when I watch Bernstein's Harvard lectures. The Young People's Concerts are more my speed.


----------



## bigshot

Truckload said:


> I think composers have as hard a time as we are having here. Rimsky-Korsakov, in his book, one of the very best on orchestration, never really EXPLAINS very well. He just says in effect 'this is the way you do it'.


That probably has something to do with the format of the printed word, not necessarily the spoken word. Rimsky-Korsakov seemed to have gotten a great deal of information across to Stravinsky if the orchestration in Firebird is any indication.


----------



## Truckload

bigshot said:


> That probably has something to do with the format of the printed word, not necessarily the spoken word. Rimsky-Korsakov seemed to have gotten a great deal of information across to Stravinsky if the orchestration in Firebird is any indication.


It could be just trouble in the printed word. Or it might be that when the mind is functioning on a level like Rimsky-Korsakov, what seems obvious to him and needs no explanation, we lesser mortals may not even grasp dimly. At least in his book he gave us plenty of examples (always from his own works, he was not particularly humble) so with a lot of work one can often reason out some "whys".


----------



## Ukko

This could be considered an open letter to _Poley_. I'm hoping you don't mess with these guy's heads. What they have seems to me to be a fine thing; I suspect it feels good in the mind. They are probably not Masons, but they could be Rosicrucians.


----------



## violadude

brianwalker said:


> *Is HIV objectively harmful? There are some people who are immune to it.
> *
> http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/ragon-paper-0506.html
> 
> HIV isn't harmful for everyone on this good earth.


No, HIV is not totally objectively harmful. If it were it would harm everything it came in contact with, but it is only harmful within the context of our bodies. However, you could say that HIV is objectively harmful for humans that are not immune to it. I know it sounds like I am contradicting myself by putting that in context and then calling it objective, but it all depends on what you are describing as objective. You described AIDs as "harmful" which is not an objective statement because it needs a context to be true. I am describing AIDs as "harmful for those who are not immune" which is objectively true without a context. You could think of it like Algebra where "X" inside the parenthesis and "X" outside the parenthesis mean two totally different things.


----------



## brianwalker

violadude said:


> No, HIV is not totally objectively harmful. If it were it would harm everything it came in contact with, but it is only harmful within the context of our bodies. However, you could say that HIV is objectively harmful for humans that are not immune to it. I know it sounds like I am contradicting myself by putting that in context and then calling it objective,* but it all depends on what you are describing as objective.* You described AIDs as "harmful" which is not an objective statement because it needs a context to be true. I am describing AIDs as "harmful for those who are not immune" which is objectively true without a context. You could think of it like Algebra where "X" inside the parenthesis and "X" outside the parenthesis mean two totally different things.


1. Bold: OK then. 
2. Why is the requirement for good music more rigorous than that which sets the requirement for what constitutes a vicious disease? I mean my point is that your example of every person on earth liking/disliking something is totally ludicrous.

Yet it is arguable that Conrad would have gained both in credit and in popularity if he had written what he had to write without this incessant care for appearances. They block and impede and distract, his critics say, pointing to those famous passages which it is becoming the habit to lift from their context and exhibit among other cut flowers of English prose. He was self-conscious and stiff and ornate, they complain, and the sound of his own voice was dearer to him than the voice of humanity in its anguish. *The criticism is familiar, and as difficult to refute as the remarks of deaf people when Figaro is played. They see the orchestra; far off they hear a dismal scrape of sound; their own remarks are interrupted, and, very naturally, they conclude that the ends of life would be better served if instead of scraping Mozart those fifty fiddlers broke stones upon the road. That beauty teaches, that beauty is a disciplinarian, how are we to convince them, since her teaching is inseparable from the sound of her voice and to that they are deaf? *But read Conrad, not in birthday books but in the bulk, and he must be lost indeed to the meaning of words who does not hear in that rather stiff and sombre music, with its reserve, its pride, its vast and implacable integrity, how it is better to be good than bad, how loyalty is good and honesty and courage, though ostensibly Conrad is concerned merely to show us the beauty of a night at sea. But it is ill work dragging such intimations from their element. Dried in our little saucers, without the magic and mystery of language, they lose their power to excite and goad; they lose the drastic power which is a constant quality of Conrad's prose. 
-Virginia Woolf


----------



## violadude

brianwalker said:


> 1. Bold: OK then.
> 2. Why is the requirement for good music more rigorous than that which sets the requirement for what constitutes a vicious disease? *I mean my point is that your example of every person on earth liking/disliking something is totally ludicrous.
> *


Hey! That is my point as well  Which is why it is also ludicrous the idea that pieces can have intrinsic, objective "goodness" and "badness" to them.


----------



## chee_zee

reason decided logical fallacies mate, reason. you haven't studied logical fallacies? it's common sense stuff man hop to it. you really think the notes wagner put to paper are in and of themselves anti-jew and all those who listen and enjoy are also anti-jew? what if they don't speak german and have no idea what is being sung in the operas, what if they've never heard the wagner wrote an anti-semitic book? are they still anti-jew? no person or book decided logical fallacies, common sense reason and logic decide, just as 2+2=4, attacking someone for their character rather than their argument is wrong. people who listen to mozart are not necessarily this or that, people that listen to lil wayne are not either. to think otherwise is to be extremely bigoted, and that's another fallacy, impartiality (the stereotypical lil wayne listener is a bad crime committing person so lil wayne's music is also bad, the stereotypical mozart listener is a nerdy middle aged white male and is therefore good). 

as viola dude said, you need context. unfortunately the character of the stereotypical listener is an ad hominem and pointless contextual reference to judge the inherent goodness or badness of a work, which you cannot, it all comes down to context. a work might have good orchestration but stale harmony, is it a good work? or a bad one? what if it has all these things but the rhythms are iffy? what if the melodies aren't memorable? can't a work be good, perhaps amazing in some regards, but not quite there in others? is it only a good work if it's a 10/10 in all areas of analysis?


----------



## brianwalker

violadude said:


> Hey! That is my point as well  Which is why it is also ludicrous the idea that pieces can have intrinsic, objective "goodness" and "badness" to them.


That's my problem with your criticism; I don't think "Greatest" and other terms need have "intrinsic" meaning or stand up to the impossible standard of having anything "intrinsic".

I don't think anything can be said to be "intrinsically" anything, and that "intrinsic" in the way that you're using it is meaningless.


----------



## moody

bigshot said:


> That's probably quite true. I don't have a lot of experience talking with non-professionals about this. When I'm called upon to do that publicly, I usually smile a lot and speak in terms of generalities. The artists I know don't do that. They rarely break things down to a level the average person operates on. They'll go into an interview and just speak the same as they do to the artists that work under them. This usually makes people mad because they really don't understand what's being said. I guess sharing information without sugar coating it gives one the reputation of a troublemaker.


Well, well, at last you sound as if you might understand. I am certainly not a professional and have never pretended that I was. I have been going to concerts and listening to and talking about music for sixty five years and nobody has been as insulting as you. But I think you don't mean to be and are very enthusiastic but other people are not as up in the technical side (for want of a better expression) as you . Can you see that and except the fact?


----------



## Polednice

brianwalker said:


> Of course language is less ambiguous and has* greater capability in representational content,* but language is still ambiguous, it's not totally un-ambiguous.


This is indeed true, but it is neither a point against my argument, nor one in favour of bigshot's.



bigshot said:


> That's quite true if you never take the language beyond the level of universal comprehension. But a Mahler symphony or a Bill Evans piano solo is operating on a level that a totally untrained ear won't even come close to comprehending. Any language, even inborn ones like music and art, don't become eloquent without study and understanding.


Studying music reveals many things, but it never leads to an understanding that a theme once simply beautiful in fact contains _information_.



violadude said:


> No, HIV is not totally objectively harmful. If it were it would harm everything it came in contact with, but it is only harmful within the context of our bodies. However, you could say that HIV is objectively harmful for humans that are not immune to it. I know it sounds like I am contradicting myself by putting that in context and then calling it objective, but it all depends on what you are describing as objective. You described AIDs as "harmful" which is not an objective statement because it needs a context to be true. I am describing AIDs as "harmful for those who are not immune" which is objectively true without a context. You could think of it like Algebra where "X" inside the parenthesis and "X" outside the parenthesis mean two totally different things.


I think you are being a little inconsistent here, as I think the context "people who are not immune to HIV" is suitably analogous to the context "people who value originality", thus we could say that X piece is objectively good but only to those who value originality. I don't think this is something we should do, though, and I think the reason why the HIV idea is a bad example is because "harmfulness" is a subjective value judgement in the same way that "good" and "bad" are. How do you define what's harmful? Don't some things affect one person differently to another? Couldn't the same events in one person stir different emotions to different levels than in another? When we speak about objectivity, I think we have to avoid all emotion-laden words such as "good", "bad" and "harmful" and instead talk purely mechanistically. We can speak objectively about how HIV functions physically, but not about our perception of its effects. Similarly, we can speak objectively about the mechanics of a piece of music, but not about our perception of its value.


----------



## violadude

brianwalker said:


> That's my problem with your criticism; I don't think "Greatest" and other terms need have "intrinsic" meaning or stand up to the impossible standard of having anything "intrinsic".
> 
> I don't think anything can be said to be "intrinsically" anything, and that "intrinsic" in the way that you're using it is meaningless.


But...that's exactly what objective means in this context.


----------



## brianwalker

Polednice said:


> This is indeed true, but it is neither a point against my argument, nor one in favour of bigshot's.


Uh, OK? Why do I have to side with either him or you?


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> This is indeed true, but it is neither a point against my argument, nor one in favour of bigshot's.
> 
> Studying music reveals many things, but it never leads to an understanding that a theme once simply beautiful in fact contains _information_.
> 
> I think you are being a little inconsistent here, as I think the context "people who are not immune to HIV" is suitably analogous to the context "people who value originality", thus we could say that X piece is objectively good but only to those who value originality. I don't think this is something we should do, though, and I think the reason why the HIV idea is a bad example is because "harmfulness" is a subjective value judgement in the same way that "good" and "bad" are. How do you define what's harmful? Don't some things affect one person differently to another? Couldn't the same events in one person stir different emotions to different levels than in another? When we speak about objectivity, I think we have to avoid all emotion-laden words such as "good", "bad" and "harmful" and instead talk purely mechanistically. We can speak objectively about how HIV functions physically, but not about our perception of its effects. Similarly, we can speak objectively about the mechanics of a piece of music, but not about our perception of its value.


I agree with this but I don't think I am being inconsistent. I agree that you can state objectively that "piece A is good for those that value originality" as long as you establish that you are objectively stating that within the given parameters and not just in general, if that makes sense.


----------



## Polednice

brianwalker said:


> Uh, OK? Why do I have to side with either him or you?


You don't have to side with either us. I didn't realise you were being deliberately irrelevant to all the points on that question made so far.



violadude said:


> I agree with this but I don't think I am being inconsistent. I agree that you can state objectively that "piece A is good for those that value originality" as long as you establish that you are objectively stating that within the given parameters and not just in general, if that makes sense.


I know what you mean and I wouldn't necessarily disagree, I just think that the use of the word "objective" can be very misleading when used in such a way, as evidenced by the confusions in this this thread.


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> You don't have to side with either us. I didn't realise you were being deliberately irrelevant to all the points on that question made so far.
> 
> I know what you mean and I wouldn't necessarily disagree, I just think that the use of the word "objective" can be very misleading when used in such a way, as evidenced by the confusions in this this thread.


Yes it can be.That's why I chose to define it in the way I did so that we're all on the same page about what objective really means. Do you think there is a better definition than what I proposed? There could be. I don't pretend to know everything.


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> Yes it can be.That's why I chose to define it in the way I did so that we're all on the same page about what objective really means. Do you think there is a better definition than what I proposed? There could be. I don't pretend to know everything.


If we set out determined to use the word "objective", I would agree that your definition is the best one - the real task is making sure that everyone else agrees before we can start having a discussion about actual musical values!


----------



## bigshot

moody said:


> Well, well, at last you sound as if you might understand. I am certainly not a professional and have never pretended that I was. I have been going to concerts and listening to and talking about music for sixty five years and nobody has been as insulting as you. But I think you don't mean to be and are very enthusiastic but other people are not as up in the technical side (for want of a better expression) as you . Can you see that and except the fact?


The reason I'm here is to learn about things I don't know and I would like to know more about. I try to surround myself with people who know more about interesting things than I do. I'm not invested in always being right and I'm not threatened by people who can prove that I'm wrong about something. Critical thinking is the process I use to determine that. I don't believe I've been insulting. I'm just answering points. I'm not angry about anything. I'm enjoying myself in fact. Everyone else should as well, or they should find something to do that they enjoy more.


----------



## bigshot

Polednice said:


> Studying music reveals many things, but it never leads to an understanding that a theme once simply beautiful in fact contains _information_.


Mathematical equasions are non-verbal and abstract, yet they contain information, no? Mathematics can even be beautiful.

You seem to be defining "information" in terms of verbal information. Think of it in terms of complex emotions, patterns, atmospheres and relationships between objects or sounds in time and space, and you'll realize that there are lots of different ways to communicate ideas and lots of different kinds of ideas to express. Some ideas, like stories are best expressed in words. Other ideas, like architecture can only be expressed in three dimensional space. Musical ideas are expressed in sound and time. Bach's fugues, the Alhambra in Spain, the mosaics in Ravenna and Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo all contain information that isn't expressed in words. In fact, a great deal of the information contained in them is very difficult to express that way.

Sound, color, shapes, form, movement... All these are ways to communicate information that words can't adequately communicate. A writer is fluent in communicating ideas through words. A painter communicates ideas in shapes and color. A composer communicates ideas in sound and time... All of these are languages, and all of them are learned the same way... Through study of the medium's peculiar "grammar", practicing technique, and by analyzing the great works of other people working in the same medium. Critical thinking is a useful tool for accomplishing these things.


----------



## mmsbls

bigshot said:


> Music is capable of expressing ideas as profound as books, paintings, sculptures or dance. The fact that it's a non-verbal medium makes no difference.


I've been following this argument, and like others, I doubt this hypothesis. Could you give an example of a profound idea that a particular musical piece has expressed? The important thing here, for us, is that someone who knew nothing about the piece prior to hearing it would understand this idea.



bigshot said:


> Mathematical equasions are non-verbal and abstract, yet they contain information, no? Mathematics can even be beautiful.
> 
> You seem to be defining "information" in terms of verbal information. Think of it in terms of complex emotions, patterns, atmospheres and relationships between objects or sounds in time and space, and you'll realize that there are lots of different ways to communicate ideas and lots of different kinds of ideas to express.


Math is beautiful and equations do contain a lot of information. The _only_ reason they contain information is that mathematicians have painstakingly defined all the terms (including operators) in the equation. Without those definitions an equation is simply nonsense or meaningless. I'm not aware of any musician defining musical parts (notes, harmonies, rhythms, etc.) to mean anything specific. So when we hear music, we don't know how to interpret any of the parts (other than in a subjective way).

Again, please suggest and example of information that a musical piece imparts to listeners.


----------



## Polednice

bigshot said:


> Mathematical equasions are non-verbal and abstract, yet they contain information, no? Mathematics can even be beautiful.
> 
> You seem to be defining "information" in terms of verbal information. Think of it in terms of complex emotions, patterns, atmospheres and relationships between objects or sounds in time and space, and you'll realize that there are lots of different ways to communicate ideas and lots of different kinds of ideas to express. Some ideas, like stories are best expressed in words. Other ideas, like architecture can only be expressed in three dimensional space. Musical ideas are expressed in sound and time. Bach's fugues, the Alhambra in Spain, the mosaics in Ravenna and Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo all contain information that isn't expressed in words. In fact, a great deal of the information contained in them is very difficult to express that way.
> 
> Sound, color, shapes, form, movement... All these are ways to communicate information that words can't adequately communicate. A writer is fluent in communicating ideas through words. A painter communicates ideas in shapes and color. A composer communicates ideas in sound and time... All of these are languages, and all of them are learned the same way... Through study of the medium's peculiar "grammar", practicing technique, and by analyzing the great works of other people working in the same medium. Critical thinking is a useful tool for accomplishing these things.


I've had enough of this discussion. *leaves*


----------



## bigshot

mmsbls said:


> please suggest and example of information that a musical piece imparts to listeners.


I would have to sing it to you!

But if you'd like a peek at examples of eloquence in communication in non-verbal art forms, I would suggest...

Leonard Bernstein's program on Beethoven's 5th Symphony on the television program "Omnibus" which uses drafts for the iconic first movement to reconstruct Beethoven's thought process in creating it.

Bernstein on Omnibus
http://www.amazon.com/Leonard-Bernstein-Omnibus-Historic-Broadcasts/dp/B002OVB9Z8/

Bernstein's Young People's Concert "What Makes American Music American" which traces the history of American music, showing how the culture and vitality of America developed and was expressed in its music.

Bernstein's Young People's Concerts
http://www.amazon.com/Leonard-Bernstein-Peoples-Concerts-Philharmonic/dp/B0002S641O/

Another good DVD is "The Unknown Chaplin" which shows how Charlie Chaplin created movies purely visually without the use of scripts or dialogue.

Unknown Chaplin
http://www.amazon.com/Unknown-Chaplin-The-Master-Work/dp/B000BB14ZS/

Milt Gross's "novel without words" He Done Her Wrong is a brilliantly conceived and composed cartoon story without any dialogue.

He Done Her Wrong
http://www.amazon.com/Done-Her-Wrong-Milt-Gross/dp/1560976942/

Even more to the point, the documentary "Proteus" about the scientist/artist Ernst Haeckel who successfully merged science and art to eloquently depict the harmony and perfection of nature in detailed drawings of single celled animals called radiolarians. He published a picture book called "Art Forms In Nature" that belongs on everyone's bookshelf. It successfully ties together disparate life forms to show the relationships between life and function in nature... all with pictures.

Proteus
http://www.amazon.com/Proteus-Ernst-Haeckel/dp/B001B2U1B4/

Owen Jones's landmark study, "The Grammar of Ornament" provides examples of design and pattern from the entire history of civilization, linking pattern with culture and meaning.

The Grammar of Ornament
http://www.amazon.com/The-Grammar-Ornament-Owen-Jones/dp/1445566230/

Norman McLaren was a Canadian animator who did great things translating from music into visuals.

Norman McLaren Collector's Edition
http://www.amazon.com/Norman-McLaren-The-Collectors-Edition/dp/B0000AOV4F/

Zbigniew Rybczynski is another fantastic animator who works with time to put across very complex ideas. In particular, his film "Orchestra" is fascinating in the way it shows how time, rhythm, repetition and variation work within music to create an overall context.

ZBIG Films
http://www.zbigvision.com/ (click on DVD Sales)

I'd also suggest the suite at the end of "American In Paris" with Gene Kelly and Leslie Caron for a brilliant visualization of Gershwin.

American In Paris
http://www.amazon.com/American-Paris-Blu-ray-Gene-Kelly/dp/B0018KGVA4/

There's a nice little crash course in non-verbal communication for you!


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> I would have to sing it to you!


Why can't you give an example of a piece and say what information that the piece conveys?


----------



## Guest

The piece cannot have any words, either. Nor can you supply a program (which is also made up of words).

Just the music itself.

(So no singing is what I'm saying.)


----------



## Polednice

And/or tell me how to translate "the sun has got his hat on" into musical notation, and I'll do a strip tease.


----------



## clavichorder

Polednice said:


> And/or tell me how to translate "the sun has got his hat on" into musical notation, and I'll do a strip tease.


It will take me a few decades to develope my twelve tone pitch based language system spoken with keyboard and tonal vocals, and then I'll get back to you.


----------



## bigshot

some guy said:


> The piece cannot have any words, either. Nor can you supply a program (which is also made up of words). Just the music itself. (So no singing is what I'm saying.)


Well here is a piece that has singing... but it's in French and at least I don't understand it. But I perfectly understand the music and visuals. They tell the history of culture in Canada, comment on the role of art in society, the relationship between nature and man, encroachment of commercial development, the indomitable nature of the human spirit, nostalgia for things that are long gone, the value of a close knit community, and the way the past informs and affects the present. That's an awful lot of meat for several books, but here it's eloquently put across by one single artists sequential drawings in 15 minutes.

Frederic Back "Crac!"










Here is a film by Norman McLaren called "Begone Dull Care" which translates sound into images. It is jam packed with ideas... not verbal ideas, but ideas about rhythm, about the shapes of sounds, about color and its relationship to mood, about design and pattern, about time and space... You could write a series of books as big as the Encyclopedia Brittanica and not adequately describe what is going on in this film.











Wow. It's hard to find copies of this film with the proper soundtrack that embeds. This one should do the trick... But YouTube doesn't do this one justice. You really need to see it on a screen to fully appreciate it.

An interesting note is that both these films were created entirely by individual artists. "Crac!" was drawn frame by frame in colored pencil on frosted cels, and "Begone Dull Care" was painted directly on the film stock using Doctor Martin's Dyes. McLaren even experimented in *drawing music*... creating patterns in ink on cards that were photographed and played back through the optical soundtrack reader on a projector.


----------



## bigshot

Polednice said:


> And/or tell me how to translate "the sun has got his hat on" into musical notation, and I'll do a strip tease.


And I'd like you to describe The Pieta in words that express the ideas in it as eloquently as Michaelangelo expresses it in stone!

I thought you left... that didn't last long!


----------



## violadude

clavichorder said:


> It will take me a few decades to develope my twelve tone pitch based language system spoken with keyboard and tonal vocals, and then I'll get back to you.


Wow clavi, you are very eager to get that strip tease


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> Well here is a piece that has singing... but it's in French and at least I don't understand it. But I perfectly understand the music and visuals. They tell the history of culture in Canada, comment on the role of art in society, encroachment of commercial development, the indomitable nature of the human spirit, nostalgia for things that are long gone, the value of a close knit community, and the way the past informs and affects the present. That's an awful lot of meat for several books, but here it's eloquently put across by one single artists sequential drawings in less than ten minutes.
> 
> Frederic Back "Crac!"


*bangs head against the wall* but you were lead to that conclusion by the music AND the visuals. We're talking about being able to interpret a clear "meaning" of a piece just from the music.


----------



## bigshot

violadude said:


> *bangs head against the wall* but you were lead to that conclusion by the music AND the visuals. We're talking about being able to interpret a clear "meaning" of a piece just from the music.


I'm sure you have a million examples of that in your CD collection. Listen to a Beethoven symphony or Tchaikovsky's Pathetique or some Bach fugues or Stravinsky's Rite of Spring... If they don't communicate the ideas the composer was intending to communicate to you, you aren't listening.

There are ideas that words express best, and different ideas that pictures convey more effectively. Music conveys an entirely different kind of idea. The most interesting thing is when words and music and pictures communicate with each other. That's my specialty.


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> I'm sure you have a million examples of that in your CD collection. Listen to a Beethoven symphony or Tchaikovsky's Pathetique or some Bach fugues or Stravinsky's Rite of Spring... If they don't communicate the ideas the composer was intending to communicate to you, you aren't listening.


Well none of us are saying that a Tchaikovsky or Beethoven symphonies can't communicate ideas. What we're saying is that words can be used in a way that offers no room for interpretation about what the meaning of the words are, music cannot.


----------



## chee_zee

I remember reading about how beethy's 9th is about the creation and evolution of the universe, after having heard it countless times. I had no idea, it seems I missed the entire point. It was very obvious afterward that the intro that sounds like tuning would indeed be the manifestation of all things from the ether, but how the flerp would I have guessed that in a million years? I was deliberately listening to this work every day for several weeks too, so don't tell me I wasn't listening when I could sing any note from any page from memory.


----------



## bigshot

Punctuation is even more important than words. An English professor asked his students to punctuate the sentence...

a woman without her man is nothing

All the men in the class punctuated it like this...

A woman, without her man, is nothing.

All of the women in the class punctuated it...

A woman, without her, man is nothing.


----------



## Ukko

bigshot said:


> I'm sure you have a million examples of that in your CD collection. Listen to a Beethoven symphony or Tchaikovsky's Pathetique or some Bach fugues or Stravinsky's Rite of Spring... If they don't communicate the ideas the composer was intending to communicate to you, you aren't listening.
> [...]


Aha! _bigshot_ has provided the significant clue. We have been talking about conveying specific information, he has been talking about _meaning_. 'Meaning' is a much more general term. Tchaikovsky's 6th symphony has meaning, but conveys no specific information.

:clap:


----------



## Truckload

I absolutely adored the Back film and music. Thank you so much for sharing that "bigshot". I really wish we could just express our ideas and learn from each other without all the anger, hurt feelings, and the egos. Why must A be proven right and B be proven wrong? What difference does it make who is right and who is wrong?

We just have something remarkable like this Back posted, and the argument just starts up again. At this point I dont even care about the original OP any more. My entire point was to have fun learning from each other, sharing ideas and enjoying great music together. All of this fighting over nothing ruins everything.


----------



## mmsbls

bigshot said:


> I'm sure you have a million examples of that in your CD collection. Listen to a Beethoven symphony or Tchaikovsky's Pathetique or some Bach fugues or Stravinsky's Rite of Spring... If they don't communicate the ideas the composer was intending to communicate to you, you aren't listening.


The ideal test would be to select say 10 people such as yourself who believe they can understand the ideas music conveys. Then each of you would listen to say parts of 5 works that none of you have heard or read anything about. You would each separately write down what you think the music is saying without any contact with the others. The ideas would have to rather specific (i.e. not generalities such as "beauty", "chaos", etc.). All the descriptions would be compared to see if they were essentially identical not just vaguely similar. Actually the test would have to be better controlled than that, but I would love to see just that part.

But I think most of us would just like to get a basic flavor of what types of statements or ideas you think music can convey. Could you pick a few minutes (or any length you wish) of any particular piece and tell us what it is saying? I'll even specifically suggest the first 2 minutes of the first movement of Beethoven's 8th symphony. Could you just tell us what that 2 minutes of music is saying? I have never read something about that symphony so I have no preconceived notions of what it might be saying.


----------



## bigshot

Hilltroll72 said:


> Aha! _bigshot_ has provided the significant clue. We have been talking about conveying specific information, he has been talking about _meaning_. 'Meaning' is a much more general term. Tchaikovsky's 6th symphony has meaning, but conveys no specific information.


Not only meaning, but _information specific to the medium..._ there are reasons a composer puts one note next to another or uses a specific type of harmony or rhythm. The structure of Bach's fugues are information, just like the repeating patterns in the dome at the Alhambra. Painters convey information by the juxtaposition of warm and cool colors or complementary shapes in a composition. Filmmakers chop up time to create a purely cinematic continuity. Architects convey information through the use of space. Sculptors convey information in their forms. These are languages, just as eloquent at conveying the type of information they convey as words are at conveying the kind of information words are designed to convey.

A Beethoven symphony eloquently conveys much more information to me than a whole stack of Steven King novels.


----------



## bigshot

mmsbls said:


> The ideal test would be to select say 10 people such as yourself who believe they can understand the ideas music conveys.


I have to point out that I am not a musician or composer myself, so I am only fluent in music in the most rudimentary manner. In order to translate music into words (as best as you possibly can) you need to be fluent in both. I would direct you to the Bernstein talk on Beethoven's 5th first movement on Omnibus I linked to. He does exactly what you're talking about. He breaks the music down bar by bar and explains exactly what Beethoven was doing when he wrote it. It's fascinating to listen to Bernstein explain the role of variation within the context of the simple statement, and break down the orchestration to show how each voice in the orchestra contributes its own take on the music.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Punctuation is even more important than words.


Well, that's a bit of a stretch. Punctuation can certainly change the meaning of a whole string of words.

Grammar's yer main man, though. You know, things like nouns. And verbs.:lol:

But more important? If the words weren't there in the first place, in a grammatical sequence, then you'd have this: , , .

Everything works together.

And ya oughta give up that conveying information idea. That just muddies the waters. Music means, sure, but it doesn't convey information. At least not the music you've chosen. From what I know, probably soundscape comes the closest to conveying what could, at a stretch, be called "information."


----------



## Guest

Truckload said:


> I really wish we could just express our ideas and learn from each other without all the anger, hurt feelings, and the egos. Why must A be proven right and B be proven wrong? What difference does it make who is right and who is wrong?


I blame you for this, actually. All those empty assertions and veiled values and things that were just wrong.* Of course that's gonna get people worked up, as it did.

"No! You're wrong!!" we were saying. And then some other people shot back with "You don't know what you're talking about."

And so it goes.

*"diversity of output is an objectively positive factor and one of the marks of a truly Great Composer."

To this, all one has to put up is a truly mediocre** composer who wrote in all forms. Or put up a truly great composer who only wrote in some. (This latter was done in the course of this thread.)

"interesting harmony and melody." Harmony and melody are categories that have objective characteristics. But putting "interesting" in there changes the game. Now you're just cheating. "Interesting" is a word from the subjective side of things. Like "great" and "good" and "bad" and so forth. These are judgments, not facts. They're two different things. Slipping "interesting" in there makes the pretence that they're not different.

"And I suppose a consensus of subjective judgements becomes an objective fact in itself." Stack up a bunch of subjective judgments as high as ever you like, and all you have is a big pile of subjective judgments. Judgments don't turn into facts like magic any more than lead turns into gold. Verbal sleights to conversation are as alchemy to chemistry. And even this "It is an objective fact that a consensus of music lovers think Beethoven is great" is not quite accurate ("a majority of music lovers will report that they think Beethoven is great" is the closest you can get to "fact" on this one); but it's not its accuracy but its pertinence to the previous remark that's important. Saying that a majority of music lovers think Beethoven is great is not at all the same thing as finding qualities in the music itself that make it great. (Once you let the listeners in, you're in subjective territory. Now, I think that's great. In fact, that's been my point all along. But it's not objective fact. Why, to ask this again since it was never answered, do you need Beethoven's greatness to be a demonstrable fact?)

No, you said some really aggravating and even intellectually dishonest things in the course of those few opening posts. I'm not at all surprised at the level of aggravation and outrage those things have engendered. (This was what really got my blood boiling: "Some believe there are no objective standards, that all music is of equal value and all opinions about music are of equal value." No, these things do not all go together. I don't "believe" that there are objective standards for the arts, because "standards" in the arts are value judgments, not facts. I do not think all music of equal value, and I most definitely don't think that all opinions about music (or about anything else) are of equal value. Many of the ones on this thread have been terminally putrid, I think!

**And also no, I do not think that there are any categories of "mediocre composers" and "great composers." There are composers who connect with large numbers of people (or who have been well-served by self-serving publicity machines) and there are composers who connect with only small numbers of people. There are composers who connect with people who are knowledgable about music and experienced with a variety of types of music, and there are composers who connect with people who know very little about music except that they know what they like.

All of these categories are fine.


----------



## Truckload

some guy - I have been trying to avoid responding to your posts since you seem to have such a closed mind. The key phrase above was: "This was what really got my blood boiling". If that is the response to an idea that challenges your preconceived assumptions, then obviously there is a problem and it is not with me.

I do not agree with any of your statements about my posts or my ideas. Did you read my post about orchestration? I tried to boil down the concepts to a very simplistic basic level in that post in order to try to promote some sort of mutual understanding. But it seems that specifics are not really the issue here. You do not even agree that there is a difference between the mediocre and the great. If I adopted your philosophical viewpoint specifics would also be irrelevent to me. 

I am not going to debate every item in your post, as that would simply be to continue the bickering. I would like to address one point you made because it is very important. You asked "why do I need Beethoven's greatness to be a demonstrable fact?'

I do not "need" it to be a demonstrable fact. I believe it already "is" a demonstrable fact based upon a large number of "criteria". Or I would say, objective qualities, about the elements of music such as melody, harmony, orchestration, form and originality. I realize that you do not agree with me. And if we can not agree on the most basic factual information, or even the very concept that it is possible through hard work and study to understand what makes a great composition great, what good does it do to discuss the merits of various approaches to a perfect cadence, or the use of different types of extensions to a melodic phrase, or any other of hundreds of the little nuances that go into making a great piece of music? 

Anyone who wants to understand more about art music can improve their knowledge and understanding by studying the elements of music as applied by the great composers. The benefit is not to Beethoven in this process, the benefit is to the student of the art that seeks enlightenment. That is really an important concept. The beneficiary of judging is the one who strives to judge objectively. Because to examine, consider, analyze, and judge the details increases our understanding, our knowledge and our discernment.

This process of comparing and contrasting (judging) in order to gain knowledge is used every day in every field of study. It is not something I just dreamed up in my basement like some sort of mad scientist. Of course, this presupposes that one "values" or "judges" wisdom and knowledge to be objectively better than ignorance. I am not saying that you are ignorant. For all I know you are a very wise and knowledgable person. I am saying the process of valueing and judging is a process that is recognized in all fields of study as a process that leads to knowledge and wisdom. I take no credit for being the source of any of these ideas.


----------



## bigshot

Not too many artists or musicians in this thread it seems. I guess I'm unintentionally talking over some heads. Oh well. Sometimes we learn things whether we allow ourselves to admit it or not. I actually doubt that even the folks who deny music communicates actually don't get anything out of great music. I think that they're just avoiding critical analysis because some of their pet music wouldn't hold up well to it.

I do recommend Bernstein's lectures though. It's a great insight into the act of composition and the analytical thought process of a composer. You realize the thought that goes into building a symphony.


----------



## Polednice

bigshot said:


> Not too many artists or musicians in this thread it seems. I guess I'm unintentionally talking over some heads.


Yeah, we're all too uninformed to acknowledge your special wisdom.



bigshot said:


> I actually doubt that even the folks who deny music communicates actually don't get anything out of great music.


Not one person on this thread has denied that music communicates. The discussion has been about what and how it communicates, and your retorts have been blunt assertions clouded with fluffy, vague metaphors.


----------



## Truckload

bigshot said:


> Not too many artists or musicians in this thread it seems. I guess I'm unintentionally talking over some heads. Oh well. Sometimes we learn things whether we allow ourselves to admit it or not. I actually doubt that even the folks who deny music communicates actually don't get anything out of great music. I think that they're just avoiding critical analysis because some of their pet music wouldn't hold up well to it.
> 
> I do recommend Bernstein's lectures though. It's a great insight into the act of composition and the analytical thought process of a composer. You realize the thought that goes into building a symphony.


I was hoping someone else would say it instead of me. Your conclusion about avoiding critical analysis deliberately for the reason you cited rings true to me. Part of it is of course the general trend towards relativism in our culture.

I am afraid that general laziness might also be a factor. It takes a lot of time, study and hard work to get beneath the surface and truly understand the details. I don't want to say any specific person is lazy, just that for some who refuse to acknowledge the validity of critical analysis laziness could be a factor.

The best thing for me that has come out of this thread is reading your posts. You are remarkedly adept at expressing intangible ideas. I also really appreciate the examples you have given and the links you have posted. The Back really did bring a tear to my eye. I am also in complete agreement with you about Bernstein and his lectures.

As a young man, Berstiein's lectures were one of the driving forces that motivated me to want to understand "beneath the surface". I am glad you kept pointing to them. For anyone who truly desires more understanding about music, his lectures should both satisfy and encourage futher study.


----------



## violadude

Has anyone ever heard the expression "they like the smell of their own farts?" I think it's appropriate here.


----------



## Truckload

violadude said:


> Has anyone ever heard the expression "they like the smell of their own farts?" I think it's appropriate here.


This post is far more revealing about you than anyone else.


----------



## violadude

Truckload said:


> This post is far more revealing about you than anyone else.


Take it however you want it man...


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> Has anyone ever heard the expression "they like the smell of their own farts?" I think it's appropriate here.


Hahahahahaha, that was magical. You've brightened my day!


----------



## Art Rock

For one surreal moment I had the feeling that Robert Newman had returned under two different names, and talking to himself.


----------



## bigshot

violadude said:


> Has anyone ever heard the expression "they like the smell of their own farts?" I think it's appropriate here.


You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?


----------



## Ukko

Well done, _bigshot_. My cage has some cracked welds that were OK before you started this thread.


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?


Apparently, neither are you.


----------



## bigshot

Polednice said:


> Not one person on this thread has denied that music communicates. The discussion has been about what and how it communicates, and your retorts have been blunt assertions clouded with fluffy, vague metaphors.


I've repeated several times that artistic mediums all have their own sorts of grammar and communicate different types of information. I've given you plenty of specific examples, and have referred you to DVDs and books that you can Netflix or get at your local public library. If it sounds vague and fluffy, it's because you just don't understand what I'm saying. Whether from the stubbornness of feeling that you have to "win" each and every argument at any cost, or because you are intellectually incapable of understanding issues of aesthetics, the end result is the same. i can't help you. You need to help yourself.

I feel sorry for people who are so wrapped up in their own ego and point of view that they can't abide anyone who might have a different view with more knowledge and experience backing it up. People like that will never be able to learn and grow until they develop the tools for discussing things on point without flying off into fits of anger and and hominem attacks.

Feel free to get mad and head for the door again.


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> I feel sorry for people who are so wrapped up in their own ego and point of view that they can't abide anyone who might have a different view with more knowledge and experience backing it up. People like that will never be able to learn and grow until they develop the tools for discussing things on point without flying off into fits of anger and and hominem attacks.


How ironic.


----------



## Polednice

bigshot said:


> I've repeated several times that artistic mediums all have their own sorts of grammar and communicate different types of information. I've given you plenty of specific examples, and have referred you to DVDs and books that you can Netflix or get at your local public library. If it sounds vague and fluffy, it's because you just don't understand what I'm saying.


No, it's because you don't have a thoroughly reasoned basis to be making the claims you're making. You talk about "sorts of grammar" - well that's fluffy vague metaphor; it doesn't mean anything. Music does _not_ have grammar, and nor does visual art. We learn nothing by calling it "sort of grammar" or "sort of syntax" or "sort of semantics". These are all meaningless metaphors which you trot out to serve your initial bias that these substantiate a certain form of communication, but they don't. They're completely vapid assertions.


----------



## bigshot

Hilltroll72 said:


> Well done, _bigshot_. My cage has some cracked welds that were OK before you started this thread.


You get a smile and a snappy salute!


----------



## bigshot

Polednice said:


> Music does _not_ have grammar, and nor does visual art.


They certainly do. There is grammar in chord progressions, structure of symphonies and movements, harmony and counterpoint. Grammar is the "proper order" of elements in a work... And just like a sentence needs a subject and a predicate, a melody needs to resolve itself at the end of a phrase. Just try to hum Pop Goes the Weasel without the last bar. It's impossible to do. Your mind fills it in to resolve the musical statement. Human minds crave order. That's why we create grammar for our mediums of communication.

Visual arts have "proper order" too. There are rules to composition that require balance, colors are applied contrasting light against dark and warm against cool, shapes work against each other in complementary ways.

In all mediums of communication, information is put across with a grammar. The way the grammar is applied makes the difference between a copywriter for laxitive commercials and William Shakespere, or the artist who paints shop windows at Chrstmastime and Pablo Picasso. The application of the rules is more important than the rules themselves... Often more important than the specific information being put across. That's "eloquence". Putting across a simple or basic idea in a way that is unique and expressive.

Check out the book I linked to called "The Grammar of Ornament". It's an encyclopedia of patterns... Sort of like a wallpaper sample book. But the author breaks down the different aspects of the patterns, organizes them by culture from ancient Egypt to modern times, and shows how the ornament expressed the themes and ideas of the cultures. It's a fascinating book, and after it was released back at the turn of the century, interior designers latched onto it and used it as a clip file. But when they cut and pasted, they didn't pay attention to the context of the ornaments. They just slapped a Victorian twisted vine motif here and a Greek repeated pattern there... No attention to the grammar. And guess what? People noticed that the order of the grammar was being broken and complained.

Sometimes the rules of order are so ingrained in us, we don't even realize they're there. Grammar is a big part of culture. Perhaps this explanation makes it clearer to you.


----------



## Polednice

bigshot said:


> They certainly do. There is grammar in chord progressions, structure of symphonies and movements, harmony and counterpoint. Grammar is the "proper order" of elements in a work... And just like a sentence needs a subject and a predicate, a melody needs to resolve itself at the end of a phrase. Just try to hum Pop Goes the Weasel without the last bar. It's impossible to do. Your mind fills it in to resolve the musical statement. Human minds crave order. That's why we create grammar for our mediums of communication.
> 
> Visual arts have "proper order" too. There are rules to composition that require balance, colors are applied contrasting light against dark and warm against cool, shapes work against each other in complementary ways.
> 
> In all mediums of communication, information is put across with a grammar. The way the grammar is applied makes the difference between a copywriter for laxitive commercials and William Shakespere, or the artist who paints shop windows at Chrstmastime and Pablo Picasso. The application of the rules is more important than the rules themselves... Often more important than the specific information being put across. That's "eloquence". Putting across a simple or basic idea in a way that is unique and expressive.
> 
> Check out the book I linked to called "The Grammar of Ornament". It's an encyclopedia of patterns... Sort of like a wallpaper sample book. But the author breaks down the different aspects of the patterns, organizes them by culture from ancient Egypt to modern times, and shows how the ornament expressed the themes and ideas of the cultures. It's a fascinating book, and after it was released back at the turn of the century, interior designers latched onto it and used it as a clip file. But when they cut and pasted, they didn't pay attention to the context of the ornaments. They just slapped a Victorian twisted vine motif here and a Greek repeated pattern there... No attention to the grammar. And guess what? People noticed that the order of the grammar was being broken and complained.
> 
> Sometimes the rules of order are so ingrained in us, we don't even realize they're there. Grammar is a big part of culture. Perhaps this explanation makes it clearer to you.


And thus we come full circle, back to the notion of objective values in music. Put quite simply, grammatical structure is absolutely _necessary_ for language to function. Though your slightly analogous metaphors of grammar in music and the visual arts work well, they are not _necessary_. Music does not require harmonic rules, and visual art does not require compositional rules, and this is why it is not _true_ grammar.


----------



## Ukko

Well, I think your use of the word 'grammar' is not only awkward, it expands the meaning of the word unnecessarily. Surely there are better alternatives? Other than for chain jerking, I mean.


----------



## Truckload

Polednice said:


> No, it's because you don't have a thoroughly reasoned basis to be making the claims you're making. You talk about "sorts of grammar" - well that's fluffy vague metaphor; it doesn't mean anything. Music does _not_ have grammar, and nor does visual art. We learn nothing by calling it "sort of grammar" or "sort of syntax" or "sort of semantics". These are all meaningless metaphors which you trot out to serve your initial bias that these substantiate a certain form of communication, but they don't. They're completely vapid assertions.


It seems to me that you and bigshot are talking over each others heads. There is failure to appreciate the others perspective because you do not share a common vocabulary, or use the vocabulary in the same way. I can easily see your point and I think, understand your viewpoint. bigshot is using language and metaphors that have been commonly used for a long time by musicologists and art critics. But he is not talking about communication in the sense that you are. You are talking about, I think, specific informational trasfer such as directions to the local restaurant, or the formula to make soap, or a description of the function of the human liver. That is not what he is talking about.

Perhaps it would be congenial and interesting to talk about music and its communication of emotion. I have often wondered how much of musics' emotional effect is caused by anatomical reaction and how much by cultural conditioning. If you sit through enough movies where sad events are accompanied by falling melody lines and minor chords is a person then conditioned to the response, OK that is sad. Or is there an actual brain response? I know from my educational work, that controlled experiments have shown a statistical improvement in student test scores when the music of Mozart was softly playing in the background. But thee is no explanation as to why. I know you are probably familiar with more of these "Mozart Effect" studies.

However, I know of no scientific studies regarding communication of emotion. It would be really interesting to find a group of people who have no cultural conditioning regarding music, and do a study as to whether or not minor chords and falling melody lines communicates sadness to them.


----------



## Polednice

Truckload said:


> It seems to me that you and bigshot are talking over each others heads. There is failure to appreciate the others perspective because you do not share a common vocabulary, or use the vocabulary in the same way. I can easily see your point and I think, understand your viewpoint. bigshot is using language and metaphors that have been commonly used for a long time by musicologists and art critics. But he is not talking about communication in the sense that you are. You are talking about, I think, specific informational trasfer such as directions to the local restaurant, or the formula to make soap, or a description of the function of the human liver. That is not what he is talking about.
> 
> Perhaps it would be congenial and interesting to talk about music and its communication of emotion. I have often wondered how much of musics' emotional effect is caused by anatomical reaction and how much by cultural conditioning. If you sit through enough movies where sad events are accompanied by falling melody lines and minor chords is a person then conditioned to the response, OK that is sad. Or is there an actual brain response? I know from my educational work, that controlled experiments have shown a statistical improvement in student test scores when the music of Mozart was softly playing in the background. But thee is no explanation as to why. I know you are probably familiar with more of these "Mozart Effect" studies.
> 
> However, I know of no scientific studies regarding communication of emotion. It would be really interesting to find a group of people who have no cultural conditioning regarding music, and do a study as to whether or not minor chords and falling melody lines communicates sadness to them.


The key difficulty is that I wish to call a spade a spade, and true grammar, grammar. I have little problem with the idea that music communicates some things, but bigshot - representing a vice of much artistic criticism - is intent on using linguistic terms metaphorically where they can convey little real meaning in order to inflate what music is actually capable of doing.

On your suggested topic, I just posted in another thread by violadude that the minor key-sadness connection is arguably not only cultural conditioning, as the minor third is found to a significant degree in emotional calls and speech associated with sadness and distress. This could be a manifestation of the idea that music utilises some linguistic processing mechanisms.

The Mozart Effect only has extremely temporary effects, if any, and is most likely due to the cultural perception of classical music as intellectual, rather than it having any neurological effect. It's analogous to people putting on a lab coat and subconsciously adopting a frame of mind that leads them to work more efficiently - there's nothing in the coat (nothing in the music), only our psychological reaction to it.


----------



## bigshot

Polednice said:


> And thus we come full circle, back to the notion of objective values in music. Put quite simply, grammatical structure is absolutely _necessary_ for language to function. Though your slightly analogous metaphors of grammar in music and the visual arts work well, they are not _necessary_. Music does not require harmonic rules, and visual art does not require compositional rules, and this is why it is not _true_ grammar.


Aha! You do understand, you just don't want the rules applied to contemporary classical music!

Well, here's something to chew on... Are you familiar with an author named William S. Burroughs? He wrote "Junky" and "Naked Lunch" and was one of the Beats along with Kerouak. He did with words exactly what you say can't be done. He had a system called cut up writing, where he would take his typed manuscripts and cut them in half and splice them together randomly. Sentences would be left hanging or mashed up with other sentences. He said he wasn't looking for the traditional meaning of words and sentences, but rather a general impression from fragments.

Sound familiar?

His cut up writing was attempting to subvert the grammar of written language in the exact same way as prepared pianos and "noise music" attempts to subvert the grammar of music. The result was the same too. His books ramble and slide all over the place, and they all seem pretty much the same. When Burroughs pulls himself together to write according to the "rules", as he does for the entire length of his books "Junky" and "Queer", or for short bursts in his free form books, like Doctor Benway in "Twilight's Last Gleaming", he proves himself to be a fine writer. When he slices and dices and deliberately ignores the rules, he's just vomiting out vocabulary.

I know kids hate rules. I have worked with artists who bend and twist the rules into pretzels. But the fact that the rules exist and serve as the starting point is a big reason why some works are great and a lot of modern formless stuff sucks so badly.

The greatest artists bend the rules, they don't break them.


----------



## bigshot

Polednice said:


> bigshot - representing a vice of much artistic criticism - is intent on using linguistic terms metaphorically where they can convey little real meaning in order to inflate what music is actually capable of doing.


when I listen to the astoundingly eloquent music of Beethoven and Wagner and Bach and Mozart, I can't imagine music having any more ability to convey ideas better than it already does!


----------



## bigshot

Hilltroll72 said:


> Well, I think your use of the word 'grammar' is not only awkward, it expands the meaning of the word unnecessarily. Surely there are better alternatives?.


I keep using synonyms like "rules" and "proper order". I'm speaking about the function of grammar in a language here. Don't get hung up on semantics, focus on the concepts and functions and it will all make perfect sense.


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> when I listen to the astoundingly eloquent music of Beethoven and Wagner and Bach and Mozart, I can't imagine music having any more ability to convey ideas better than it already does!


than it already does...to you. You forgot that part.


----------



## Argus

Yo bigshot, what does this piece of music communicate?






Be specific.


----------



## bigshot

Truckload said:


> bigshot is using language and metaphors that have been commonly used for a long time by musicologists and art critics. But he is not talking about communication in the sense that you are. You are talking about, I think, specific informational trasfer such as directions to the local restaurant, or the formula to make soap, or a description of the function of the human liver. That is not what he is talking about.


Defining "communication" as "verbal communication" is skewing the argument in terms of the desired result.


----------



## bigshot

violadude said:


> than it already does...to you. You forgot that part.


Me and other people who are musically literate enough to understand what music is saying.


----------



## Ukko

Well, I must be going out into the sunshine to wash my truck. Before I go, I'll just say that _bigshot_ and _Poley_ understand each other quite well; they're just arguing - and arguing - terminology. It's gotten too boring for this geezer.


----------



## bigshot

Argus said:


> Yo bigshot, what does this piece of music communicate? Be specific.


OK. I'll play. There isn't a lot to say because there isn't a lot here. The music is ignorant, like a nursury rhyme. It's constructed of a repeated grinding rhythm looped and a simple phrase. Not much going on. Laziness. Sound pasted on like arbitrary wallpaper. The video tells me a lot more.

A camera is pointed out a rolled up passenger side car window at poor people. The car doesn't stop, and the camera never leaves the car. We get a glimpse of the dashboard. The car appears to be fairly new- a compact car. The sort of car parents would buy their kid to send him off to college.

The camera focuses on three people- a drunk, a pregnant woman and a fat man. But the camera doesn't really address them. It shoots them from the safety of a locked door and rolled up window. This tells me that the videographer really doesn't care about these people or their individual situations, he's simply looking for people/objects that he can look down upon and feel superior. The fact that the camera never leaves the hermetically sealed car tells me that he is a coward, afraid to actually stand on the street with these people and point a camera at them.

It's a privileged little ar$ehole who thinks exploiting images of less fortunate people makes him seem profound. He isn't at all interested in dealing with the reality of the human condition, he's just smugly combining pictures of symbolic "objects" he shot from the comfort of mommy and daddy's car with random video game music.

When I was in art school, someone tred to pass off a video like this, except they used melodramatic music. It was torn to shreds in critique for its cowardice.

How's that?


----------



## martijn

I think the most important quality that a composer (or any artist in another domain, like literature) should possess, is a feeling for overall structure. It's perhaps a rather underrated aspect of music, but in my opinion the most important of all. It's not a coincidence that all the composers considered to be at the very top (take the trinity Mozart, Beethoven, Bach) had a great feeling for structure, while often the lesser gods lack this feeling. 

And then there are of course a zillion other things: melodic gift, feeling for harmony, counterpoint, rhythm, chromatism, versatility, dramatic power, mastery of orchestration, passion, and so on, and so on...


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> OK. I'll play. There isn't a lot to say because there isn't a lot here. The music is ignorant, like a nursury rhyme. It's constructed of a repeated grinding rhythm looped and a simple phrase. Not much going on. Laziness. Sound pasted on like arbitrary wallpaper. The video tells me a lot more.
> 
> A camera is pointed out a rolled up passenger side car window at poor people. The car doesn't stop, and the camera never leaves the car. We get a glimpse of the dashboard. The car appears to be fairly new- a compact car. The sort of car parents would buy their kid to send him off to college.
> 
> The camera focuses on three people- a drunk, a pregnant woman and a fat man. But the camera doesn't really address them. It shoots them from the safety of a locked door and rolled up window. This tells me that the videographer really doesn't care about these people or their individual situations, he's simply looking for people/objects that he can look down upon and feel superior. The fact that the camera never leaves the hermetically sealed car tells me that he is a coward, afraid to actually stand on the street with these people and point a camera at them.
> 
> It's a privileged little ar$ehole who thinks exploiting images of less fortunate people makes him seem profound. He isn't at all interested in dealing with the reality of the human condition, he's just smugly combining pictures of objects he shot from the comfort of mommy and daddy's car with random video game music.
> 
> When I was in art school, someone tred to pass off a video like this, except they used melodramatic music. It was torn to shreds in critique for its cowardice.
> 
> How's that?


That's not a judgement of what the music expresses but a judgement of the person who wrote it. That's not critically thinking about what the music could be trying to express. It's just an ignorant dismissal of it.


----------



## bigshot

martijn said:


> I think the most important quality that a composer (or any artist in another domain, like literature) should possess, is a feeling for overall structure... And then there are of course a zillion other things: melodic gift, feeling for harmony, counterpoint, rhythm, chromatism, versatility, dramatic power, mastery of orchestration, passion, and so on, and so on...


Exactly. The structure is important because all of the other aspects hang on it like decorations on a Christmas three. If the overall form is solid, the other aspects can be designed to complement and enhance the form.


----------



## bigshot

violadude said:


> That's not a judgement of what the music expresses but a judgement of the person who wrote it.


All art expresses the person who made it, even really bad art.

There isn't a whole lot to say, because what do you say about a turd laying on the floor?


----------



## martijn

By the way: it's terrible how some people here are slagging off the Bolero. That it's popular doesn't mean it has no value. Indeed, in terms of structure, there's little to this piece, but on the other hand, the sheer repetition, like in a 12-bar blues, only adds to the intensification of the music. Ravel intended to portray a woman seducing men with her dancing, and as such it's very convincing, and the very opposite of boring. It's a very erotic piece. The orchestral effects are great, but on a piano it's still beautiful. The displacements of the rhythm, the beautiful structured melody, the subtle use of different modes, all is equally great.


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> All art expresses the person who made it, even really bad art.
> 
> There isn't a whole lot to say, because what do you say about a turd laying on the floor?


Your automatic dismissal of what that piece might be trying to express is lazy. And I know you hate laziness.


----------



## bigshot

violadude said:


> Your automatic dismissal of what that piece might be trying to express is lazy. And I know you hate laziness.


Am I missing something? Feel free to add your thoughts. (you won't)


----------



## Polednice

bigshot said:


> OK. I'll play. There isn't a lot to say because there isn't a lot here. The music is ignorant, like a nursury rhyme. It's constructed of a repeated grinding rhythm looped and a simple phrase. Not much going on. Laziness. Sound pasted on like arbitrary wallpaper. The video tells me a lot more.
> 
> A camera is pointed out a rolled up passenger side car window at poor people. The car doesn't stop, and the camera never leaves the car. We get a glimpse of the dashboard. The car appears to be fairly new- a compact car. The sort of car parents would buy their kid to send him off to college.
> 
> The camera focuses on three people- a drunk, a pregnant woman and a fat man. But the camera doesn't really address them. It shoots them from the safety of a locked door and rolled up window. This tells me that the videographer really doesn't care about these people or their individual situations, he's simply looking for people/objects that he can look down upon and feel superior. The fact that the camera never leaves the hermetically sealed car tells me that he is a coward, afraid to actually stand on the street with these people and point a camera at them.
> 
> It's a privileged little ar$ehole who thinks exploiting images of less fortunate people makes him seem profound. He isn't at all interested in dealing with the reality of the human condition, he's just smugly combining pictures of symbolic "objects" he shot from the comfort of mommy and daddy's car with random video game music.
> 
> When I was in art school, someone tred to pass off a video like this, except they used melodramatic music. It was torn to shreds in critique for its cowardice.
> 
> How's that?


Well you see, this is precise evidence of the ambiguity of music, because when I listened to it I was convinced it was telling me that its purpose was to **** off people who have inflated egos to the point of considering themselves arbiters of good art. Maybe I was using the wrong Braille book to decode it.


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> Am I missing something? Feel free to add your thoughts. (you won't)


Thanks for inviting me to add my thoughts and then snidely judging my character. I can't listen to it now because I'm in a public place without headphones. But I will gladly give you my interpretation of the piece when I get back to my dorm.


----------



## Argus

bigshot said:


> OK. I'll play. There isn't a lot to say because there isn't a lot here. The music is ignorant, like a nursury rhyme. It's constructed of a repeated grinding rhythm looped and a simple phrase. Not much going on. Laziness. Sound pasted on like arbitrary wallpaper. The video tells me a lot more.
> 
> A camera is pointed out a rolled up passenger side car window at poor people. The car doesn't stop, and the camera never leaves the car. We get a glimpse of the dashboard. The car appears to be fairly new- a compact car. The sort of car parents would buy their kid to send him off to college.
> 
> The camera focuses on three people- a drunk, a pregnant woman and a fat man. But the camera doesn't really address them. It shoots them from the safety of a locked door and rolled up window. This tells me that the videographer really doesn't care about these people or their individual situations, he's simply looking for people/objects that he can look down upon and feel superior. The fact that the camera never leaves the hermetically sealed car tells me that he is a coward, afraid to actually stand on the street with these people and point a camera at them.
> 
> It's a privileged little ar$ehole who thinks exploiting images of less fortunate people makes him seem profound. He isn't at all interested in dealing with the reality of the human condition, he's just smugly combining pictures of symbolic "objects" he shot from the comfort of mommy and daddy's car with random video game music.
> 
> When I was in art school, someone tred to pass off a video like this, except they used melodramatic music. It was torn to shreds in critique for its cowardice.
> 
> How's that?


I just wanted to know what the music communicated not a critique of it, especially not a critique of the video which was just incidental.

Here's another piece (accompanied by a static image this time):






What does this piece of music communicate?


----------



## bigshot

You were doing better for a moment there, Polednice. You were actually participating in the conversation. Now you've descended to Violadude's brand of ad hominem.

Why do you care if someone discusses a subject you don't agree with and don't have any interest in? You left this thread once before, but you keep coming back with more repeating cycles of narrow semantic definitions of terminology, refusal to acknowledge other points of view, and short burst angry attacks. I don't understand why you waste your time on things that not only don't interest you, but make you mad. I'm not mad. I'm enjoying myself. You should be too.

I'm here because I have an interest in critiquing and analyzing art. I feel that it's important to provide an alternative this culture's pervasive randomness and anti-intellectualism. Why do you and Violadude feel the need to shout it down?


----------



## bigshot

violadude said:


> Thanks for inviting me to add my thoughts and then snidely judging my character. I can't listen to it now because I'm in a public place without headphones. But I will gladly give you my interpretation of the piece when I get back to my dorm.


Ah! So your dismissal of my critique was written without you having seen the piece yourself. Good luck on your own interpretation. My comment "you won't" was more a comment on the vapidity of the piece than it was a comment on you. There's not much here to work with.


----------



## bigshot

Argus said:


> What does this piece of music communicate?


It's your turn this time. I haven't watched your video yet. You go first. What does the music communicate to you?


----------



## Guest

Truckload said:


> some guy - I have been trying to avoid responding to your posts since you seem to have such a closed mind.


Thanks for the slur, Truckload. Was your intent to get my blood boiling (which was hyperbole, just by the way)? Because if so, I have to tell you that I instantly translated what you said like this: "since you disagree with me." Blood perfectly cool in reality.



Truckload said:


> [T]o examine, consider, analyze, and judge the details increases our understanding, our knowledge and our discernment.


Indeed. And part and parcel of examining, considering, analyzing, and judging is picking the right tools with which to do the examining and so forth.

Our main philosophical disagreement is with which tools are appropriate. I think you're using the wrong tools and will thus arrive at false conclusions.

I also think that stacking the deck will give you very anomolous results as well.



Truckload said:


> Anyone who wants to understand more about art music can improve their knowledge and understanding by studying the elements of music as applied by the great composers.


Since this use of "great" was something I specifically explained in my last post, I'm going to tentatively conclude that you didn't understand what I said. (Tentatively because there are at least two other possibilities, and I really don't know which to choose.) This is called question begging in logic. I know, most people use the phrase "begging the question" to mean something very different from what the term means in logic, but I cannot help that! What "great" does in your sentence is assume the thing you're setting out to discover. You want to know the elements of great music, so you study what great composers have actually done. But how did you get to "great" in the first place?

In logic, you start with premises not conclusions.

In the process you've outlined, you will examine the qualities of music that you've already defined as great. And the conclusion? That that's great music? Your process seems to be going in a circle. Certainly not leading to understanding.

In any event, while studying Beethoven's practices will increase your understanding of Beethoven's music, and possbly of both his predecessors and his followers, it will probably not increase your understanding of Cage's music. In fact, it might have the effect of increasing your scorn for Cage's music. To understand Cage's music, you will have to study Cage's practices. Will it help you understand Beethoven's music, though? Hmmmm. Possibly. I wouldn't rely on it, though.


----------



## Polednice

bigshot said:


> You were doing better for a moment there, Polednice. You were actually participating in the conversation. Now you've descended to Violadude's brand of ad hominem.


Oh come off it, bigshot. Do you really think that no one notices all the ad hominems you sprinkle throughout every post here? You repeatedly insult the intelligence and knowledge of everyone who disagrees with you, and are apparently so naive or believe so strongly in our idiocy that you think we won't notice. I don't need or want your approval - for someone who talks openly of critical thinking, you are one of the most dogmatic members of this forum.

If you were familiar with me, you'd also know that I'm not an adherent of the ultra-relativist viewpoint. Some guy, TC's go-to relativist archetype, often clashes with me, and I've had disagreements with violadude too. I certainly started out much more conservative than I am now, though I'm not a complete convert, hence some of the compromises between me and Truckload, who is infinitely more congenial to talk to than you despite our disagreements. If anyone is promoting anti-intellectualism, it is you, with your pretentious pseudo-intellectual critical jargon, having a façade of knowledge and experience while in fact being the most vapid, worthless, steaming pile of nonsense with a sugar-coating of vague metaphor to cover the stench.

I'm enjoying myself too, by the way. :tiphat:


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> I've repeated several times that artistic mediums all have their own sorts of grammar and communicate different types of information.


Repeating assertions is not at all the same as supporting assertions. To support an assertion, you have to do something other than repeat.



bigshot said:


> Whether from the *stubbornness* of feeling that you have to "win" each and every argument at any cost, or because you are *intellectually incapable* of understanding issues of aesthetics, the end result is the same.


Probably best to stay away from the personal attacks.



bigshot said:


> I feel sorry for people who are so wrapped up in their own ego and point of view that they can't abide anyone who might have a different view with more knowledge and experience backing it up.


Made me grin!


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> Am I missing something? Feel free to add your thoughts. (you won't)


Alright bigshot, I listened to the first piece Argus posted and I think you are missing something. You said the most important part of music is form and structure. Well this piece did have a form, a very traditional one actually. It was more or less in an ABA form. The whole piece was based on establishing a rhythmic groove and then putting other rhythmic melodies on top of that groove. The A sections which sandwiched the B section were based off of a simpler melody and it had a machine like timbre. In contrast to that, the "B" section had a bird-like timbre and was based off of more complex melodies and rhythms.

Perhaps the music was trying to express that birds are generally able to sing more complex things than humans are. I might be wrong, but at least I applied critical thinking 

The form was actually quite simple to detect, Bigshot, it's surprising that a great critical thinker such as yourself would have a problem detecting it.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> The greatest artists bend the rules, they don't break them.


Artists do a job of work. Later, critics come along and derive rules from those practices. Then successive generations of artists get saddled with remarks like the above. But everyone just keeps doing their job, putting pigments on canvas, arranging sounds, vomiting out vocabulary.

A lot of modern formless stuff is not formless at all. (Henry Miller made a nice comment about that: "Confusion is a word we have invented for an order which is not understood.") And a lot of people don't think it sucks at all. That seems to be impossible to accept.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> The structure is important because all of the other aspects hang on it like decorations on a Christmas three.(sic)


Ouch!! (Really. Super ouch.)


----------



## Argus

bigshot said:


> It's your turn this time. I haven't watched your video yet. You go first. What does the music communicate to you?


I'm not the person putting forth the notion that music contains and expresses information beyond the sounds themselves.

The onus is on you to back up your claim that music communicates something on a deeper level than just the pure sound, and also that you are able to understand what the music is 'saying'.

When I listen to that Rangers track all I think is 'I enjoy listening to this'.

Okay, so what does it communicate to you?


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> Some guy, TC's go-to relativist archetype....


Just for the record (I think I already said this before, here, too), it's not so much that I'm a relativist as that I'm interested in appropriateness.

If you're trying to pound a screw into a stud with a hammer, I will hand you a screwdriver. And if you're trying to paint a watercolor, I will take all the carpentry tools out of the room. (I saw what you tried to do with that hammer!)

On a board largely concerned with aesthetics, I think there are very few places where relativism is inappropriate. And more than a few places where absolutism is entirely inappropriate.


----------



## clavichorder

bigshot said:


> You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?


He's sharp, especially when it comes to musical taste, don't be a jerk. I don't care about this argument, but don't insult violadude like that.


----------



## martijn

This seems to be the perfect topic for people who like to tell they are right and that others are wrong, doesn't it?


----------



## clavichorder

martijn said:


> This seems to be the perfect topic for people who like to tell they are right and that others are wrong, doesn't it?


Where are the mods? This thread just gets worse and worse and goes no where, needs to be shut down and wiped out, its gotten out of hand.


----------



## martijn

Should you ban me or something similar for such a statement? Come on, for god's sake, it was a mild statement by someone who was following this thread from a distance, being slightly amused about some posts.


----------



## violadude

Wait, before anyone closes anything! I want to hear what bigshot thinks of my analysis of the piece argus posted.


----------



## martijn

Probably he thinks you are completely wrong. Can it be closed now?


----------



## Polednice

Why does it have to be closed? To save us from ourselves? I don't think intervention is required unless there is something hatefully offensive posted.


----------



## martijn

I was ironic.


----------



## bigshot

Polednice said:


> Oh come off it, bigshot. Do you really think that no one notices all the ad hominems you sprinkle throughout every post here?
> 
> If anyone is promoting anti-intellectualism, it is you, with your pretentious pseudo-intellectual critical jargon, having a façade of knowledge and experience while in fact being the most vapid, worthless, steaming pile of nonsense with a sugar-coating of vague metaphor to cover the stench.


Whoops! Slipped again. I don't think you'll find anything from me that comes close to that sentence. I'll wait for you to start arguing on point again.


----------



## Ukko

bigshot said:


> Whoops! Slipped again. I don't think you'll find anything from me that comes close to that sentence. I'll wait for you to start arguing on point again.




I think he was referring to your 'jargon', not your person. So it isn't 'ad hominem', it's 'ad ______'. Please fill in the proper word. I don't know much Latin.


----------



## Truckload

some guy said:


> Thanks for the slur, Truckload. Was your intent to get my blood boiling (which was hyperbole, just by the way)? Because if so, I have to tell you that I instantly translated what you said like this: "since you disagree with me." Blood perfectly cool in reality.


I apologize if you took my statement as a personal insult. I am sorry if it caused you any distress. I did not intend to insult you. My point was simply that I hesitated to respond, feeling that this issue was a firmly decided issue for you that was not subject to re-examination. I do think it is fair to say that for any of us, including me, we are not at our best when we are angry. Once again, I am sorry if I caused you any personal offense by that observation



some guy said:


> Indeed. And part and parcel of examining, considering, analyzing, and judging is picking the right tools with which to do the examining and so forth.
> 
> Our main philosophical disagreement is with which tools are appropriate. I think you're using the wrong tools and will thus arrive at false conclusions.


I am delighted that we can agree about the value of examining, considering, analyzing and judging. I would be very interested to read your ideas about the right tools to use. In fact, that is what I hoped for when I started this thread. I hoped to get others ideas about tools to use (which I described as objective qualities). However the exact terminology is not important since we agree that the process has value.



some guy said:


> I also think that stacking the deck will give you very anomolous results as well.
> 
> Since this use of "great" was something I specifically explained in my last post, I'm going to tentatively conclude that you didn't understand what I said. (Tentatively because there are at least two other possibilities, and I really don't know which to choose.) This is called question begging in logic. I know, most people use the phrase "begging the question" to mean something very different from what the term means in logic, but I cannot help that! What "great" does in your sentence is assume the thing you're setting out to discover. You want to know the elements of great music, so you study what great composers have actually done. But how did you get to "great" in the first place?


I can see the point you are making and after reading some of your posts from older threads I see this use of the word "great" is a particular issue for you. Well, lets not use the word "great". We do however have to start somewhere in deciding what to analyze and compare to start building up our skill of discernment. There is a universe of music out there to pick from, some controversial, some not.

I do think it saves some time to "build upon" the work of our predecessors rather than having each person start from scratch and "reinvent the wheel", if you see what I mean. That is why I would recommend as a starting point musical works that our predecessors (musical authorities, professors, Groves, other composers,that sort of thing) have identified as exemplary. If one does not trust anyones judgment but their own I suppose one can start with a personal favorite or with something personally disagreeable and study the details to get a better understanding of why.

The process is more revealing and important than the specific conclusions about any one composer or any one work.



some guy said:


> In any event, while studying Beethoven's practices will increase your understanding of Beethoven's music, and possbly of both his predecessors and his followers, it will probably not increase your understanding of Cage's music. In fact, it might have the effect of increasing your scorn for Cage's music.


Once again we are in agreement. I think you are absolutely right.


----------



## Polednice

bigshot said:


> Whoops! Slipped again. I don't think you'll find anything from me that comes close to that sentence. I'll wait for you to start arguing on point again.


Well of course _you_ don't think that - that's part of the curse. :tiphat:


----------



## clavichorder

Lol, you folks have at it if you like that kind of thing.


----------



## bigshot

Truckload said:


> I can see the point you are making and after reading some of your posts from older threads I see this use of the word "great" is a particular issue for you.


I don't think the problem is the word "great", it's the word "greatest". Critical analysis can't necessarily determine "the best". It can only determine aspects that are great and compare the relative merits of one thing to another. There are usually too many variables to come to a conclusion on "greatest". You can only say *one of the* greatest.


----------



## bigshot

some guy said:


> Repeating assertions is not at all the same as supporting assertions. To support an assertion, you have to do something other than repeat.


I gave a list of examples of works that illustrate how different artforms communicate information a few posts back. Those are my supporting evidence. Feel free to check them out.


----------



## bigshot

violadude said:


> Well this piece did have a form, a very traditional one actually.


Yes, like a nursery rhyme. I did mention that, just not with the musical terminology, because as I stated before, I'm not a musician.


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> Yes, like a nursery rhyme. I did mention that, just not with the musical terminology, because as I stated before, I'm not a musician.


Ok, so did are you saying its form is one of the bad things about it?
because heaps of considered great composers including those you have mentioned as great have used that form.

btw, when have nursery rhymes ever been in ABA form? As far as I know most of them are just 1 or 2 4 bar phrase melodies.


----------



## bigshot

some guy said:


> Artists do a job of work. Later, critics come along and derive rules from those practices.


That is an interesting point of view. Personally, I don't think that critics do much except translate what the artist is doing into language that non-artists can understand. Sometimes they don't even do a good job of that.

The rules are established and bent in practice by the artists themselves. You can't bend a rule until you are able to follow it. That's why artists begin their studies copying other artists' work as a model, and learning to apply the fundamental principles of their artform. My job is to help young artists do that. Eventually, when the fundamentals and copying have been absorbed and assimilated the rules can be put into practice to create their own works. That's when the fun starts.


----------



## bigshot

Argus said:


> I'm not the person putting forth the notion that music contains and expresses information beyond the sounds themselves. The onus is on you to back up your claim that music communicates something on a deeper level than just the pure sound, and also that you are able to understand what the music is 'saying'.


Have you selected a piece that is expressive and likely to have something to say? I ask that because I'm suspecting you're trying to set up a straw man to shoot fish in a barrel. I can easily pick a lot of music that has very little to say, just like I can make up nonsense sentences that use words and grammar properly, but have no meaning.

The best example of explaining how music- even non-programmatic music- can express ideas is Bernstein's Omnibus on Beethoven's 5th. You should watch it. It's simple enough that even a layman can follow what he's talking about, and it does a great job of showing how a composer uses musical notation, structure, orchestration, rhythm and melody together to create something that speaks eloquently to a particular part of the human spirit... just like words can be combined with structure, rhythm and grammar to create poetry that eloquently expresses ideas.


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> Have you selected a piece that is expressive and likely to have something to say? I ask that because I'm suspecting you're trying to set up a straw man to shoot fish in a barrel. I can easily pick a lot of music that has very little to say, just like I can make up nonsense sentences that use words and grammar properly, but have no meaning.
> 
> The best example of explaining how music- even non-programmatic music- can express ideas is Bernstein's Omnibus on Beethoven's 5th. You should watch it. It's simple enough that even a layman can follow what he's talking about, and it does a great job of showing how a composer uses musical notation, structure, orchestration, rhythm and melody together to create something that speaks eloquently to a particular part of the human spirit... just like words can be combined with structure, rhythm and grammar to create poetry that eloquently expresses ideas.


So who are you to decide which pieces "say something" and which don't?


----------



## Polednice

When one artist bends a rule, another might adopt the bent version. When the bent version is adopted sufficiently, it becomes the new rule. This, in turn, is then bent, and, in turn, becomes a new rule. This linear progression of establishment and bending is what you see in many aspects of art, especially in musical harmony. What it means, though, is that today's bending of yesterday's rule can look like an outright breaking and distortion of much older rules, so if you stick to old music and don't follow the progression of bents, it's no wonder new music can seem so unruly. In context, however, it isn't. If instead a person suggests that such progression can't go on forever because there are eternal rules, well guess what question we arrive at once more...


----------



## violadude

clavichorder said:


> He's sharp, especially when it comes to musical taste, don't be a jerk. I don't care about this argument, but don't insult violadude like that.


Thanks Clavi


----------



## bigshot

violadude said:


> Ok, so did are you saying its form is one of the bad things about it?
> because heaps of considered great composers including those you have mentioned as great have used that form.


Simplicity is a virtue, but simple mindedness isn't. I don't think the way great composers have used simple forms are anything like the way a simple form was used in that video, do you?


----------



## bigshot

violadude said:


> So who are you to decide which pieces "say something" and which don't?


My point was, how should I be expected to find meaning in a piece when the person offering it to me for interpretation selected it specifically because he doesn't believe it has any meaning. That's a straw man argument. Because a nursery rhyme video game snippet of a tune doesn't convey much of an idea, it doesn't mean that a Beethoven symphony doesn't.

Quite frankly, I think it's kind of strange that someone who loves classical music would be arguing that it is devoid of content beyond just pleasing sounds.


----------



## bigshot

Polednice said:


> When one artist bends a rule, another might adopt the bent version. When the bent version is adopted sufficiently, it becomes the new rule. This, in turn, is then bent, and, in turn, becomes a new rule.


What you're describing there is the downward spiral of post modernism. That's precisely the problem.

In the past, it wasn't like that. Classical art training (known as "atilier") remained relatively unchanged for centuries, and the same principles studied by Michaelangelo were studied by impressionists and cubists. Fundamentals are not different from style to style.

I would imagine it's pretty similar with music conservatory educations. I seem to remember someone (violadude?) informing me that music education still is based on fundamental principles of music theory and learning to play an instrument.


----------



## bigshot

clavichorder said:


> He's sharp, especially when it comes to musical taste, don't be a jerk. I don't care about this argument, but don't insult violadude like that.


I apologize, I was referring to his comments about "smelling farts". I guess smart people can say stupid things sometimes.


----------



## Argus

bigshot said:


> My point was, how should I be expected to find meaning in a piece when the person offering it to me for interpretation selected it specifically because he doesn't believe it has any meaning. That's a straw man argument. Because a nursery rhyme video game snippet of a tune doesn't convey much of an idea, it doesn't mean that a Beethoven symphony doesn't.
> 
> Quite frankly, I think it's kind of strange that someone who loves classical music would be arguing that it is devoid of content beyond just pleasing sounds.


Are you being deliberately obtuse?

1) I believe *all* music communicates nothing implicitly. Anything the listener gathers from hearing the music, beyond the sounds themselves, is representative of the mind of the listener and says nothing about the actual music. That's why music is considered an abstract art.

2) I could have picked any piece of music without lyrics, classical or not, and my point would have stood.

3) I don't love classical music, I love music.

I noticed you mentioned you studied art formally at some point. This may be at the root of your indoctrination. You believe what you were taught in art school is gospel rather than just the opinion of a group of people with apparent authority on a subject. You may have been steeped in snobbery before art school, I don't know, but that probably exacerbated the problem and/or cemented these irrational positions in your mind.

However, for the interests of entertainment, I'll inquire what this piece of classical music communicates?






Be specific.


----------



## Polednice

bigshot said:


> What you're describing there is the downward spiral of post modernism. That's precisely the problem.
> 
> In the past, it wasn't like that. Classical art training (known as "atilier") remained relatively unchanged for centuries, and the same principles studied by Michaelangelo were studied by impressionists and cubists. Fundamentals are not different from style to style.
> 
> I would imagine it's pretty similar with music conservatory educations. I seem to remember someone (violadude?) informing me that music education still is based on fundamental principles of music theory and learning to play an instrument.


You have progression in the arts completely wrong. It was you who said that artists make good art by bending established rules, and what I laid out was the quite obvious point that when something is bent, it soon becomes widely adopted, and then has to be bent further. That's progress.

And if you look at our beloved music from 1600-1900, you will see countless rules bent, adopted, and bent further. Established rules in 1900 are positive breaks and distortions and desolations and sacrilege of 1600 rules. You just choose to draw an utterly arbitrary line at some point in history because it happens to coincide with your tastes in music, then you call it a downward spiral. It is either a spiral throughout all of history or none of it.


----------



## Truckload

Argus - that is a really nice solo piece for the cello. The writing for the cello is very advanced. Excelent use of double stops. Excelent use of the lower register of the cello to build a complex timbre. Really nice motives. I do find it too repetitive, and without sufficient development of the ideas. But the excellent use of the instrument and quality of the motives and selection of harmonies to bring out the timbre of the instrument are so good that they dwarf the shortcomings. Thanks for posting this.


----------



## Guest

Truckload said:


> I do find it too repetitive, and without sufficient development of the ideas.


Repetitive is the point in this kind of music, though. Development (at least in the sense of the composer manipulating the ideas) is less important here than in Beethoven.

I don't know if you're trying to be objective here, but "very advanced" and "excellent" and "nice" and "good" (as well as "too" and "sufficient") all connote subjective reality. These are things that point to your engagement with the sounds of the piece. How you respond to it.

Others' mileage may vary.


----------



## Truckload

some guy said:


> Repetitive is the point in this kind of music, though. Development (at least in the sense of the composer manipulating the ideas) is less important here than in Beethoven.
> 
> I don't know if you're trying to be objective here, but "very advanced" and "excellent" and "nice" and "good" (as well as "too" and "sufficient") all connote subjective reality. These are things that point to your engagement with the sounds of the piece. How you respond to it.
> 
> Others' mileage may vary.


Well you know we dont agree on this, do we really have to argue when apparently we both like it? I played the cello for many years and I can say unequivocally that the writing for the specific instrument, the cello, is very advanced. The writing uses the double stops very effectively. The writing uses the lower range of the instrument to great effect. Which is rare. Surely you can hear that the harmonies, double stops and arpegiated motion brings out the beautiful timbre of the cello. These things are not subjective. These are facts. This is objective reality. You are taking this dogma about subjectivity to such an extreme that it is getting in the way of communicating ideas, not promoting clarity.


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> I apologize, I was referring to his comments about "smelling farts". I guess smart people can say stupid things sometimes.


Indeed. Mozart loved fart jokes as well. Perhaps you would like to accuse him of being not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

But I wasn't merely talking about "smelling farts" as you put it. It was a metaphor but I guess you weren't sharp enough to pick up on it.


----------



## Guest

Truckload said:


> These things are not subjective. These are facts. This is objective reality.


All right, let's give this a spin:






I can say unequivocally that this is very advanced electroacoustic improv. The interplay between the two players is very effective and uses both the recorded material on the lps and the feedback and other noise-making capabilities of the equipment very effectively. The amplification allows you to hear soft, little sounds that you would ordinarily not be able to hear. You can hear those various sounds and the subtle interplay between them--as well as see how these two are doing that. This is a very exciting and beautiful set.

These things are not subjective. These are facts. This is objective reality. I hope that no dogmatic rigidness about development and cadence and beauty is getting in the way of you enjoying this music. How's that?


----------



## martijn

I don't find it exciting and beautiful, so explain me how that still can be an objective reality?


----------



## violadude

martijn said:


> I don't find it exciting and beautiful, so explain me how that still can be an objective reality?


Exactly his point.


----------



## martijn

Then I must have missed some part of the discussion. Anyway, it may be subjective, but I find it a pity that this thread becomes a philosophical thread centred around the word "objective", with a predictable outcome ("something can't be called good in absolute, objective terms"), instead of focusing on the different aspects of music, about which most of us will agree, that define a great composer (like harmony, melody, rhythm, and so on).


----------



## Polednice

martijn said:


> Then I must have missed some part of the discussion. Anyway, it may be subjective, but I find it a pity that this thread becomes a philosophical thread centred around the word "objective", with a predictable outcome ("something can't be called good in absolute, objective terms"), instead of focusing on the different aspects of music, about which most of us will agree, that define a great composer (like harmony, melody, rhythm, and so on).


Those are not discussions that can be separated.


----------



## Truckload

I am not an expert in this kind of music. I am not even familiar with this kind of music. But I can hear the little sounds that i would ordiarily not be able to hear, that is fact. As well as other facts that you cited. Since I am not at all familiar with "electracoustic improv" and have never compared and contrasted or studied or analyzed any of the works in this genre, I do not have the knowledge and skill to challenge either your facts or your conclusions. This could be the very most beautiful and exciting piece of electroacoustic improv in the entire repetoire. If you, from a more trained perspective in this genre find that objective reality wonderful! 

Every piece of music does not have to have development and cadence and beauty. Those could be positive factors if present, and the absense of them can be a negative factor, but a piece can be good without them if that piece has other positive factors. Every piece does not have to be perfect. Every piece does not have to contain every positive factor.


----------



## Truckload

martijn said:


> Then I must have missed some part of the discussion. Anyway, it may be subjective, but I find it a pity that this thread becomes a philosophical thread centred around the word "objective", with a predictable outcome ("something can't be called good in absolute, objective terms"), instead of focusing on the different aspects of music, about which most of us will agree, that define a great composer (like harmony, melody, rhythm, and so on).


Thank you.


----------



## Truckload

some guy said:


> Repetitive is the point in this kind of music, though. Development (at least in the sense of the composer manipulating the ideas) is less important here than in Beethoven.


Repetitive is "the" point? How do you know that? Did the composer tell you it was the point? Can you give us a link to a statement by the composer stating "repetitive is the point" in this kind of music, in this particular piece? And isnt saying "the" point just your subjective reality and not objective. If it was "the" point why didnt the composer just repeat a single note for the entire piece? That would certainly be objectively more to "the" point of repetition. You make this vague generalization about repetition which is entirely your subjective opinion and assert it as if it were a fact. You then say Development is "less important" here than in Beethoven. Your saying it is "less important" does not make that objective reality but you state that in your sentence as if it was a fact. For all you know the composer may have thought he WAS developing his ideas. Do you know for a fact the composer did not think that? Are you the composer? Did God tell you that delelopment was less important here than in Beethoven? No, both of your sentences are simply your subjective opinion and are without value.


----------



## Guest

Because I'm familiar with the genre. The subgenre of minimalism represented by this piece relies heavily on repetition. Anyone familiar with this genre would say the same.

I should not have said that development is less important than in Beethoven, however. That was perhaps over-stated. Development in this kind of minimalism is _different_ from the development you find in Beethoven. Development in the sparse, empty, isolated sounds kind of minimalism is less important than in Beethoven.

Opinions are indeed subjective, but that doesn't make them valueless. What makes an opinion valuable is how much support it's given, with facts, with reasoning.

I didn't do much supporting of those remarks because they're not opinions, they're just descriptions of how that genre works.


----------



## bigshot

Argus said:


> I noticed you mentioned you studied art formally at some point. This may be at the root of your indoctrination. You believe what you were taught in art school is gospel rather than just the opinion of a group of people with apparent authority on a subject. You may have been steeped in snobbery before art school


You prefer ignorance? One of the big problem with the arts is that people seem to feel that the wheel keeps needing to be reinvented. The deconstruction has led to a downward spiral in many areas of art. Ironically, commercialism is the only thing keeping some forms of art alive.

I'll be happy to look at another of your videos after you get a chance to check out Bernstein's program on Beethoven's 5th. Let me know what you think of it.


----------



## bigshot

Polednice said:


> You have progression in the arts completely wrong. It was you who said that artists make good art by bending established rules, and what I laid out was the quite obvious point that when something is bent, it soon becomes widely adopted, and then has to be bent further. That's progress.


Again, it's a semantic thing I think. I was referring to the deconstruction of rules in contemporary music. You're referring to the refining of rules that took place in the past. You're absolutely right given your definition.

However, although certain specific rules may change, many fundamentals are universal. The elements of good composition and use of color are the same in the Sistine Chapel as they are in Guernica.


----------



## bigshot

some guy said:


> I don't know if you're trying to be objective here, but "very advanced" and "excellent" and "nice" and "good" (as well as "too" and "sufficient") all connote subjective reality.


He's connected them to "double stops", "lower register" and "complex timbre" to give them context so you can go back and look for what he's commenting on. I'm sure if you are interested in any of these areas, he can go back in and be more specific so you can understand exactly what he is seeing that he likes and why.


----------



## bigshot

martijn said:


> Then I must have missed some part of the discussion. Anyway, it may be subjective, but I find it a pity that this thread becomes a philosophical thread centred around the word "objective", with a predictable outcome ("something can't be called good in absolute, objective terms"), instead of focusing on the different aspects of music, about which most of us will agree, that define a great composer (like harmony, melody, rhythm, and so on).


Exactly. I also am disappointed that it's degraded into a "I'm going to make you look at this video of contemporary music" thread again instead of dealing with fundamental aspects of all good music.


----------



## bigshot

Truckload said:


> Every piece of music does not have to have development and cadence and beauty. Those could be positive factors if present, and the absense of them can be a negative factor, but a piece can be good without them if that piece has other positive factors. Every piece does not have to be perfect. Every piece does not have to contain every positive factor.


The problem is that a lot of music today is all about reductivism... subtracting every aspect of music until only a bare skeleton remains... or none at all in the case of 4/33. I value works that use as many aspects as possible working together to create one unified vision. That is much more difficult to create, but it is much more satisfying and a more layered experience.


----------



## bigshot

some guy said:


> Opinions are indeed subjective, but that doesn't make them valueless. What makes an opinion valuable is how much support it's given, with facts, with reasoning.


That's a Bingo


----------



## Dodecaplex

bigshot said:


> I value works that use as many aspects as possible working together to create one unified vision.


What you value is of no value.


----------



## bigshot

Dodecaplex said:


> What you value is of no value.


You think therefore you aren't!


----------



## Guest

Truckload said:


> Every piece of music does not have to have development and cadence and beauty.


Well, aside from "beauty" being a very different kind of thing than "development" and "cadence," I think we have found a common area in which to dwell together in amity.

Experience and understanding are necessary to making sensible conclusions. Agreed.

Those conclusions are objective. Disagreed.

Those conclusions are valid. Agreed.

Two out of three. It's enough.

Thanks for response, Truckload!


----------



## Dodecaplex

bigshot said:


> You think therefore you aren't!


Whereof you cannot speak, thereof you must fart.


----------



## clavichorder

bigshot said:


> I apologize, I was referring to his comments about "smelling farts". I guess smart people can say stupid things sometimes.


Things get heated sometimes, apology accepted.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> The problem is that a lot of music today is all about reductivism... subtracting every aspect of music until only a bare skeleton remains... or none at all in the case of 4/33. I value works that use as many aspects as possible working together to create one unified vision. That is much more difficult to create, but it is much more satisfying and a more layered experience.


There is indeed _some_ music today that attempts to strip things down to fundamentals. But that's by no means the only thing going on in music today. There's just as much, probably more, to do with plenitude* even over-stimulation.

Anyway, 4'33" is not so much about reductionism as it is about intention. 4'33" contains only sounds that John Cage did not intend. (The real debate about that piece is not something/nothing but sounds you control/sounds out of your control.) Cage's career over all was about inclusion. He wrote some very stripped down, minimal works, yes, but he also wrote many things that are extremely plentiful--HPSCHD, Musicircus, Europeras, Williams Mix, Cartridge Music--as well as many things that are extremely virtuosic--Freeman Etudes, Etudes Australes, Atlas Eclipticalis--as well as encouraging several of his works to be played together--Atlas Eclipticalis with Winter Music, Renga with Apartment House 1776, and so forth. The score for Fontana Mix can be used to make any number of complex and utterly unalike pieces.

In any case, I find extremely sparse, spare, stripped down musics to be very satisfying (and even, as it always turns out, very layered as well). As for difficulty of creation, I don't know how difficult things are to create. Except for the things I have created. I cannot know the difficulty of others' works. And it's irrelevant to my enjoyment. (I don't enjoy something more if I can surmise that it was difficult to create. I only have the something to interact with. And I can do that successfully and happily whether or not it was difficult to make. Which, as I don't know, anyway....)

*And one of the points of the people you could refer to as reductionists is that they are interested in how fullness persists, no matter how many things you strip away. Plenitude is a fundamental principle of the universe. No matter how sparse you get, you still have a lot.


----------



## Argus

bigshot said:


> You prefer ignorance? One of the big problem with the arts is that people seem to feel that the wheel keeps needing to be reinvented. The deconstruction has led to a downward spiral in many areas of art. Ironically, commercialism is the only thing keeping some forms of art alive.
> 
> I'll be happy to look at another of your videos after you get a chance to check out Bernstein's program on Beethoven's 5th. Let me know what you think of it.


I don't give a monkeys what Bernstein has to say about Beethoven's 5th. I've listened to the music and made my own mind up. I've done plenty of structural and harmonic analyses of Beethoven's works but that is irrelevant in this discussion. This is part of your problem, you associate attributes like talent, skill and virtuosity with 'greatness'. They are not related. Just because Bernstein was a talented and skilled composer, it doesn't mean he has any more authority in deciding what is great art and what isn't than the man who is tone deaf. Likewise, just because Beethoven's 5th took great skill to create, it doesn't make it any better than La Monte Young's Composition 1960 #7.

I'm not really bothered about all that guff anyway, because you simply don't comprehend what people in this thread are saying, and that's fine. What I am interested in is you saying that you are able to perceive information in music beyond the physical information present in the soundwaves. I want to learn more about this amazing ability of yours to take something from nothing.

I'll try again, this time with old music to keep you happy. What does this music communicate?






Be specific.


----------



## bigshot

Argus said:


> I don't give a monkeys what Bernstein has to say about Beethoven's 5th. I've listened to the music and made my own mind up.


congratulations!

I'm afraid that first video you posted soured me on looking at any more of your videos for now. (First impressions count, you know!) The quote above sours me on reading your posts too. (Thanks for putting it on the first line so I didn't have to read any further.) A conversation requires a certain degree of mutual respect. I'm not feelin' it here. But feel free to talk past me to all your fans and admirers!


----------



## bigshot

some guy said:


> As for difficulty of creation, I don't know how difficult things are to create. Except for the things I have created. I cannot know the difficulty of others' works. And it's irrelevant to my enjoyment.


i agree. Hard work and long hours doesn't make great art. Smart choices do. I wish the makers of those big complicated special effects movies would learn that.



some guy said:


> And one of the points of the people you could refer to as reductionists is that they are interested in how fullness persists, no matter how many things you strip away.


I think some of them could stand being a little more successful at that than they are. Sometimes less is less.


----------



## Polednice

bigshot said:


> You prefer ignorance? One of the big problem with the arts is that people seem to feel that the wheel keeps needing to be reinvented. The deconstruction has led to a downward spiral in many areas of art. Ironically, commercialism is the only thing keeping some forms of art alive.


I would agree with you that people ought not think that the wheel must be continually reinvented, but - as the premise of this thread was about - how are we to tell which inventions are good in the first place?



bigshot said:


> Again, it's a semantic thing I think. I was referring to the deconstruction of rules in contemporary music. You're referring to the refining of rules that took place in the past. You're absolutely right given your definition.


It's not a semantic thing. Praetorius would have been horrified by Bruckner. It's _all_ deconstruction, and you are again drawing an arbitrary line, with everything on _your_ side of the line being "refining", and everything on the other side being deconstruction. Put your critical thinking to task - do you not think it's rather coincidentally convenient that your tastes are the same as these "objective" values?



bigshot said:


> However, although certain specific rules may change, many fundamentals are universal. The elements of good composition and use of color are the same in the Sistine Chapel as they are in Guernica.


If these rules really are universal fundamentals, you ought to be able to provide empirical evidence that they are such. So, do you have any evidence beyond blank assertion that these really are fundamentals that ought to be valued by everyone?


----------



## Argus

bigshot said:


> congratulations!
> 
> I'm afraid that first video you posted soured me on looking at any more of your videos for now. (First impressions count, you know!) The quote above sours me on reading your posts too. (Thanks for putting it on the first line so I didn't have to read any further.) A conversation requires a certain degree of mutual respect. I'm not feelin' it here. But feel free to talk past me to all your fans and admirers!


Probably for the best really. I do find it difficult to allow snobbish comments to go unchallenged.

I could see your indoctrination/blinkers had been firmly set quite a while ago, but I thought I could at least have a bit of fun listening to you continually spew more and more claptrap, a bit like an art school Karl Pilkington, but you're not even acknowledging people's points.

Have fun with Polednice and violadude in your thread.


----------



## bigshot

Polednice said:


> how are we to tell which inventions are good in the first place?


Critical thinking, objective analysis and careful selection of criteria for judging.



Polednice said:


> It's not a semantic thing. Praetorius would have been horrified by Bruckner.


I've always liked this quote by Oscar Wilde...

"Bad artists always admire each other's work. They call it being large-minded and free from prejudice. But a truly great artist cannot conceive of life being shown, or beauty fashioned, under any conditions other than those that he has selected."

The different conclusions are based on objective analysis using _different sets of criteria._ The selection of the elements you are going to judge by create the unique point of view. But the process itself is objective.



Polednice said:


> If these rules really are universal fundamentals, you ought to be able to provide empirical evidence that they are such. So, do you have any evidence beyond blank assertion that these really are fundamentals that ought to be valued by everyone?


Well, my particular focus is the visual arts and filmmaking. Here is an article on my blog that deals with composition. Take a look at the scanned pages from the Famous Artists Course at the bottom of the post that deal with the four main elements of composition. They outline the basic fundamentals of organizing an image visually.

http://animationresources.org/?p=2033

These fundamentals apply regardless of style. Even though this book was written in the 1950s by magazine illustrators, these are the same fundamental concepts that Michaelangelo used to create his paintings. These principles are the _grammar of pictorial composition._ All artists consider them when they are composing an image. There are similar basic unchanging fundamentals when it comes to creating color harmonies, constructing the human figure, rendering drapery, using light and shade, etc.

I'm sure there are similar fundamentals in the composition of music... the basic fundamentals of harmony, counterpoint, rhythm, melody, etc. Although stylistic differences call for different application of the fundamentals, the fundamentals themselves are constant.

Maybe this makes what I'm saying clearer.


----------



## Guest

The first twenty-one seconds are the intro. Tone's set comes after that's done.


----------



## bigshot

You're trying to punish me. That was dreadful.


----------



## Polednice

bigshot said:


> Well, my particular focus is the visual arts and filmmaking. Here is an article on my blog that deals with composition. Take a look at the scanned pages from the Famous Artists Course at the bottom of the post that deal with the four main elements of composition. They outline the basic fundamentals of organizing an image visually.
> 
> http://animationresources.org/?p=2033
> 
> These fundamentals apply regardless of style. Even though this book was written in the 1950s by magazine illustrators, these are the same fundamental concepts that Michaelangelo used to create his paintings. These principles are the _grammar of pictorial composition._ All artists consider them when they are composing an image. There are similar basic unchanging fundamentals when it comes to creating color harmonies, constructing the human figure, rendering drapery, using light and shade, etc.
> 
> I'm sure there are similar fundamentals in the composition of music... the basic fundamentals of harmony, counterpoint, rhythm, melody, etc. Although stylistic differences call for different application of the fundamentals, the fundamentals themselves are constant.
> 
> Maybe this makes what I'm saying clearer.


I don't know anything about visual art and film-making, so I won't talk about that. It seems clear enough though that you don't have any clear reasoning to state that harmony, counterpoint, rhythm, melody etc. are all universal fundamentals.


----------



## bigshot

Polednice said:


> I don't know anything about visual art and film-making, so I won't talk about that. It seems clear enough though that you don't have any clear reasoning to state that harmony, counterpoint, rhythm, melody etc. are all universal fundamentals.


You didn't look at the link, did you? The four elements of pictorial composition are easy to understand and they're illustrated with pictures. If you want me to provide examples to explain my points, you're going to have to look at them. I promise that I won't be as sadistic as the video posters in this thread.


----------



## Argus

bigshot said:


> You're trying to punish me. That was dreadful.


In your opinion.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Sounds like pure **** to me.


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Sounds like pure **** to me.


Oh well. You lose. Sounded really beautiful to me. Beauty, excitement, colourful, memorable. Eloquence, Expression, Structure and Variety.

Yep. Good times, there, HC.

(Thanks to neoshredder and bigshot for their words that I used without permission.)


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

some guy said:


> Oh well. You lose. Sounded really beautiful to me. Beauty, excitement, colourful, memorable. Eloquence, Expression, Structure and Variety.


I didn't realise it was a competiton, in which case you can gladly take the first prize that I don't want. I don't equate excrement with beauty.


----------



## Polednice

bigshot said:


> You didn't look at the link, did you? The four elements of pictorial composition are easy to understand and they're illustrated with pictures. If you want me to provide examples to explain my points, you're going to have to look at them. I promise that I won't be as sadistic as the video posters in this thread.


They may be easy to understand, but I'm interested in music.


----------



## Petwhac

yeah right


----------



## violadude

Petwhac said:


> yeah right


Is this in response to anything in particular...


----------



## Petwhac

violadude said:


> Is this in response to anything in particular...


Yes, to Some Guy's post #390.

Oh and these paragraphs from Some Guy's earlier post actually cause the whole foundation, of what I have understood to be his philosophy, to crumble. I have put into bold the fatal sentence.

"When I'm listening to a piece of music, for instance, I'm aware only of that piece. Its sounds, its shapes, its patterns. It makes no difference to my enjoyment (or lack thereof) that that piece is considered "great" or "second rate" or "atonal" or "baroque" or whatever other label it may have had applied to it. I'm enjoying it, now. Or not enjoying it.

And I suppose that if I'm not enjoying it, I am thinking more of why I'm not enjoying it, that's true. *Because it's pastiche or whatever.*


----------



## Petwhac

And I've just read this from some guy's post #357
Again, I have made bold the offending passages
_
"I can say unequivocally that this is very* advanced* electroacoustic improv. *The interplay between the two players is very effective and uses both the recorded material on the lps and the feedback and other noise-making capabilities of the equipment very effectively.* The amplification allows you to hear soft, little sounds that you would ordinarily not be able to hear. You can hear those various sounds and the subtle interplay between them--as well as see how these two are doing that. *This is a very exciting and beautiful set.*

*These things are not subjective. These are facts. This is objective reality.* I hope that no dogmatic rigidness about development and cadence and beauty is getting in the way of you enjoying this music. How's that?"
_
Well, some guy, These are 100% subjective. These are 100% not facts. This is 100% not objective reality.

( Sorry, I'm not specifically trying to pick on some guy )


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> Well, some guy, These are 100% subjective. These are 100% not facts. This is 100% not objective reality.


Pet, if you follow all of the conversation, you will get more of the jokes.

I was doing a riff on something that another poster had said that I disagreed with. I was using his words as much as possible for both comedic and philosophical effect.

Those things that you have identified as 100% subjective are indeed 100% subjective. That was my point.

Otherwise, for everyone, the "yeah right" to me finding Tone's set beautiful identifies what is perhaps the hardest of hard sells in conversations about music, especially new music: that idea that what you find hideous and off-putting could seem beautiful and inviting to someone else.

Happens all the time, but it seems almost impossible to believe.

My proposal of a way around that, which I have already offered up on some thread or other: think of something you really like a lot, how you respond, how it makes you feel. Now look at someone else enjoying something you abhor. You don't understand how they could like that crap. But you can, I say. Because you understand what it's like to enjoy something. Never mind that the something someone else enjoys is not something you enjoy. That's not really the point. The point is that you enjoy what you enjoy, and they enjoy what they enjoy. And you understand what it is to enjoy something.

Understand?

[It didn't work on that other thread, either, just by the way. Hardest of hard sells....]


----------



## violadude

some guy said:


> Pet, if you follow all of the conversation, you will get more of the jokes.
> 
> I was doing a riff on something that another poster had said that I disagreed with. I was using his words as much as possible for both comedic and philosophical effect.
> 
> Those things that you have identified as 100% subjective are indeed 100% subjective. That was my point.
> 
> Otherwise, for everyone, the "yeah right" to me finding Tone's set beautiful identifies what is perhaps the hardest of hard sells in conversations about music, especially new music: that idea that what you find hideous and off-putting could seem beautiful and inviting to someone else.
> 
> Happens all the time, but it seems almost impossible to believe.
> 
> My proposal of a way around that, which I have already offered up on some thread or other: think of something you really like a lot, how you respond, how it makes you feel. Now look at someone else enjoying something you abhor. You don't understand how they could like that crap. But you can, I say. Because you understand what it's like to enjoy something. Never mind that the something someone else enjoys is not something you enjoy. That's not really the point. The point is that you enjoy what you enjoy, and they enjoy what they enjoy. And you understand what it is to enjoy something.
> 
> Understand?
> 
> [It didn't work on that other thread, either, just by the way. Hardest of hard sells....]


I don't understand why someone _wouldn't_ understand this. Seems like common sense to me.


----------



## Polednice

I believe the logic of some guy's rebuttal in context has somewhat flown over your head.


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> I believe the logic of some guy's rebuttal in context has somewhat flown over your head.


You talkin' to me?


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> You talkin' to me?


Nothing flies over your head! I'm talking to our dear friend, Petty.


----------



## Cnote11

Uh-huh sure.


----------



## violadude

Cnote11 said:


> Uh-huh sure.


I see what you did there


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> Nothing flies over your head! I'm talking to our dear friend, Petty.


Ah! Gotcha. I was wondering how the logic of some guys post flew over my head since I agreed with him haha.


----------



## Cnote11

I was wondering the same thing, but I figured it couldn't have been directed at you for that very reason. These out-of-context posts!


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> Ah! Gotcha. I was wondering how the logic of some guys post flew over my head since I agreed with him haha.


When I wrote the post, it was miliseconds after some guy and you posted, so I didn't see your comments when I replied.

EDIT: Apparently more like ten minutes according to the timestamps - I must have been distracted by something so inane at the time that I didn't realise the time went past.


----------



## Petwhac

Am I the "dear friend petty" that Polednice refers to. I do hope so.

*some guy*,I still would like an explanation of what might cause someone to not enjoy a piece of music.
I referred to your statement that when you listen to a piece of music that you are only aware of the piece. _"Its sounds, its shapes, its patterns. It makes no difference to my enjoyment (or lack thereof) that that piece is considered "great" or "second rate" or "atonal" or "baroque" or whatever other label it may have had applied to it. I'm enjoying it, now. Or not enjoying it."_

You then go on to say that you may not be enjoying it because maybe it's "pastiche or whatever."

That is a direct contradiction.

Understand?


----------



## violadude

Petwhac said:


> Am I the "dear friend petty" that Polednice refers to. I do hope so.
> 
> *some guy*,I still would like an explanation of what might cause someone to not enjoy a piece of music.
> I referred to your statement that when you listen to a piece of music that you are only aware of the piece. _"Its sounds, its shapes, its patterns. It makes no difference to my enjoyment (or lack thereof) that that piece is considered "great" or "second rate" or "atonal" or "baroque" or whatever other label it may have had applied to it. I'm enjoying it, now. Or not enjoying it."_
> 
> You then go on to say that you may not be enjoying it because maybe it's "pastiche or whatever."
> 
> That is a direct contradiction.
> 
> Understand?


No it's not. If I may speak for some guy, what he is saying that during his own process of listening to music he doesn't care what others think of it or if what he is listening to is considered "great". However, after listening to it he may decide that his own opinion of the piece is that it sounds pastiche and not enjoyable to him.


----------



## Petwhac

You cannot 'judge' something to be a pastiche while at the same time be, "Only aware of the piece. "Its sounds, its shapes, its patterns." By judging it to be pastiche you are placing it in an historical context, you are placing a value or lack there of, on it's originality of style. You are _not_ "only aware of the piece".

It is not an 'opinion' if a piece is a pastiche or not. It is or it isn't. Why should a pastiche not be enjoyable? Especially if it's a good pastiche, oops, sorry, there is no such thing as good or bad, silly me.


----------



## bigshot

Dodecaplex said:


> Whereof you cannot speak, thereof you must fart.


My hovercraft is full of eels.


----------



## bigshot

some guy said:


> (Thanks to neoshredder and bigshot for their words that I used without permission.)


Something tells me that if you type those words into the search box at YouTube you wouldn't find this video in a million years, but if you type in "dreadful" you might have a better chance.


----------



## bigshot

Polednice said:


> They may be easy to understand, but I'm interested in music.


Understanding is overrated, eh?


----------



## bigshot

some guy said:


> Pet, if you follow all of the conversation, you will get more of the jokes.


i guess words are just sound and don't really convey information...


----------



## bigshot

violadude said:


> I don't understand why someone _wouldn't_ understand this..


i don't understand why you don't understand why someone wouldn't understand.


----------



## bigshot

Petwhac said:


> I still would like an explanation of what might cause someone to not enjoy a piece of music.
> I referred to your statement that when you listen to a piece of music that you are only aware of the piece. _"Its sounds, its shapes, its patterns. It makes no difference to my enjoyment (or lack thereof) that that piece is considered "great" or "second rate" or "atonal" or "baroque" or whatever other label it may have had applied to it. I'm enjoying it, now. Or not enjoying it."_


i guess when he listens to music, he is able to wipe clear all of his cultural influences and assume the mantle of sublime ignorance. That's a pretty good trick. I can only manage that after a whole bottle of wine.


----------



## nikolas

Pastiche - atonal - etc are technical descriptions of a work. One may very well be annoyed by that in a composition I think... (though atonal is almost dead as a musical language today)...

As a composer every work that I create sounds great to me, until the next work comes. I still hold dear in my heart all of my works but I do find defects sometimes. Yet I leave them unchanged so that anyone interested in the evolution of me as a composer (<- yeah right...) would be able to trace down how I changed through the years.

The said...

'Great' appears to me to be something that is able to surpass country borders, language barriers and withstand time. In a less official way great is what makes each member of the audience feel great. For all we care 'great' might be a piece by Beyonce for someone and it's difficult to argue that their perception is poor... :-/ (where's my flame suite...)


----------



## Polednice

bigshot said:


> Understanding is overrated, eh?


.... So are you going to attempt to substantiate your assertion that harmony, counterpoint, melody etc. are all universal fundamentals, or are you going to keep up with the side-stepping?


----------



## Chrythes

Why do you even bother participating in this debate?
It's as pointless as a debate about religion.


----------



## violadude

Alright Bigshot, let's say that you are right and there are objective qualities that make a composers great and all composers who didn't follow that were objectively bad? Then what? Would it really make a difference on anything? Would you ask that all composers stop composing in a way you found objectively terrible? And if you did, what about the people that truely enjoy that music like myself and some guy? Are we just supposed to go without some of our favorite music because you don't like it?


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> Alright Bigshot, let's say that you are right and there are objective qualities that make a composers great and all composers who didn't follow that were objectively bad? Then what? Would it really make a difference on anything? Would you ask that all composers stop composing in a way you found objectively terrible? And if you did, what about the people that truely enjoy that music like myself and some guy? Are we just supposed to go without some of our favorite music because you don't like it?


I think the implication is that people who like objectively bad music have some kind of neurological disorder.


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> I think the implication is that people who like objectively bad music have some kind of neurological disorder.


Oh ok. Well I'm fine with that as long as I get to listen to the music I like.

Problem solved!


----------



## bigshot

Polednice said:


> .... So are you going to attempt to substantiate your assertion that harmony, counterpoint, melody etc. are all universal fundamentals, or are you going to keep up with the side-stepping?


I'm not side stepping. I'm posting one line snappy comments like everyone else! You ignored my last answer to you, so why should I answer again?


----------



## bigshot

violadude said:


> Would you ask that all composers stop composing in a way you found objectively terrible? And if you did, what about the people that truely enjoy that music? Are we just supposed to go without some of our favorite music because you don't like it?


You're free to have whatever personal taste you want. But if you understand the reasons *why* you like something rather than saying "I like it because I like it", your tastes are liable to grow and become more discerning. Some people go through life eating McDonalds hamburgers because that's what they like and they don't think about it much. That's fine for them. It doesn't mean that their opinions are worth printing in Gourmet magazine though. Discernment is the difference, and discernment involves thinking about what makes one thing better than another.

As an aside, there's one thing about culture and human nature that I believe 100%... you don't get greatness by accepting mediocrity. When people's expectations are raised, culture rises to try to meet it. The problem with post modernism is that it's defeatest, saying everything great has already been created so why bother. Make something easy and clever instead. When you think that way, easy and clever is the best you're ever going to get.

If more people employed critical thinking, I think the whole world would be a better place. People are too wrapped up in themselves and their own desires. It would be nice if more people could take a step back and say, "What's best for ALL of us?"


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> i guess words are just sound and don't really convey information...


My point, if you'd read my words, was that since words convey information, to get all the information in a conversation, you have to read _all_ the words.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> You're free to have whatever personal taste you want.


I don't need your permission.


bigshot said:


> But if you understand the reasons *why* you like something rather than saying "I like it because I like it", your tastes are liable to grow and become more discerning.


I grow and become more discerning by listening to music a lot and listening to a lot of it. I push beyond wherever my tastes are at the moment by listening to a lot of things that I don't like right away.



bigshot said:


> Discernment is the difference, and discernment involves thinking about what makes one thing better than another.


That seems a very crude and rudimentary level of discernment, and one fraught with peril. (Vertical is not the only axis. Axes are not the only way to understand what you're discerning.



bigshot said:


> you don't get greatness by accepting mediocrity. When people's expectations are raised, culture rises to try to meet it. The problem with post modernism is that it's defeatest, saying everything great has already been created so why bother. Make something easy and clever instead. When you think that way, easy and clever is the best you're ever going to get.


True discernment might lead one to eschewing such glib and intellectually lazy categories as "greatness" and "mediocrity" (both question begging*) in favor of something a little more useful. Like looking at the specific characteristics of each piece, taking each piece on its own terms and not trying to make it fit into an alien context. Yasunao Tone's music is not like Beethoven's music. You cannot judge either by the other.



bigshot said:


> If more people employed critical thinking, I think the whole world would be a better place.


Yes, it would.



bigshot said:


> People are too wrapped up in themselves and their own desires.


Well, yeah. This does happen. But 1) is it germane to this conversation? and 2) are you a reliable judge of what constitutes "too"?

Who else would you have me wrapped up in? You? Your desires? Naw. My desires are just exactly right. For me.


----------



## Polednice

bigshot said:


> You're free to have whatever personal taste you want. But if you understand the reasons *why* you like something rather than saying "I like it because I like it", your tastes are liable to grow and become more discerning. Some people go through life eating McDonalds hamburgers because that's what they like and they don't think about it much. That's fine for them. It doesn't mean that their opinions are worth printing in Gourmet magazine though. Discernment is the difference, and discernment involves thinking about what makes one thing better than another.
> 
> As an aside, there's one thing about culture and human nature that I believe 100%... you don't get greatness by accepting mediocrity. When people's expectations are raised, culture rises to try to meet it. The problem with post modernism is that it's defeatest, saying everything great has already been created so why bother. Make something easy and clever instead. When you think that way, easy and clever is the best you're ever going to get.
> 
> If more people employed critical thinking, I think the whole world would be a better place. People are too wrapped up in themselves and their own desires. It would be nice if more people could take a step back and say, "What's best for ALL of us?"


What absolutely vile snobbery!

Yeah, violadude, go ahead and like whatever the hell you like, but _my_ tastes are more refined, heathen.


----------



## bigshot

some guy said:


> My point, if you'd read my words, was that since words convey information, to get all the information in a conversation, you have to read _all_ the words.


Oh, I'm sorry! Again, I'm just following the lead of other people in this thread who only read bits and pieces and take things out of context. I thought that was the direction the conversation was going now.


----------



## bigshot

some guy said:


> I don't need your permission.


Wait a minute... i'm confused. Are you the same person as Violadude, because I was answering his question, not yours. You're the one that "discerns" by not thinking about anything and making your mind a cultural blank... Or have I got you mixed up? Hard to tell because your discussion board tag teaming is so similar. I can tell Polendice apart. He's like the Monty Python argument clinic sketch. He just responds with a one line insult and "no it isn't". He never makes any points, he just ignores them.

Edit: oh! I just went back and figured out how to tell you apart. Violadude is the one who keeps responding by asking questions that he really isn't interested in getting any answers to, and you're the one that responds by chopping my quoted text up into so many tiny bits, you don't need to address the overall context any more... All time honored and respected discussion forum trolling techniques.


----------



## Cnote11

I must agree with bigshot in that I'm very serious in asking myself why I like something and analyzing it. I also agree with him that unfamiliarity breeds confidence in mediocrity, such as his McDonald's example. Despite this, and despite me listening to similar music and having a similar taste in movies, etc. as bigshot, I also quite enjoy things that are "lower" as well that I feel still have enough content to satisfy me. I do make a separation between the two, but that doesn't mean I can't consume it if I happen to like it. It isn't something I think about too much while in the act. I don't go out of my way to moralize it, as I don't feel that "great" music is "good" in a moral sense and music below that is "bad". Mind you, I don't feel like any of this is inherent and it is built upon varying degrees of structure and some assumptions as well. For example, a society isn't inherently better than not having a society. It only becomes better when we introduce conditions, and in this way it does seem better, but that doesn't make it necessarily so. 

Edit: I'd also like to add that it wouldn't be as exacting, nor in such boxed labels.


----------



## Polednice

Cnote11 said:


> I must agree with bigshot in that I'm very serious in asking myself why I like something and analyzing it. I also agree with him that unfamiliarity breeds confidence in mediocrity, such as his McDonald's example.


I think bigshot's chief crime is the assumption that every McDonald's fan is a fan out of inexperience - some people would prefer it even after exploration, experience and understanding, and it is an act of snobbery to jump to other conclusions.

Speaking of you, dear bigshot, you have your characterisations all wrong. You're much more like Hugh Laurie in drag in this clip; I'm Stephen Fry. :tiphat:


----------



## Cnote11

Oh, how I love Stephen Fry. That is a very fair critique, and as I've posted several times on this board that I wish people would approach the music without bias, but if it just isn't for them then oh well. Some people will not connect to everything we feel is great. Sometimes people are so attached to things they like that when another person doesn't like it they feel like it is a direct insult to themselves.


----------



## Krummhorn

Closed ...


----------

