# How we speak about music



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Threads focusing on somewhat similar ideas have been started in the past, but I thought a general discussion might be fun. I'd like people to share difficulties, ambiguities, joys, or other issues related to how we discuss music with each other. I will start with two thoughts.

1) Speaking about music can be extremely difficult. In particular describing what we like about a work or composer can be rather challenging. We can say simplistic things, but, for example, why exactly do I respond so strongly to Mozart's Sinfonia Concertante? I've greatly enjoyed posts of others who are able to articulate how the music makes them feel.

2) Ambiguities between objective and subjective statements. When someone writes, "The concerto is not interesting", is that meant to be an objective or subjective statement? I think we all view it as subjective, but many of us apparently view such statements as attempts to be objective (i.e. "No, really, how could anyone find that interesting. It's too simplistic and obvious" or something along those lines).

So comment on my 2 thoughts or other issues related to speaking about music.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I guess that's why so many people have been credited with saying talking about music is like dancing about architecture.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

1) Speaking about how music makes us feel is easy - speaking about *why *music makes us feel, or *what precisely*, is much more difficult. It's like describing how something smells. I enjoy writing about my personal response because I find it akin to literary criticism - where I might analyse a poem's effects on me through looking at the imagery it employs or the sort of expectations it sets up.

Speaking about music can also be a technical matter of the orchestration, the keys, the patterning of sounds, or a historical matter, noting trends and influences. I don't just find that extremely difficult; I find it *impossible*. 
There are more than a few members of TC who have this musical knowledge. They presumably find it easy enough to converse with each other about the music in technical or historical detail. The challenge for this kind of poster is to explain the deeper matters lucidly in such a way that 'the general listener' like me can gain some new insight.
I have benefited by such posts and posters. To name names would be invidious, but *you know who you are*!

2) Even for those with highly-developed musical knowledge, it is a subjective thing to speak about the effects of music on the listener. 
This fact *ought* to be taken as read, but I agree with the OP that the ambiguity - even sometimes *confusion* - between objective and subjective statements still forms the basis of many discussions, debates and arguments on the site. 
In my experience of teaching literature, I have learned that it never harms to 'flag up' the fact that it's just my opinion, that others might think differently, or that the way I'm responding is *a joke or irony*. 
I have so often read humorous or ironic articles in the newspaper which attract furious letters from readers who've taken the journalist literally or totally seriously. 
Better safe than sorry!

:tiphat:Nice thread, mmsbls.


----------



## johankillen (Sep 20, 2015)

1) I often listen to the melody and how the music flows around it. So it not enough with a good melody. I can often hear good melodys in "pop music" but thats not enough. I often wonder what Beethoven would have done with that good pop music melody  so the complexity it nessesary.

2) I do not care if someone thinks a symphony or concerto is good or bad. I need to know why they think its good or bad. 
Otherwise its just waste of time.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Ingélou said:


> In my experience of teaching literature, I have learned that it never harms to 'flag up' the fact that it's just my opinion, that others might think differently, or that the way I'm responding is *a joke or irony*.


You sound like a great teacher. I have had teachers who instilled prejudices in me against certain writers/composers. It took several years for me to venture out and discover that those are actually some of my favorite writers/composers.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

The big difficulty with talking about music is that, unless one is performing a technical analysis, talking about the music is a poor substitute for simply hearing the music, because the whole point of music is that it's to be listened to. So (outside of a technical context) the sound of the music constitutes the "primary evidence". And yet in practice this evidence is often insufficient: 
A: "Why do you love Mozart's Sinfonia concertante?"
B: "Well, one reason is that the slow movement is just achingly and beautifully sad".
A: "Is it? That's the sort of music I love, I need to listen to that."
They listen.
A: "That was really boring".
B: "But it's achingly and beautifully sad! Did you not even hear it??"
And now there's simply no more evidence to provide. What to one listener is self-evident is to another listener no evidence at all.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Interesting quote from the Bard



> That strain again! it had a dying fall:
> O, it came o'er my ear like the sweet sound,
> That breathes upon a bank of violets,
> Stealing and giving odour! Enough; no more:
> 'Tis not so sweet now as it was before.


Where Orsino recognises a cadence and can describe its effect (affect?) but also recognises that repetition can weary the ear. He doesn't attempt to describe the cadence merely how it impacts on him.

I'm currently working on some Bach. The edition has detailed technical notes on each piece to help the player. Ultimately, however, what matters to me is the little frissons of surprise that you get when there is an unusual key change or an unexpected entry of the theme in an inner voice. That sort of genius is what defines Bach to me. The ability to take a beautiful theme (or themes) and surprise you by his handling of it. And to do it in such a way as not to seem mannered or pretentious.

Equally, and this gets on to the subjective / objective part, what I find interesting, amusing and beautiful may leave somebody else cold. What I hear as a key change that raises the hair on the back of my neck may simply be a clumsy modulation that leaves another untouched.

The two parts of the OP are a matching pair. If we can identify the part of the music that affects us and somehow indicate what we find interesting then it makes it easier for somebody else to criticise the piece by giving their response to the parts we like. If we can identify what we like in a composer, then others can comment as to how it affects them.

There was an earlier thread asking how you can identify music of different periods. One thing that was obvious was each era has its own stylistic quirks and techniques. If you listen to a lot of music from a particular period, then you develop a strong grasp of the musical idiom of the era. Then I think you can become like the Americans and the British - two nations divided by a common language.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> When someone writes, "The concerto is not interesting", is that meant to be an objective or subjective statement? I think we all view it as subjective, but many of us apparently view such statements as attempts to be objective (i.e. "No, really, how could anyone find that interesting. It's too simplistic and obvious" or something along those lines).


I imagine this phenomenon can be found in every genre of music to some degree, but it does seem to me that the belief in objective aesthetic value is especially persistent in classical music. It is basically built into the very concept of classical music, really, since the definition of "classic" already includes a presumption of aesthetic value.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Emotions are complex; sometimes they are "states of being" which are themselves hard to define. Ultimately, music is a metaphor for our being, our experience, which the composer shares with us. Being is hard to define. It simply "is," and that should suffice.

Meanwhile, back at the word farm...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> What to one listener is self-evident is to another listener no evidence at all.


But in a best-case scenario, art forms are developed to the point where there are agreed-upon meanings which are self-evident at their simplest and most basic: we see a horizontal line, and think of a landscape, because we are human; even the name 'horizontal' evokes a horizon; big, deep sounds come from big things, so maybe there's an elephant in that music; small, high sounds come from small things, LOOK! there's a bird!

A soprano's voice makes you cry, because your mother has died. The road goes on forever, and the party never ends...

And if I say "This music is degenerate," then it is degenerate, because I said so, and I'm bigger and more powerful than you, and I have the power of an entire State behind me...


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

It is an objective fact that subjective tastes differ from one person to the next, even quite considerably, and even within the same target group of classical music lovers. 

Granted, the music itself has objective qualities (approximate duration, instruments/voices used, structure, etc). But in the end, the level of appreciation of that music by a listener is subjective. There is no right or wrong in this respect. You may think Beethoven's 9th is the greatest piece of art ever produced, whereas I think it is his worst symphony. And we're both right, because both are in essence subjective statements.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Art Rock said:


> It is an objective fact that subjective tastes differ from one person to the next, even quite considerably, and even within the same target group of classical music lovers.
> 
> Granted, the music itself has objective qualities (approximate duration, instruments/voices used, structure, etc). But in the end, the level of appreciation of that music by a listener is subjective. There is no right or wrong in this respect. You may think Beethoven's 9th is the greatest piece of art ever produced, whereas I think it is his worst symphony. And we're both right, because both are in essence subjective statements.


There is always the weight of History, with a capital "H." Subjectivity matters, but it has gained WAY too much power lately, because of the internet. If I typed it, that means it's true!

Plus, we are all human: we have two eyes, arms, and legs (if we're lucky). I.e., I think we have more in common than we have in differences; if you are a good liberal, that's the way you think. All People are created equal, right?



Art Rock said:


> You may think Beethoven's 9th is the greatest piece of art ever produced, whereas I think it is his worst symphony. And we're both right, because both are in essence subjective statements.


That's why I always take Amazon reviews with a grain of salt. I love the Ninth, and it is almost universally recognized as one of the greatest artistic achievements of Mankind. Wake up, man! :lol:


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I believe that talking about music is like talking about religion or politics, since one is talking about ones beliefs and it often leads to misunderstanding and hurt feelings.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> I believe that talking about music is like talking about religion or politics, since one is talking about ones beliefs and it often leads to misunderstanding and hurt feelings.


Oh, I get it: music is supposed to be completely subjective, like religion or politics. Music is where people go to distinguish themselves from the crowd as individuals; it's an isolated, subjective experience.

That doesn't work in choirs, or orchestras, or if you actually have to make music yourself! Too bad. Recording, and headphones, have turned music into an isolating, subjective thing...


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, I get it: music is supposed to be completely subjective, like religion or politics. Music is where people go to distinguish themselves from the crowd as individuals; it's an isolated, subjective experience.
> 
> That doesn't work in choirs, or orchestras, or if you actually have to make music yourself! Too bad. Recording, and headphones, have turned music into an isolating, subjective thing...


Doesn't it seem like that?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> That's why I always take Amazon reviews with a grain of salt. I love the Ninth, and it is almost universally recognized as one of the greatest artistic achievements of Mankind. Wake up, man! :lol:


Yes, more people will consider the 9th one of the greatest pieces of music or even art than not. My point is that the minority who do not agree with that based on their own level of appreciation are not wrong. That is all too often suggested, including your post, smilie face or not.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

mmsbls said:


> I will start with two thoughts.
> 
> 1) Speaking about music can be extremely difficult.
> 
> 2) Ambiguities between objective and subjective statements. So comment on my 2 thoughts or other issues related to speaking about music.


So instead of clearing up the situation I will add a third category of difficulty. That of describing sound in words. Describing the tonality of an oboe versus a clarinet, or minute tonal differences between mandolins. Describing the tone one particular electric guitarist achieves, versus another.

Certainly we can talk about relative volume, and we can talk about high and low pitch, but nasal? woody? throaty? airy? creamy? full bodied? crisp? clear? muddy?

It makes me happy actually, all of these problems. If music could be written about with absolute accuracy, if a piece could be put into words, then someone would write the essay and we would read it and there would be no reason to listen to the music.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Art Rock said:


> Yes, more people will consider the 9th one of the greatest pieces of music or even art than not. My point is that the minority who do not agree with that based on their own level of appreciation are not wrong. That is all too often suggested, including your post, smilie face or not.


The more educated one's opinion is, the less subjective it likely is. Look up the definitions of subjectivity and objectivity. Your premise (apparently) that everybody is right is wrong.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

JeffD said:


> So instead of clearing up the situation I will add a third category of difficulty. That of describing sound in words. Describing the tonality of an oboe versus a clarinet, or minute tonal differences between mandolins. Describing the tone one particular electric guitarist achieves, versus another.


I love the timbre of a marimba, but I couldn't come close to describing it to someone else. I remember my wife saying that some violins are brighter than others. As a physicist, I tried to imagine what that could possibly mean. She couldn't describe the difference easily so I looked up the term. I understood the physical definition, but I knew that I would not be able to pick the brighter violin just using that definition and my understanding of physics. I would have to listen to several violins and have others indicate which were the brighter ones. In many cases there seems to be no substitute for experience.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

To quote Leonard Bernstein, "Why do so many of us try to explain the beauty of music, thus depriving it of its beauty".

I agree with that. Better to listen more and talk less.

Of course Bernstein was quick to talk music to death on television for the Young Peoples' Concerts and at Harvard in the Norton Lectures. He didn't exactly practice what he preached.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DaveM said:


> The more educated one's opinion is, the less subjective it likely is. Look up the definitions of subjectivity and objectivity. Your premise (apparently) that everybody is right is wrong.


I think Art Rock is simply saying that, _based on his personal valuation of music_, Beethoven's 9th is not a great work. It's true that in polls the symphony is often rated one of the greatest, if not the greatest, classical work of all time. Presumably those who view Beethoven's 9th that way (as I do) have a different set of standards than Art does. Those standards may be subtly different and extremely difficult to define.

Here's a similar, but slightly different, situation. Many on TC have described atonal (or highly chromatic) works as sounding random. In fact, I often thought Berg's Violin Concerto sounded random. Others would criticize that view saying the concerto was objectively not random. That's true. The concerto row is certainly not random. But it absolutely _sounded_ random to me and apparently others as well. So it's true that Berg's Violin Concerto is not random but sounds random to some.

If I say, "Berg's concerto sounds random" and another responds, "But it's clearly not random," the other will have enormous trouble understanding my response to the work.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> I think Art Rock is simply saying that, _based on his personal valuation of music_, Beethoven's 9th is not a great work. It's true that in polls the symphony is often rated one of the greatest, if not the greatest, classical work of all time. Presumably those who view Beethoven's 9th that way (as I do) have a different set of standards than Art does. Those standards may be subtly different and extremely difficult to define.
> 
> Here's a similar, but slightly different, situation. Many on TC have described atonal (or highly chromatic) works as sounding random. In fact, I often thought Berg's Violin Concerto sounded random. Others would criticize that view saying the concerto was objectively not random. That's true. The concerto row is certainly not random. But it absolutely _sounded_ random to me and apparently others as well. So it's true that Berg's Violin Concerto is not random but sounds random to some.
> 
> If I say, "Berg's concerto sounds random" and another responds, "But it's clearly not random," the other will have enormous trouble understanding my response to the work.


Sorry, I don't see the connection between whether Beethoven's 9th is a great work or Berg's Violin Concerto sounds random. There is enough history, enough professional opinions and evaluation and enough influence on music that followed to result in very educated evaluations of works that are almost 200 years old.

The worth of an individual's opinion on whether they like a given work is absolute. However, an opinion (as to whether a work is great or not) that derives from a knowledge of research, study, books and lectures by very educated people over many decades has more value than an opinion based on whether an individual 'thinks' the work is great or not, based on nothing much more than their own persuasion. Everyone is simply not 'right' about everything on these subjects.

So, I don't mind hearing that someone doesn't like Beethoven's 9th or even the reasons why they don't like it. But a proclamation that it isn't a great work just because they say so indicates a resistance to accept historical truths (to put it as nicely as possible).


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

DaveM said:


> But a proclamation that it isn't a great work just because they say so indicates a resistance to accept historical truths (to put it as nicely as possible).


Very interesting.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> Here's a similar, but slightly different, situation. Many on TC have described atonal (or highly chromatic) works as sounding random. In fact, I often thought Berg's Violin Concerto sounded random. Others would criticize that view saying the concerto was objectively not random. That's true. The concerto row is certainly not random. But it absolutely _sounded_ random to me and apparently others as well. So it's true that Berg's Violin Concerto is not random but sounds random to some.
> 
> If I say, "Berg's concerto sounds random" and another responds, "But it's clearly not random," the other will have enormous trouble understanding my response to the work.





Taggart said:


> The two parts of the OP are a matching pair. If we can identify the part of the music that affects us and somehow indicate what we find interesting then it makes it easier for somebody else to criticise the piece by giving their response to the parts we like. If we can identify what we like in a composer, then others can comment as to how it affects them.


When I talked about Bach having some interesting modulations, I was talking about No. 5, BWV 791. This has two voices duetting in canon above an extended chord phrase in the bass. Because the two upper voices enter separately, they can be playing in different keys. Is this dissonance or simply an artefact caused by canonic interaction?

If a piece sounds random are you (is one) imposing your own ideas of order and pattern on a piece which does not support them? Does the piece in fact have a comprehensible structure which can be learned in order to understand what the composer is attempting much as one learns canonic techniques and bringing out the separate voices in Bach.

Is it akin to asking why a Bach keyboard player doesn't use the sustain pedal or to expect Gaelic Psalm singing - free heterophony - to sound like a massed choir singing the Messiah?

Ultimately if something sounds random, what does that mean - is it a jumble where the composer doesn't have a clear vision or makes a mess of it, or does the composer have a clear vision and express himself well according to his own rules but not a vision that you can easily find or comprehend? Language is very poor here, I mean comprehend both a sense of mastery and of understanding.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Sorry, I don't see the connection between whether Beethoven's 9th is a great work or Berg's Violin Concerto sounds random. There is enough history, enough professional opinions and evaluation and enough influence on music that followed to result in very educated evaluations of works that are almost 200 years old.
> 
> The worth of an individual's opinion on whether they like a given work is absolute. However, an opinion (as to whether a work is great or not) that derives from a knowledge of research, study, books and lectures by very educated people over many decades has more value than an opinion based on whether an individual 'thinks' the work is great or not, based on nothing much more than their own persuasion. Everyone is simply not 'right' about everything on these subjects.
> 
> So, I don't mind hearing that someone doesn't like Beethoven's 9th or even the reasons why they don't like it. But a proclamation that it isn't a great work just because they say so indicates a resistance to accept historical truths (to put it as nicely as possible).


It is problematic, and it doesn't help that 'great' has acquired a slang meaning of fab, nice, I like it.

I do see what you're saying. 
I adore Shakespeare and Jane Austen, and I think they are 'great' artists, so I found it hard when students would tell me how they couldn't see anything in them, or some other author we were studying. When George Bernard Shaw says, "With the single exception of Homer, there is no eminent writer, not even Sir Walter Scott, whom I can despise so entirely as I despise Shakespeare when I measure my mind against his," it doesn't to my mind detract from Shakespeare's greatness one jot. (Or Homer's; or Sir Walter Scott's. )

Still, if someone really doesn't rate a work of music, no matter what the general opinion, they are surely allowed to say that? Maybe they should say 'despite its reputation, I don't consider x,y,z to be a great work, because' - and then make some observations about its structure, lack of originality or whatever.

Even the fact that great masses of apparently knowledgeable people say that something is 'great', it is still masses of people saying that they *like* the work, and matters of taste are not, in the end, 'proved' to be correct by majority vote.

Plus, there will doubtless always be minorities of apparently knowledgeable people who don't think that the said work is 'great'. 
And we have to account for fashion, as well - for fifty or more years after Bach's death, he wasn't revered as most moderns revere him. On the contrary, he was thought to be dry and boring, a chap who tried out every mathematical combination _ad nauseam_, rather than one who spoke to the soul.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Ingélou said:


> It is problematic, and it doesn't help that 'great' has acquired a slang meaning of fab, nice, I like it.
> 
> I do see what you're saying.
> I adore Shakespeare and Jane Austen, and I think they are 'great' artists, so I found it hard when students would tell me how they couldn't see anything in them, or some other author we were studying. When George Bernard Shaw says, "With the single exception of Homer, there is no eminent writer, not even Sir Walter Scott, whom I can despise so entirely as I despise Shakespeare when I measure my mind against his," it doesn't to my mind detract from Shakespeare's greatness one jot. (Or Homer's; or Sir Walter Scott's. )
> ...


I understand what you're saying also, but I take the words of the English language literally whenever possible. The definition of great is 'of an quality, extent, amount, or intensity considerably above the normal or average.' Do we not have enough information about the 9th Symphony to proclaim it great? In the end, IMO that's all that's necessary to consider.

The example of Bach can be misleading because in those days music lovers didn't have the benefit of recordings. Sometimes the proclivity of regional orchestras to schedule works depended on all sorts of variables that didn't necessarily have to do with quality of the music. In Bach's case the oversight was (relatively) soon rectified. If there had been recordings, his 'off' period likely wouldn't have occurred.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DaveM said:


> Sorry, I don't see the connection between whether Beethoven's 9th is a great work or Berg's Violin Concerto sounds random. There is enough history, enough professional opinions and evaluation and enough influence on music that followed to result in very educated evaluations of works that are almost 200 years old.


I think the problem is that great is not properly defined or perhaps that great can have definitions that vary depending on individual assumptions. I'm sure Art Rock would not disagree that historically those who have studied classical music in detail have tended to agree that Beethoven's 9th is one of the major works and is held in very high esteem. I probably should let him further explain his view if he so chooses. I believe some people feel that neither historical nor expert evaluations can properly establish that something is great because greatness can have standards outside of what those evaluating a work are using.



DaveM said:


> Everyone is simply not 'right' about everything on these subjects.


Probably no one is right about everything on any complex subject. I still think most people believe that it is not correct to assert that anyone is _right_ on matters that are subjective.


----------



## dzc4627 (Apr 23, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> Threads focusing on somewhat similar ideas have been started in the past, but I thought a general discussion might be fun. I'd like people to share difficulties, ambiguities, joys, or other issues related to how we discuss music with each other. I will start with two thoughts.
> 
> 1) Speaking about music can be extremely difficult. In particular describing what we like about a work or composer can be rather challenging. We can say simplistic things, but, for example, why exactly do I respond so strongly to Mozart's Sinfonia Concertante? I've greatly enjoyed posts of others who are able to articulate how the music makes them feel.
> 
> ...


That Sinfonia Concertante is really something huh! Favorite movement?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Taggart said:


> If a piece sounds random are you (is one) imposing your own ideas of order and pattern on a piece which does not support them? Does the piece in fact have a comprehensible structure which can be learned in order to understand what the composer is attempting much as one learns canonic techniques and bringing out the separate voices in Bach...
> 
> Ultimately if something sounds random, what does that mean - is it a jumble where the composer doesn't have a clear vision or makes a mess of it, or does the composer have a clear vision and express himself well according to his own rules but not a vision that you can easily find or comprehend? Language is very poor here, I mean comprehend both a sense of mastery and of understanding.


I know you're not really asking me personally, but I think we generally view recorded composers as having a clear vision and expressing themselves well. Certainly works that make no sense to me are likely works that require better understanding or different ways of listening for me to understand or appreciate them.

What I have found remarkable is the ability of the brain to hear a work as complete gibberish without any enjoyment but later to hear the same work as both beautiful and ordered. I realize it's simply learning, but the process is stunning at times.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

dzc4627 said:


> That Sinfonia Concertante is really something huh! Favorite movement?


Honestly I don't know. The more I hear it (and I've heard it many times), the more I'm in complete awe. To me it appears perfect with each movement having such gloriously wonderful interplay between violin and viola. I suppose I can say that the second movement fills me with such longing and sadness that it may be the most impactful movement.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> I think the problem is that great is not properly defined or perhaps that great can have definitions that vary depending on individual assumptions. I'm sure Art Rock would not disagree that historically those who have studied classical music in detail have tended to agree that Beethoven's 9th is one of the major works and is held in very high esteem. I probably should let him further explain his view if he so chooses. I believe some people feel that neither historical nor expert evaluations can properly establish that something is great because greatness can have standards outside of what those evaluating a work are using.
> 
> Probably no one is right about everything on any complex subject. I still think most people believe that it is not correct to assert that anyone is _right_ on matters that are subjective.


At the risk of beating a dead horse, in some respects, I sometimes think I'm living in a parallel universe on this forum. I've taken part in broad circles of classical music for many decades. If The 9th Symphony is not accepted as a great work, then I have no idea what some people here are using as a frame of reference other than what they 'like' or 'think' in a vacuum.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DaveM said:


> At the risk of beating a dead horse, in some respects, I sometimes think I'm living in a parallel universe on this forum. I've taken part in broad circles of classical music for many decades. If The 9th Symphony is not accepted as a great work, then I have no idea what some people here are using as a frame of reference other than what they 'like' or 'think' in a vacuum.


I'm not sure it's that bad. Beethoven's 9th was voted the top symphony in the TC Top recommended symphonies. I've seen many here list it as one of their favorite works (e.g. it's my favorite work). I suspect a large majority of TC members would call it a great work. Maybe some people view greatness as subjective enough such that they're not happy calling a work they dislike great. Hardly a parallel universe.


----------



## Timothy (Jul 19, 2017)

DaveM said:


> At the risk of beating a dead horse, in some respects, I sometimes think I'm living in a parallel universe on this forum. I've taken part in broad circles of classical music for many decades. If The 9th Symphony is not accepted as a great work, then I have no idea what some people here are using as a frame of reference other than what they 'like' or 'think' in a vacuum.


I agree with you, Mahler's 9th Symphony is an established great work. I haven't heard much that succeeds it. Sometimes I'm surprised by people's strange opinions too


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure it's that bad. Beethoven's 9th was voted the top symphony in the TC Top recommended symphonies. I've seen many here list it as one of their favorite works (e.g. it's my favorite work). I suspect a large majority of TC members would call it a great work. Maybe some people view greatness as subjective enough such that they're not happy calling a work they dislike great. Hardly a parallel universe.


Me, personally, I'm not happy calling a work I like OR dislike great: nor do I think it is necessary to. I prefer to see a laudatory past as an indication that there is probably something in the work that, if I/others get to know, they will find stimulating. I don't understand why this isn't enough for some people and I can never find any argument that suggests we can be as objective as some people attempt to be. Expressions of enthusiasm/antipathy don't need to use value judgements in order to get their point across and to resonate, due to their being surrounded by similar reactions, over time.

On the other hand I am ready to admit that my view may change and the present one could be borne of my mental limitations


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> I think the problem is that great is not properly defined or perhaps that great can have definitions that vary depending on individual assumptions. I'm sure Art Rock would not disagree that historically those who have studied classical music in detail have tended to agree that Beethoven's 9th is one of the major works and is held in very high esteem. I probably should let him further explain his view if he so chooses. I believe some people feel that neither historical nor expert evaluations can properly establish that something is great because greatness can have standards outside of what those evaluating a work are using.
> 
> Probably no one is right about everything on any complex subject. I still think most people believe that it is not correct to assert that anyone is _right_ on matters that are subjective.


Indeed, actually you are voicing my opinion better than I did.

I have no problem accepting that it is widely accepted as a great work, possibly the greatest work in classical music.

I have a problem that there are people who do not accept that not everyone likes it (let's avoid the loaded and ill-defined term greatest in this sentence).

The fact that I (and others) do not like Beethoven 9 does not mean that we are wrong. The first time I expressed my dislike of the piece, the first reaction I got was "well, that means you have bad taste". And similar reactions have been given throughout the years.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Its one of those "if you don't get it, no explanation will help, and if you do get it, no explanation is necessary."


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2017)

Taggart said:


> Interesting quote from the Bard
> 
> Where Orsino recognises a cadence and can describe its effect (affect?) but also recognises that repetition can weary the ear. He doesn't attempt to describe the cadence merely how it impacts on him.
> 
> ...


Two connected points in response. Listening is the most important part, but I do like to understand what it is about a particular piece that provokes a strong emotional response. A while back, I was helped by Mahlerian to understand the particular musical components that caused me to well up in the slow movements of Haydn's 99th and Mahler's 6th.

And yet, over time, the impact of both has diminished. If there is a mechanical musical thing going on that causes a reaction, what is going on to lessen its impact? Something not mechanical or musical - and saying 'repetition' alone is not enough. I suspect it has something to do with repetition reducing the impact of anticipation/tension.



DaveM said:


> The more educated one's opinion is, the less subjective it likely is. Look up the definitions of subjectivity and objectivity. Your premise (apparently) that everybody is right is wrong.


A more educated opinion is still just an opinion. And your assertion that ArtRock's premise is wrong is right as an opinion, but wrong as an objective fact.



DaveM said:


> Sorry, I don't see the connection [etc]


When Art Rock said it wasn't great, I took him to mean that he didn't see (hear) what is great about it. Not that he didn't accept that there is a contrary majority view.



DaveM said:


> If The 9th Symphony is not accepted as a great work, then I have no idea what some people here are using as a frame of reference other than what they 'like' or 'think' in a vacuum.


Here's an example of how talking about music reveals something about how people think about other things. I would infer not just that it matters to DaveM that Beethoven's 9th be accepted by all as 'great' (and that there must be something wrong or ill-educated about anyone who doesn't accept it); but also that it matters to DaveM philosophcally speaking that there are objective truths that go beyond the mundane facts of "the Earth orbits the Sun."

I wonder whether there is a connection between the music one likes and the philosophy one embraces? Prehaps the certainty of "timeless melodies" attract those who can't deal with ambiguity? And the apparently 'random' of some modern music is loved by those who hate certainty and love ambiguity?


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Taggart said:


> Interesting quote from the Bard
> 
> Where Orsino recognises a cadence and can describe its effect (affect?) but also recognises that repetition can weary the ear. He doesn't attempt to describe the cadence merely how it impacts on him.
> 
> ...


I've been taking a series of music theory courses. Earlier this summer we analyzed (in some detail) Mozart's 23rd Piano Concerto. Then over the past week or so, I listened to all 32 of Beethoven's piano sonatas. Hearing Beethoven take the classical forms and harmonies in which Mozart reveled, expand them, violate them and reinvent them, with at least a rudimentary academic understanding increased my appreciation (and awe) of Beethoven's accomplishment. (And yet I am still far from the point where merely by listening I can explain what he did,)


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

This thread shows one of the pitfalls of talking about music: using different meanings for the same word. I was using "great/greatest" in the subjective form, i.e. my personal favourite(s), whereas DaveM takes it in the objective form - which brings us around to the never ending discussion whether there can be such a thing as objectively greatest in any art form.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> I wonder whether there is a connection between the music one likes and the philosophy one embraces? Prehaps the certainty of "timeless melodies" attract those who can't deal with ambiguity? And the apparently 'random' of some modern music is loved by those who hate certainty and love ambiguity?


My impression is that those who embrace the notion of objectivity tend to have more conservative tastes (i.e., a preference for older music) than those who insist on subjectivity.
Perhaps for a subjectivist (I include myself here, obviously), rejecting objectivity is to some degree a defensive response, borne from the repeated experience of having music that one is sure is obviously great being dismissed as obviously rubbish. By "defensive response" I don't just mean a childish "your rules suck, therefore there are no rules", but a pause for thought and a consideration of the conundrum of why it just isn't inherently obvious which music is "great" and which is "bad" (or "not even music").

(btw, I don't know if many people actually "hate certainty" - it's just that they can easily live without it?)


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> My impression is that those who embrace the notion of objectivity tend to have more conservative tastes (i.e., a preference for older music) than those who insist on subjectivity.


Curious that those of us who like chromatic music with things like lament bass and omnibus progression are defined as objective conservatives.



Nereffid said:


> By "defensive response" I mean a pause for thought and a consideration of the conundrum of why it just isn't inherently obvious which music is "great" and which is "bad" (or "not even music").


The whole question of "music" is a matter of taste. I find Kipling's quote form "In the Neolithic Age" appropriate:



> And I wiped my mouth and said, "It is well that they are dead,
> For I know my work is right and theirs was wrong."
> 
> But my Totem saw the shame; from his ridgepole-shrine he came,
> ...


We would consider a major second to be a dissonance in Bach, but quite acceptable in a Debussy piece. The fourth was consonant up till the Renaissance when it became dissonant and required resolution. The intervals are the same we just view them differently. Music affects us and the effect will depend on our cultural perceptions and our previous experience. I am well aware that while I consider e.g. Gaelic psalm singing one of the great experiences, the free heterophony is a little much for most people. I listen to a lot of folk music so I'm happy with medieval through Baroque but find the classical style a little cloying - all that tonal harmony - while appreciating its power. Given that, I am well aware that not everybody shares my tastes in good music - their loss!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Taggart said:


> Curious that those of us who like chromatic music with things like lament bass and omnibus progression are defined as objective conservatives.


Erm, I said "those who embrace the notion of objectivity tend to have more conservative tastes (i.e., a preference for older music)".
I _didn't_ say "those who have more conservative tastes (i.e., a preference for older music) tend to embrace the notion of objectivity".
And even if I had, the word _tend_ was in there, not _are_, so there was no _defining_ going on.
And by "older music" I _literally meant_ music that is old in chronological terms, and nothing else.

tl;dr I have no idea what you're responding to.


----------

