# Questions without easy answers...



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I'm thinking of double standards in relation to music, esp. regarding classical, our focus here. I'm exaggerating my points here a bit, but bear with me.

Eg. on the thread about rap, the thing that the lyrics of that are rubbish. Well, what about weak librettos in some operas? Or how people say they don't care for the words of the Latin mass, they just like the music? Does it really matter?

Of course it does if you have an agenda, pulling down something you happen not to like or understand (etc.), it does heaps.

Then the idea of "sameness" and "blandness" in other genres than classical. Well, classical has heaps of that. It also has heaps of rehash, which I can't stand. Be on this forum long enough and you know how my bugbear is _Holy Minimalism_, at least things like Arvo Part's output of last 20 years, the very definition of rehash.

But it's classical, so it's okay, right? We just put it under the carpet. Let's put the boot into rap rehash, or metal rehash, or country & western rehash. Classical is inherently better as it appeals to highbrows.

Then the biggest joke is that Wagnerites claim he appeals to the vast majority of classical listeners. WEll that's totally not matching my experience. Saying Wagner's operas are typical of the genre, therefore have potential for mass appeal, is just as silly as saying Havergal Brian's _Gothic_ symphony is a typical symphony. & I'm not talking of Wagner's orchestral and choral highlights, which most into classical know, I'm talking of his works in full (which most don't, and a fair amount avoid like the plague).

So sorry for various agendas, false dichotomies, double standards, doesn't wash with me guys - or with anyone else who can THINK.

Feel free to comment on the above rant and also offer your own experiences of these kinds of things, esp. online.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

*False Dichotomy*

God, you use that phrase a lot!

Edit II: kay, I refined my wording. 102 results, it seems. Very nice.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

This is a very interesting topic, and I think it may well be one of those things that we have to force ourselves to recognise every so often so that we don't become complacent. I'm sure that I probably fall into these dichotomies on occasion. I thought the parallel between the awful rap lyrics and bad librettos or people who don't listen to librettos at all was a particularly good one.

I imagine these dichotomies are largely a manifestation of everyone's certainty that the music they listen to is the best kind of music. This is probably a phenomenon across genres, not just classical, but I reckon classical fans may be slightly more guilty than others because classical music is seen as _the_ art music - the one that takes the most mastery to create, and the one that has the best respected creators, thus the form that has the most intrinsic value, _if_ any art form could have intrinsic value.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

How about this:

Couldn't those be valid criticisms of several different genres? Also, don't different genres focus on different compositional elements, so isn't it all the more valid for us to criticize those who write in a genre when they suck at what they focus on?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> This is a very interesting topic, and I think it may well be one of those things that we have to force ourselves to recognise every so often so that we don't become complacent. I'm sure that I probably fall into these dichotomies on occasion. I thought the parallel between the awful rap lyrics and bad librettos or people who don't listen to librettos at all was a particularly good one...


AS I said in my first sentence, I was exaggerating to get my point across. Nothing wrong with generalising or valuing what we like, it's just when it's used as part of an agenda that I don't like it. Esp. belittling other's tastes or other composers. They often say it's a joke but jokes even if meant in jest can hurt.

So I don't want to be a "false dichotomy Nazi" or something like that. I am no saint and have not always been balanced here myself.



> ...
> I imagine these dichotomies are largely a manifestation of everyone's certainty that the music they listen to is the best kind of music. This is probably a phenomenon across genres, not just classical, but I reckon classical fans may be slightly more guilty than others because classical music is seen as _the_ art music - the one that takes the most mastery to create, and the one that has the best respected creators, thus the form that has the most intrinsic value, _if_ any art form could have intrinsic value.


I would say there are jazz highbrows, and same in rock, hip hop, r&b, dubstep, you name it. Every genre will have an elite or those who see themselves as that. There's not only classical highbrows, however I think that breaking down the stereotype of only rich people or intellectuals liking classical, or having potential to. Or in some cases, if you don't like composers we don't like - eg. the Wagner example - you are a moron, your opinion is of course of limited value because "we" know what's good music, what is the peak of classical music or opera, etc. The old us and them mentality. Maybe it's human nature, but I hope it isn't, or we can avoid it.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> Also, don't different genres focus on different compositional elements, so isn't it all the more valid for us to criticize those who write in a genre when they suck at what they focus on?


I think this is of particular importance. Arguably, there are 'cross-generic' factors that we could consider, such as the global cultural impact of a particular work (most classical music would fail here, of course!), but when we seek to appraise a piece, I think we really have to step into the mindset of the person writing it; their intentions; other pieces in the same style; and how it compares to those contextual benchmarks. Just as it's no good to judge Mozart by Mahlerian standards, it's no better to judge rap by Beethovenian standards, or more general classical ones.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> How about this:
> 
> Couldn't those be valid criticisms of several different genres? Also, don't different genres focus on different compositional elements, so isn't it all the more valid for us to criticize those who write in a genre when they suck at what they focus on?


Yes, what you suggests gels with me, in that it's "safer" to talk about one single genre, esp. if we want to compare things.

I was not stating any position on what is "better" - eg. the lyrics of opera, a mass in Latin, or rap music. I am just saying that some people value certain things over others, which is fine. But they seem to not have in mind that, for example, these types of music have different purposes.



Polednice said:


> ...when we seek to appraise a piece, I think we really have to step into the mindset of the person writing it; their intentions; other pieces in the same style; and how it compares to those contextual benchmarks...


I think context is also important, to me it's very important. & the links between things (I often try to think of the links and not so much the often more readily obvious differences)...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Sid James said:


> I think context is also important, to me it's very important. & the links between things (I often try to think of the links and not so much the often more readily obvious differences)...


I think poor thinking around the issue of context is also what leads to a lot of contemporary music antagonism. We already know that people are perfectly capable of being contextual when it comes to common practice music. For example, I and others express an affinity with Romantic music and dislike Baroque to an extent, but still respect the achievements and talent of Baroque music in its contemporary context. We thus do not judge Baroque music by Romantic standards. Yet some have the double standard of _precisely_ using Romantic standards in order to condemn contemporary music.

I think we can legitimately talk about underlying aesthetics - for example, we could argue why the Romantic ideal is more appealing for us than the Baroque or contemporary ones (though this will all eventually boil down to taste, of course) - but we have to be careful not to conflate this with a critique of an individual piece or composer. Once again, I may well detest the Baroque sound but acknowledge that the Goldberg Variations are supremely well made in the same manner that I may detest twelve-tone music but acknowledge that Schoenberg's Piano Pieces have a similar contextual value. People seem less willing to make the latter concession.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Polednice said:


> I think poor thinking around the issue of context is also what leads to a lot of contemporary music antagonism. We already know that people are perfectly capable of being contextual when it comes to common practice music. For example, I and others express an affinity with Romantic music and dislike Baroque to an extent, but still respect the achievements and talent of Baroque music in its contemporary context. We thus do not judge Baroque music by Romantic standards. Yet some have the double standard of _precisely_ using Romantic standards in order to condemn contemporary music.
> 
> I think we can legitimately talk about underlying aesthetics - for example, we could argue why the Romantic ideal is more appealing for us than the Baroque or contemporary ones (though this will all eventually boil down to taste, of course) - but we have to be careful not to conflate this with a critique of an individual piece or composer. Once again, I may well detest the Baroque sound but acknowledge that the Goldberg Variations are supremely well made in the same manner that I may detest twelve-tone music but acknowledge that Schoenberg's Piano Pieces have a similar contextual value. People seem less willing to make the latter concession.


I'm a bit less nice than you, because I don't see much trouble in pointing out that I normally find rap repugnant, and I would criticize it under the lens of it's own idioms. Of course, some good rap has been written, too. Maybe I'd like to contribute to that thread, before it possibly gets locked up, presumably after a derailment or poo throwing session.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Polednice said:


> I think poor thinking around the issue of context is also what leads to a lot of contemporary music antagonism. We already know that people are perfectly capable of being contextual when it comes to common practice music. For example, I and others express an affinity with Romantic music and dislike Baroque to an extent, but still respect the achievements and talent of Baroque music in its contemporary context. We thus do not judge Baroque music by Romantic standards. Yet some have the double standard of _precisely_ using Romantic standards in order to condemn contemporary music.
> 
> I think we can legitimately talk about underlying aesthetics - for example, we could argue why the Romantic ideal is more appealing for us than the Baroque or contemporary ones (though this will all eventually boil down to taste, of course) - but we have to be careful not to conflate this with a critique of an individual piece or composer. Once again, I may well detest the Baroque sound but acknowledge that the Goldberg Variations are supremely well made in the same manner that I may detest twelve-tone music but acknowledge that Schoenberg's Piano Pieces have a similar contextual value. People seem less willing to make the latter concession.


You're probably familiar with the label of "ethnocentrism". I think it can be applied to people and their symbols when it comes to art as well. We vilify and decry the problems we see with those things that are foreign to us.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> ...Once again, I may well detest the Baroque sound but acknowledge that the Goldberg Variations are supremely well made in the same manner that I may detest twelve-tone music but acknowledge that Schoenberg's Piano Pieces have a similar contextual value. People seem less willing to make the latter concession.


Well I must say that in a way this forum has improved dramatically regarding post-1900 and contemporary classical musics. I don't think many members here would argue with that, eg. that the J.S. Bach piece was just as great piece of keyboard writing as Schoenberg's was in his day.

But when people are in the heat of argument, they're likely to be too emotional, sometimes say things that are false dichotomies or just don't make sense if separated from that argument. I'm no different, at times I go back, if I can bother, and delete a whole post of mine.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

I agree with everything except the concept of "dubstep highbrows", that's an oxymoron


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I can take any kind of music, until my head starts hurting.

View attachment 3720


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

regressivetransphobe said:


> I agree with everything except the concept of "dubstep highbrows", that's an oxymoron


WEll a few months back, people implied on THIS dubstep thread that the most famous & successful dubstep performer today, _Skrillex_, isn't as good as the guys who started the genre. I'm not commenting on that, it may or may not be true.

But in this context, a highbrow is a bit like a guy who went on holiday to an exotic location say 10 or 20 years ago, before it became trendy and cliche to go there, before the Hilton crowd and Club Med built a hotel or five star resort there. Eg. "I went to Vietnam when it was still in ruins from the war and I lived like a neanderthal like the rest of the people there, fed mainly on rice and greens for three weeks...Now it's no good, it's been spoilt by all those rich tourists and backpackers." Well, this guy forgets he's a tourist, he just went there at a different time. It's the same country, just not exactly the same.

Again, it's not how I approach things in music. It's overanalysing. It's as if people have to be guilty of enjoying _Skrillex_, the earlier more obscure stuff is better basically due to that fact. Obscurity is a badge of honour, success is being a sell-out. So I think it's in all types of music, basically. Look at how the folk purists booed Bob Dylan in the 1960's when he switched to electric guitar from the acoustic. The purists said he'd not sell many albums, history proved them wrong straight away.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Yeah, I was sorta being tongue-in-cheek. All dubstep is basically the modern nu-metal though (not a good thing).


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^I listen to it, esp. on radio, but not too much of it. Have a compilation or two of it. It's okay I guess, but not my main musical diet, obviously. But I'm no dubstep highbrow, that's for sure ...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I suspect (surely not a theory original to me, but it's where I'd lay my intellectual craps money down) that we subconsciously choose to like or not like a genre of music based at least largely on subconscious evaluations of its potential effect on our social status. As with seemingly every other explanation of our behavior, our conscious reasons are probably in reality simply post-hoc justifications for decisions that we know no more about than anyone else, even though they were made in our own minds. 

Another variable I'd expect to play a role is our openness to experience and how similar/different the genre is to the music we heard as children.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> I'm a bit less nice than you, because I don't see much trouble in pointing out that I normally find rap repugnant, and I would criticize it under the lens of it's own idioms. Of course, some good rap has been written, too. Maybe I'd like to contribute to that thread, before it possibly gets locked up, presumably after a derailment or poo throwing session.


I don't think that's out of the boundaries I set. Given that you acknowledge that some good rap has been written, I think it's perfectly reasonable for you to condemn other rap as crap in comparison.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

science said:


> I suspect (surely not a theory original to me, but it's where I'd lay my intellectual craps money down) that we subconsciously choose to like or not like a genre of music based at least largely on subconscious evaluations of its potential effect on our social status. As with seemingly every other explanation of our behavior, our conscious reasons are probably in reality simply post-hoc justifications for decisions that we know no more about than anyone else, even though they were made in our own minds.
> 
> Another variable I'd expect to play a role is our openness to experience and how similar/different the genre is to the music we heard as children.


Social status is an interesting reason. I think there's potential for it to be true, largely because music taste is correlated with personality, and so it is used kind of like a bonding tool amongst groups of friends. In that way, you may well find yourself listening to certain types of music in order to gel better with your social group. But there are certainly examples - probably not that rare - of people developing tastes in music completely foreign to peer and family groups. What would be the purpose then?


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

_Questions without easy answers_


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Lukecash12 said:


> How about this:
> 
> Couldn't those be valid criticisms of several different genres? Also, don't different genres focus on different compositional elements, so isn't it all the more valid for us to criticize those who write in a genre when they suck at what they focus on?


The criticism may be valid, but I would need to listen to _way_ too much of it to produce a _fair_ criticism. That's why I try to avoid music criticism (except for Wagner).


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Social status is an interesting reason. I think there's potential for it to be true, largely because music taste is correlated with personality, and so it is used kind of like a bonding tool amongst groups of friends. In that way, you may well find yourself listening to certain types of music in order to gel better with your social group. But there are certainly examples - probably not that rare - of people developing tastes in music completely foreign to peer and family groups. What would be the purpose then?


Is "distinction" plausible? "I'm not like you, I'm special."


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

science said:


> I suspect (surely not a theory original to me, but it's where I'd lay my intellectual craps money down) that we subconsciously choose to like or not like a genre of music based at least largely on subconscious evaluations of its potential effect on our social status. As with seemingly every other explanation of our behavior, our conscious reasons are probably in reality simply post-hoc justifications for decisions that we know no more about than anyone else, even though they were made in our own minds.
> 
> Another variable I'd expect to play a role is our openness to experience and how similar/different the genre is to the music we heard as children.


I'm fairly startled by your 'social variable'. As my onetime factory superintendent used to say. "Can you give me some pacifics?"


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

science said:


> Is "distinction" plausible? "I'm not like you, I'm special."


I think that's plausible. What about the demographic of TC? I'm sure most of us would say we are interested in classical music for largely intellectual reasons - do you think these are also after the fact rationalistions, with us having been drawn to the music in the first place by other subconscious forces?


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Yeah, I was sorta being tongue-in-cheek. All dubstep is basically the modern nu-metal though (not a good thing).


All dubstep?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I think that's plausible. What about the demographic of TC? I'm sure most of us would say we are interested in classical music for largely intellectual reasons - do you think these are also after the fact rationalistions, with us having been drawn to the music in the first place by other subconscious forces?


Intellectual reasons? I find that notion dismaying. There are certainly social/cultural reasons for my liking Appalachian folk music and bluegrass, but AFAIK I like classical music only because I like it.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Intellectual reasons? I find that notion dismaying. There are certainly social/cultural reasons for my liking Appalachian folk music and bluegrass, but AFAIK I like classical music only because I like it.


Why "dismaying"? What I meant was that people would very often say they like classical music "because it has great structure"/"is emotionally enriching"/"is well thought out"/"provides a challenge" _etc._ rather than "because my Mum listened to it." Anyway, science's point may be that these are lies we tell ourselves.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Rap is 99.9999% about the text, 00.0001% about the music, leaving very little to discuss other than the quality of its text.

Opera, no matter how badly written the libretto or how utterly unbelievable and whack the plot (I'm thinking of a Very Famous Tetralogy), has tons of music all the time - as well as words. If the text fails you at least there is a lot of music to consider. Not so with Rap.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Rap is the vocal delivery, hip hop is the overall music aesthetic. So yes it is mainly about text but not so limited as your vanishingly small percentage implies. The rapper must have some connection and rhythm to the music. And music there is, it might be borrowed, stolen, chopped and sampled, but it still takes work and some modicum of talent to produce. Hip hop instrumentals are not some imaginary thing.

It seems strange to believe that something you think that is so devoid of music can dominate the music industry so. Perhaps there is too much music in opera, if there were less maybe it would be more popular.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

quack said:


> ...It seems strange to believe that something you think that is so devoid of music can dominate the music industry so. Perhaps there is too much music in opera, if there were less maybe it would be more popular.


oooooh, POPULAR. "Dominate the music industry so" Pop Pop Popular, all Pop music concerns....

Here is part of the problem of trying to toss popular genre in with any sort of classical: they come from a completely different place, have, basically utterly different -- if not diametrically opposed - intent.

Their aim might both be to 'entertain' but how, and whom - very different indeed.

I think it's best to leave all comparisons between pop and classical rest.

ADD: Trying to determine what is excellent and why on its own terms and for its own merits will get you there, not cross-genre 'accreditation' which is, so often, what is being Sought (!) when pop music is brought to the 'temple' of classical music, as if those in classical are 'legitimizers' of any and all music in all forms. Therein lies a misperception over, perhaps, education and, therefore 'class' which should have little to do with evaluating, or Excusing, any creative work. END ADD:

Sampling and putting together stuff with all those great electronic toys is more like being a collage artist than a painter who starts with a blank canvas and, knowing how to manipulate the materials, puts if all together from scratch. And, before you boil over, yes, they both take a sense of music and a musical intelligence to make. That is about the ONLY similarity.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Sampling and putting together stuff with all those great electronic toys is more like being a collage artist than a painter who starts with a blank canvas and, knowing how to manipulate the materials, puts if all together from scratch.


That's why those who sample and create tracks are called producers and not composers..


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Why "dismaying"? What I meant was that people would very often say they like classical music "because it has great structure"/"is emotionally enriching"/"is well thought out"/"provides a challenge" _etc._ rather than "because my Mum listened to it." Anyway, science's point may be that these are lies we tell ourselves.


Jeez, they would? That's dismaying too. And if that's _science_'s point, _that's_ dismaying too. Is it really that demeaning to say "****** if I know why I like it"?


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

I'm not really implying classical should strive to be as popular as hip hop, or that hip hop music is as good or takes as much talent to produce as an opera, I only wished to address the part about it lacking music. I own at least 10 times more opera than hip hop, probably closer to 30 times more, it is more popular with me certainly.

I'm not likely to boil over, especially as you mostly address just the joke at the end of my post and I have this chill hip hop to relax to, peaceland.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Jeez, they would? That's dismaying too. And if that's _science_'s point, _that's_ dismaying too. Is it really that demeaning to say "****** if I know why I like it"?


No that wouldn't be demeaning at all, and I don't think anyone has suggested it is.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> No that wouldn't be demeaning at all, and I don't think anyone has suggested it is.


Well then, why emit all the ********?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Well then, why emit all the ********?


I emit nothing but sweet fragrances!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

AFAIK doesn't do much, because I know almost nothing of what goes on in my mind. 

I don't have any idea about the demographics of TC. I'd guess that most of us made our minds up on this before we joined. We come here to discuss the music we like, to find out about specific works. But not so much to decide which genres of music we'll like.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Well then, why emit all the ********?


Sorry man, I can't tell what is bothering you.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

science said:


> AFAIK doesn't do much, because I know almost nothing of what goes on in my mind.
> 
> I don't have any idea about the demographics of TC. I'd guess that most of us made our minds up on this before we joined. We come here to discuss the music we like, to find out about specific works. But not so much to decide which genres of music we'll like.


Well, you don't have to speculate on the particular members here. I just meant that, as an example, there are certainly people - as we well know - who would explain their taste in classical music as being founded on a desire to find emotionally strong, structurally rich music. My main question is just whether you think these are always rationalisations, and that the things that really bring us to certain kinds of music are less intellectual, more social?


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Opera, no matter how badly written the libretto or how utterly unbelievable and whack the plot (I'm thinking of a Very Famous Tetralogy), has tons of music all the time - as well as words.


If you perceive this Very Famous Tetralogy as a fairy tale with a philosophical meaning (kind of like those by Oscar Wilde or Hans Christian Andersen) its plot is really wonderful, even if not exactly believable. At least it is far more thrilling than opera plots that resemble "soap operas" or telenovellas.

As concerns double standards in relation to music, I think they are simply part of human nature. We are all human beings after all who have not only logic and impartial judgment but also passions, emotions and attachments. If we taught a computer to somehow evaluate the quality of musical works we could be sure it's judgements are objective but people are not like that. And of course we want to defend something that is dear and valuable to us, in this case classical music. (And just being honest to ourselves, isn't it so much better than the rest of music?)

As for Wagner's appeal, I am not sure about the majority of classical listeners, however my experience is that he is one of the two classical composers (the other one is Mozart) most non-classical listeners, especially metalheads, are familiar with. I know quite a few people (myself included) who came from metal to classical music through him.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

science said:


> Is "distinction" plausible? "I'm not like you, I'm special."


Has it occurred to you that not everything people do is reactionary and group oriented? Simply because that's a proven factor for everyone, does not mean that it is prevalent to the extent you've asserted.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Lukecash12 said:


> Has it occurred to you that not everything people do is reactionary and group oriented? Simply because that's a proven factor for everyone, does not mean that it is prevalent to the extent you've asserted.


I didn't say anything about "reactionary," so I'm not sure why you mention that.

Of course I used to have a more normal worldview, but like I said, this is my best guess at this time.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Well, you don't have to speculate on the particular members here. I just meant that, as an example, there are certainly people - as we well know - who would explain their taste in classical music as being founded on a desire to find emotionally strong, structurally rich music. My main question is just whether you think these are always rationalisations, and that the things that really bring us to certain kinds of music are less intellectual, more social?


Well, I'd be surprised if social and identity factors aren't very important parts of the process, and very surprised if our conscious awareness of the factors determining or influencing our tastes (whatever they are) is generally reliable.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

science said:


> I didn't say anything about "reactionary," so I'm not sure why you mention that.
> 
> Of course I used to have a more normal worldview, but like I said, this is my best guess at this time.


I used the word "reactionary", because it is my understanding that you view people's behaviors and opinions, in terms of social pressures like in-groups, to some extent that I've yet to see demarcated clearly enough to draw conclusions.

"Reactionary" meant this: reactions to pressures. I guess I'd call it proactive behavior and thinking as well.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Lukecash12 said:


> I used the word "reactionary", because it is my understanding that you view people's behaviors and opinions, in terms of social pressures like in-groups, to some extent that I've yet to see demarcated clearly enough to draw conclusions.
> 
> "Reactionary" meant this: reactions to pressures. I guess I'd call it proactive behavior and thinking as well.


I'm sorry, I wasn't familiar with that way of using "reactionary," and even so I'm not sure it is an accurate description of my hypothesis, in that it implies something like non-agency within an individual's mind. I'd rather steer well clear of that problem.

As I clarified in my response to Polednice, my hypothesis (not unique to me, but here I am the one voicing it) really has two parts:

1) we are not conscious of much of the real activity taking place in our brain,
1a) including things that we think we're conscious of, and
1b) the majority of our introspection is post-hoc and illusory;

2) with respect to musical tastes, an important part of the subconscious selection process probably includes a subconscious evaluation of how expressing various tastes will affect our self-identity and our identity within our communities.

In a previous discussion that you and I had, which seems to be on your mind even now, I stated a similar theory with respect to religious experience and identity. In that case, because I'm far more familiar with the evidence, the way the evidence was gathered, and so on, I'm nearly convinced that some process like I've described here is the essence of the matter, though other factors (such as susceptibility to trance-like experience, openness to novelty, and so on) are also important.

Nicholas Wade's _The Faith Instinct_ is an excellent popularization of the kind of theories I have, though he is less suspicious of David Sloane-Wilson's theories than I am (I go back and forth on whether group selection played a role in the evolution of religion, and if so, how strongly, but DSW's thought actually doesn't impress me very much, though he knows far, far more than I do about the biology and the game theory), and emphasizes less than I would the benefits for a religiously-talented individual within his or her community. Also, he doesn't take into account the kind of personality-variables I mentioned earlier. I think "Hilltroll" would also recommend this book, though I don't know how highly he thinks of it.

Probably the most important books in forming my views (at least as far as I'm aware!) were Middleton's _Lugbara Religion_, Spiro's _Burmese Supernaturalism_, McNeill's _Keeping Together in Time_, and Atran's _In Gods We Trust_. In general, I've been very influenced by the kind of psychological work you might know from V. S. Ramachandran; philosophically, by Owen Flanagan; and in the big picture, by E. O. Wilson's _On Human Nature_ and Pinker's books (though I don't find Pinker's explanation for music entirely plausible: IMO, it _must_ have been selected for, at least until the development of language, if not even until now). Of all these books, I recommend E. O. Wilson's, McNeill's, and Flanagan's the highest, and in that order; followed by Pinker and Ramachandran, in any order. If you only want the theory of religion, Atran is the single best, but he writes horribly.

My thoughts on music are analogous to my thoughts on religion, because music (specifically dance) is central to my theory on religion; I'd guess that religion, music, dance, ritual, and trance-like experiences were once nearly inseparable and evolved together, under the same pressures, to meet the same needs; and that the primary such need to was to create human communities far larger than could be held together by forces such as kin-selection or reciprocal altruism, and also to establish roles within those communities, for the purpose of waging war, both defensive and offensive. However, those behaviors (religion, music, etc.) played fairly different roles in premodern states, and now play yet different roles as we find ourselves in multiple communities in postmodern, postindustrial states.

I've tried to make clear the degree of confidence that I feel about various parts of this. I'm not 100% sure of any of it, and some parts of it are no more than guesses, which I'd almost be as surprised if they turned out to be correct as if they turned out to be wrong. So, yes, it's occurred to me that this could all be wrong, top to bottom. And yes, I used to have a worldview in which our introspection was basically a reliable guide to our minds. And yes, I used not to consider social forces as so important, I even used to be a Kierkegaardian individualist! That was in approximately my first three years of college; Byzantine theology drew me into a more community-oriented perspective. It was psychology, however, that really began to change my mind, and together with biology that finally pushed me so far away from individualism. As for the extent of the subconscious mind and the limits of consciousness, that was all psychology, and all within recent years (the past decade), though I was perhaps prepped for it by a little familiarity with Buddhist thought and some similar psychological insights in the Byzantine theological tradition.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

"I have climbed the mountain, and looked at the world, and descended". [Apologies to the ghost of Robert Frost]

It appears that you are still up there. You won't know who you are 'til you come down and walk home. But there's no good reason to come down before you figure out where home is, so hang in there, _science_.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Only death ends the questions - though surely it is not the answer.


----------



## Iforgotmypassword (May 16, 2011)

Well the thing with rap music is that the main focus is upon the lyrical aspect, therefore in that case I think that the lyrics should be exceptionally good, and I have only found two or three artists which I would consider to write "good" poetic lyrics... and even those use slang and profanity in them, which I feel takes away from it. I also never see any usage whatsoever of effective imagery, which I think is the most important aspect of poetry... but that's just personal opinion and preference. 

As far as other music is concerned, I think that the lyrics are only as important as the piece makes them. I listen to a lot of metal music in which the words are harshly marred by the vocal delivery. I also listen to gregorian chant in which case most of the words are in foreign tongues. In these cases I appreciate the vocals for their musical aspects and what they add to the piece, not the actual content. 
Now in other cases I hear lyrics that I find to be stupid or shallow in a song which I might have otherwise enjoyed, these can ruin it for me. 
On the flip side, I'll hear lyrics which are incredibly poetic and tell a great story or make me think, or have religious significance like you alluded to with the latin masses. In these cases the lyrics are suddenly an important addition to the music. 

So essentially, yes, no and sometimes to give a straight answer


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

quack said:


> Rap is the vocal delivery, hip hop is the overall music aesthetic. So yes it is mainly about text but not so limited as your vanishingly small percentage implies. The rapper must have some connection and rhythm to the music. And music there is, it might be borrowed, stolen, chopped and sampled, but it still takes work and some modicum of talent to produce. Hip hop instrumentals are not some imaginary thing.
> 
> It seems strange to believe that something you think that is so devoid of music can dominate the music industry so. Perhaps there is too much music in opera, if there were less maybe it would be more popular.


I think people are stereotyping hip-hop and other non classical things. Which is natural in a way, this is a classical forum. But I hate highbrows. Thing is, with the text of hip hop being paramount, it's more relevant to that audience, eg. the young people who listen to it. Eg. hip-hop, some of it I've listened to, can be about social issues, politics, the environment, all that stuff. It's just as politically engaged, some of it, as for example Verdi's operas where way back when.

So every type of music has it's "use." Which brings me to that thread hijaked by I think pedantry. There was music for use. Eg. Hindemith's pieces written for music students at various levels. Also piano etudes, eg. Bartok's Mikrocosmos, going from easy to medium to very hard to play. This kind of thing. So there. The pedants didn't think enough, it seems. Bring your "issues" from that thread here, we can deal with it here.



Hilltroll72 said:


> The criticism may be valid, but I would need to listen to _way_ too much of it to produce a _fair_ criticism. That's why I try to avoid music criticism (except for Wagner).


RE what I said above. I don't have a single hip hop cd, apart from I think jazzamatazz, a combination of hip hop and jazz, but anyway. The late MC Guru. But I have heard Hip hop on radio. Esp. alternative types of hip hop, not commercial stuff. Some of it is quite sophisticated on many levels. Bottom line is, all you need is your ears to the music and your brains to think about it. That's it. I don't need to own dozens of hip hop or techno cd's to realise that there are some great musicians working in those genres today. Same as I don't need too much of Wagner to know he was great, but I don't like him, basically. So that's what it boils down to imo, BRAINS. But if one wants to specialise in Wagner, that's fine. Same as specialising in anything in music or otherwise. But noone should claim the specialist in one composer is better or on a higher level than a specialist in another. This is a general statement and I think it's pretty acceptable in terms of how many people think here?



> ...
> As concerns double standards in relation to music, I think they are simply part of human nature. We are all human beings after all who have not only logic and impartial judgment but also passions, emotions and attachments. If we taught a computer to somehow evaluate the quality of musical works we could be sure it's judgements are objective but people are not like that. And of course we want to defend something that is dear and valuable to us, in this case classical music. (And just being honest to ourselves, isn't it so much better than the rest of music?)


I largely agree with that, with the added qualification that if I think I'm dealing in double standards, or something dodgy/rubbery thinking, I question what I'm saying. Or I say, I'm not sure of this, but...

So what I'm saying is my aim is to be as transparent, open as possible. Of course we all get emotional of the things we are passionate about.



> ...
> As for Wagner's appeal, I am not sure about the majority of classical listeners, however my experience is that he is one of the two classical composers (the other one is Mozart) most non-classical listeners, especially metalheads, are familiar with. I know quite a few people (myself included) who came from metal to classical music through him.


I can't comment on metalheads, I would understand why people into more intense/heavy/dark things would connect with Wagner. I'd add they may well connect with the composer I mentioned as a near thing to him in symphonic music, Havergal Brian. But thing is that people I've known throughout the years, many mention J.S. Bach as being their favourite, or one of them. Then Beethoven & maybe Brahms, other two B's. Then Handel, Mozart, Tchaikovsky and other Russians, and so on. Wagner is controversial, some people love him, others hate him, others middling with him. He's king of an enigma still. To claim that he is "mainstream" is streching it a bit imo, in terms of what/how I described it in my OP. I'd say Puccini is way more "mainstream" than Wagner - eg._ Nessun Dorma_. I wouldn't say Bruckner or Mahler are mainstream, well not here they aren't. Many find them long winded and drag on too long (last year here a large amount of people walked out on Mahler sym.#9 under Ashkenazy for whatever reason - I'm sure they wouldn't do it on Beethoven's 9th symphony). I'm okay with them. But just because someone loves something, doesn't mean it's automatically mainstream, that's what I'm saying.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Dodecaplex said:


> God, you use that phrase a lot!
> 
> Edit II: kay, I refined my wording. 102 results, it seems. Very nice.


How did every single person in this thread pass over this brilliant post?


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Their negligence gave me many harrowing nightmares and sleepless nights. Furthermore, unlike the brothers Philip und Phillip, my second account has been banned so I was unable to like the post myself.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Your 3rd account has liked your post for you.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

*To ask the hard question is simple:
*Asked at a meeting
With the simple glance of acquaintance
To what these go
And how these do;
To ask the hard question is simple,
The simple act of the confused will.

But the answer
Is hard and hard to remember:
On steps or on shore
The ears listening
To words at meeting,
The eyes looking
At the hands helping,
Are never sure
Of what they learn
From how these things are done,
And forgetting to listen or see
Makes forgetting easy,
Only remembering the method of remembering,
Remembering only in another way,
Only the strangely exciting lie,
Afraid
To remember what the fish ignored,
How the bird escaped, or if the sheep obeyed.

Till, losing memory,
Bird, fish, and sheep are ghostly,
And ghosts must do again
What gives them pain.
Cowardice cries
For windy skies,
Coldness for water,
Obedience for a master.

Shall memory restore
The steps and the shore,
The face and the meeting place;
Shall the bird live,
Shall the fish dive,
And sheep obey
In a sheep's way;
Can love remember
The question and the answer,
For love recover
What has been dark and rich and warm all over?


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Dodecaplex said:


> Their negligence gave me many harrowing nightmares and sleepless nights. Furthermore, unlike the brothers Philip und Phillip, my second account has been banned so I was unable to like the post myself.


Nobody likes a tattle tail.

Dr Philip

#25


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Cnote11 said:


> Your 3rd account has liked your post for you.


Fourth account too.

Oh my it all makes sense now doesn't it?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Much of what you speak of, the polarized unreasonableness in 'discussing' music is based more on sociopolitical and very 'average' psychological motors.

It is perhaps plainer to readily see the elitism and group-politic mentality when hearing a devotee of a particular sub-genre of pop music holding forth -- the "We only listen to dubstep here," mentality, as it were.

That is an elitism which can be found across the board in music fans, including classical, its sub genres, whether those be opera, chamber music, or repertoire by one composer or era -- in fact I see little difference in all that type of outlook, and the defense mechanisms and offenses that frame of reference produces in arguments.

Those defenses and offenses seem to me to be more the bailiwick of the music consumers than the professional performer or composer who daily grapples with the actuality of being in context of music and music as a profession. Those less tolerant, or better -- less accepting -- stances being very much "an armchair luxury."

Of course it is common to indiscriminately defend your whole family - with a rather fierce and blind loyalty - that defense includes the klutz, the idiot, the socially repugnant one, the loser, etc. The reflex to unthinkingly defend the otherwise inexcusable gets that much greater if you feel your family is in the minority, wholly misunderstood, and is regularly subject to an array of assaults or insults. Ergo, those unreasonable reactions, statements, are found as readily in those who love and consume the non-mainstream pop genres. Those unreasoned reactions are rife from many who are devoted to classical music -- as generally and superficially as popular as it has become, it has still, and always will have, an audience who are a minority in the collective face of all pop musics.

All that leads some to speak of music _almost as if they owned it,_ a rather repellent as well as insupportable stance. The fact music can reach so deeply that we can feel 'it is ours' is a testament to its remarkable powers.

Anyone who truly knows music can readily recognize musicality, if a piece works as having met what was set out to be accomplished, and can also recognize superb musicianship wherever it is evident, regardless of genre. (Whether you care for east Indian classical sitar music, Nikhil Banerjee was the equivalent of a Richter, Gilels, Callas, or whichever great performer, improvising / composing western musician one would care to name.)

That means an astute listener should be able to find the good Rap from the bad, the good ____ from the bad, and -- of my several favorite sacred cows to bash, recognize that some Bach is at least 'uninspired' if not boring, and that Beethoven and many others did not produce a lifetime's oeuvre of equal strengths - yes, many a great composer, 'our' favorite composers, wrote lesser works and clunkers.

Having been intensely in music from the age of six, it still _took me until my late twenties -- at least -- to realize that works or a genre not to my taste could nonetheless be superb works of art and craft, and my only real disagreement with them was they did not align with my particular general aesthetic sense of what music 'should be.'_ From that, I had to, with some chagrin, conclude that _'great' and 'my musical aesthetic' were in no way mutually inclusive._ In brief, I grew; along with that benchmark, good and great music, and how much there was of it, expanded greatly. [That little satori reminds me of the Mark Twain comment, "When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."]


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Dodecaplex said:


> God, you use that phrase a lot!
> 
> Edit II: kay, I refined my wording. 102 results, it seems. Very nice.


58 if you put "posted by sid james" in quotes, as it should be to make sure that he's the one who wrote it. Out of 6729 posts, not counting posts in the community forum.

So I'd estimate he uses it approximately once for every seven hundred forty-nine thousand times a false dichotomy is actually proposed or assumed here.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Am I the only one no longer allowed to start threads in the community forum? 

(Edit: Evidently not.)


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

You just did, and very informative it is too. Who's Charlie Haden?


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

Question: why was Polednice banned?

Martin


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

Given that time is constant and the universe is infinite: Why do I always get the stinking fat man instead of a beautiful woman on a long haul flight?

My research has led me to Sod's Law by professor Murphy.


----------

