# Assumption of greatness



## ZJovicic

Recently I've been watching a lot of movies, what I noticed is that both me, other people, and critics as well have a rather critical attitude to movies. If film is great, you're happy, you praise it, but if it sucks, well, you don't keep your mouth shut either. When I select movies to watch I look mostly for genre... which genre I am into mood for, then general themes that are explored, as well as critical rating. But I don't look only for critical rating. And even when I know what it is, I still watch a movie with an open mind, and sometimes I disagree with prevailing critical opinion.

The same apply to popular music albums, books, etc.

But I've noticed that such an attitude is often absent in appreciation of classical music. Instead, there assumption of greatness. We tend to think that most pieces are great, just because it's classical music, or just because it's written by Mozart or whomever. Even if we don't like a work, we'd rather say we don't get it, and not that it sucks. Quite the opposite, the less we get a work, or the less we like it, sometimes we think more highly of it... it must be so good, inaccessible, avant-garde, etc.

I'm not saying that this is always true, nor that it's the only attitude towards classical music, but it's quite common.

I am wondering if Strugeon's Law ("90% of everything is crap") applies to classical music as well. I guess not... the "law" is a bit humorous and is not meant to be taken literally, but still there is some truth to it.

I am wondering how would it be to be a classical music critic. (Is there such a thing at all? I am aware of music critics who write reviews of classical music *albums*, often featuring multiple compositions, sometimes by different composers, and the subject of their criticism is the CD, commenting the things like performance, mood, selection of works, etc... but often being quite shy when it comes to evaluating the compositions themselves)

Maybe good critics (especially if they are witty) would make the world of contemporary classical music interesting again. But really... any critic would need to assess old works as well, in order to make a name for themselves, and to establish their writing style, but really HOW to approach such writing, without being influenced by received opinion, and without being attacked for doing what some would call sacrilege... criticizing the likes of Bach, etc...

And regarding new works, can you really write a decent review of it, if you don't really get it, yet, for some reason you feel it's perhaps great, even if you can't really penetrate it, nor explain why. And if you just plain say that it sucks, you risk ridicule from others, and you're perhaps jumping to conclusions, because maybe at some point you WILL get it and appreciate it. How much confidence would you need to have to be able to say that a work sucks, and to really stand behind such an opinion, that is, you think that its not "just you", but the work indeed doesn't have redeeming qualities, and it's not just about getting it or not, sometimes there's simply nothing to get, because it doesn't exist (the quality that would make a work great).


----------



## Strange Magic

Excellent post! I cannot begin to count the number of classical works I have listened to just once.


----------



## Kieran

ZJovicic said:


> I am wondering if Strugeon's Law ("90% of everything is crap") applies to classical music as well.


I think he's being way too conservative in his estimate. perhaps he would be nearer the mark had he said, "99% of everything is crap."

Think about it: how many composers are considered great? Even "mid-great"? Look at the lists Nereffid used for his recent competitions - some of them are fairly obscure to the common listener (ie, the likes of me), though they may still be great. But how many truly "great" composers do we celebrate?

And then, how many graduates from the conservatoires have become composers....of crap? Literally, people have been composing for centuries, and we have so few composers we know of who have achieved the mantle of being called "great", in its literal sense. Not in the whimsy sense that it gets abused by so much nowadays.

As for "Mozart, or whomever", I think most great composers have works which are admittedly average, or uninteresting, and if their whole case rested on these lesser works, they'd be long forgotten, alongside the lumpen mass composers who strove beside them, as their contemporaries. But the likes of "Mozart, or whomever" are called "great" because their music has withstood every musical fad, every shifting scene, every new discovery and psychological examination, every change in historical reality, to be seen to portray humanity - regardless of whether empires exist, or fall, and regardless of whether we're atheist, or devout, and regardless of whether their own world of powdered wigs has long since ceased to exist...


----------



## Mandryka

Does Strugeon's law apply to posts on Talk Classical?


----------



## ZJovicic

Mandryka said:


> Does Strugeon's law apply to posts on Talk Classical?


Of course. But at least we can be relieved by the fact that one in 10 of our posts isn't really crappy.


----------



## ZJovicic

Kieran said:


> I think he's being way too conservative in his estimate. perhaps he would be nearer the mark had he said, "99% of everything is crap."
> 
> Think about it: how many composers are considered great? Even "mid-great"? Look at the lists Nereffid used for his recent competitions - some of them are fairly obscure to the common listener (ie, the likes of me), though they may still be great. But how many truly "great" composers do we celebrate?
> 
> And then, how many graduates from the conservatoires have become composers....of crap? Literally, people have been composing for centuries, and we have so few composers we know of who have achieved the mantle of being called "great", in its literal sense. Not in the whimsy sense that it gets abused by so much nowadays.
> 
> As for "Mozart, or whomever", I think most great composers have works which are admittedly average, or uninteresting, and if their whole case rested on these lesser works, they'd be long forgotten, alongside the lumpen mass composers who strove beside them, as their contemporaries. But the likes of "Mozart, or whomever" are called "great" because their music has withstood every musical fad, every shifting scene, every new discovery and psychological examination, every change in historical reality, to be seen to portray humanity - regardless of whether empires exist, or fall, and regardless of whether we're atheist, or devout, and regardless of whether their own world of powdered wigs has long since ceased to exist...


In more seriousness, I am a bit more optimistic, and I would disagree with Sturgeon. In films for example... I would say around 30-40 % of movies I watched could be called crap. I wasn't terribly selective with movies, I watched many classics, but also many movies without established reputations. Most of them at least have some redeeming quality, and can be a nice entertainment. But truly great movies are also rare. When you watch a lot, you can sometimes be disappointed with the fact that certain topics aren't explored deeper, or that certain things are repetitively featured in many movies - cliches. Anyway, I wouldn't say that 90% of movies are crap, at least when it comes to relatively well known films.

But I still think there's a problem that in classical music greatness is sometimes automatically assumed, and also I think there's more crappy works than crappy composers. That's why I said "Mozart or whomever"... if you just listen to everything one person composed you might encounter some crap, and perhaps more likely than if you listen to good works by many people, including lesser known ones.


----------



## KenOC

ZJovicic said:


> ...I am wondering if Strugeon's Law ("90% of everything is crap") applies to classical music as well. I guess not... the "law" is a bit humorous and is not meant to be taken literally, but still there is some truth to it.


I think it certainly applies to music. But one of the ideas of what we call "classical music" is that time has winnowed out a good portion of that 90%, and what remains (and what we're likely to hear) is to a large extent the remaining 10%.


----------



## ZJovicic

KenOC said:


> I think it certainly applies to music. But one of the ideas of what we call "classical music" is that time has winnowed out a good portion of that 90%, and what remains (and what we're likely to hear) is to a large extent the remaining 10%.


Let's hope so.


----------



## Kieran

ZJovicic said:


> In more seriousness, I am a bit more optimistic, and I would disagree with Sturgeon. In films for example... I would say around 30-40 % of movies I watched could be called crap. I wasn't terribly selective with movies, I watched many classics, but also many movies without established reputations. Most of them at least have some redeeming quality, and can be a nice entertainment. But truly great movies are also rare. When you watch a lot, you can sometimes be disappointed with the fact that certain topics aren't explored deeper, or that certain things are repetitively featured in many movies - cliches. Anyway, I wouldn't say that 90% of movies are crap, at least when it comes to relatively well known films.
> 
> But I still think there's a problem that in classical music greatness is sometimes automatically assumed, and also I think there's more crappy works than crappy composers. That's why I said "Mozart or whomever"... if you just listen to everything one person composed you might encounter some crap, and perhaps more likely than if you listen to good works by many people, including lesser known ones.


I watched a cautionary tale for filmmakers yesterday - The Disaster Artist - which made me squirm while I giggled. A great movie - about a terrible one. And often in music we hear musical jokes by great composers, taking a pop at lesser composers. But the movies are a recent thing, and if we were to compile a list of every film ever made, including the Golden and Silver ages of Hollywood, we'd find that for every great classic flick, there's an industry fodder churn-out film made just because there's a space in the schedules that needs to be filled. It literally is a factory, a conveyor belt, and I would say that Sturgeon's Law holds for movie-making too.

But the reason why I mentioned movie-making as being relatively recent is that the great composers of centuries before people began to dream of electricity have simply endured longer, and their music has meant different things at different stages of human development. Look at music we consider "modern" - Stravinsky's Rite of Spring (1913). Movies were in their infancy then, still learning the language.



> Anyway, I wouldn't say that 90% of movies are crap, at least when it comes to relatively well known films.


I wouldn't be so sure...


----------



## Forss

This reminds me of a rather droll (and thought-provoking) proposition by Nietzsche in his _Human, All Too Human_: "Writers ought to be treated as malefactors who deserve to be freed or pardoned only in the rarest cases: this would be a way of preventing the proliferation of books."


----------



## Capeditiea

*nods, for me, if a critic or someone says something is outright horrid, i would probably give it a chance. (at least twice, just incase i missed something.) 

Same goes for if it has wonderful views. in the end, it really results in my personal opinion and outlook. 

Now, I have no idea why Beethoven's Fifth and Ninth are so greatly viewed. Or how Thaikovsky's Pathetique Symphony is sad... (it is aptly titled and i do like that work.) 

But, these are often recommended and such. I love Beethoven's First. Especially the fourth movement. (i often have excitement when i am listening to the third movement just knowing the beauty of what is coming next.) I also like his Fourth String Quartet. (probably my second favourite work of his.) While my most listened to is his Ghost Trio. 

However, a lot of his music sounds a lot like those works, (which i can see why... and understand this. Which is why i cannot see why they put his Fifth (which has a memorable motif theme.) and the ninth which has a memorable fourth movement. Yet it doesn't give his beauty at all. 



But I absolutely love Vivaldi's works (what i have listened to so far... (which are the ones everyone has heard, Four Seasons, Violin Concerti, and R589 Gloria.) I do plan on finding more... (so it could be premature decision on how i feel about his music.) 


Bach, is fairly enjoyable, but his music is fun loving, along with educational. Yet the works with harpsichords pretty much sound quite monotonous. (which i probably could do better in composing.)

The only Mahler work i can repeatedly enjoy is his unfinished Tenth. (because of the dissonance.) His first is brilliant and so is his ninth. but the rest are not too memorable. He should have worked more on the choral in his choral styled symphonies. 

Dvorak... well, he is quite interesting and boring at the same time. (his Cello Concerto in B Minor, would probably be his best work, from what i have listened to, but his serenade for strings is horrifying to listen to...) 

Stravinsky is one of my top ten favourite composers of all time. He has a very interesting way of telling you a story through his music. Similar to how i write music. Which is how the listener hears it, is how it is meant to be felt. (which is quite ambiguous, yet a simple decernment to how you feel.) 

Xanakis, (also one of my all time top ten) has a few really interesting works. Yet, i don't think i understand them as much... i would have to listen to his music more... 

(okay only two more... my top two favourites.) 

Messaien  he is super amazing. Not everyone would appretiate his works. Which is understandable, but he told his students to listen to birds. (which sprouted an idea, why stop at birds... how about listening to everything in general. (which is kinda a similar thought of John Cage.) Sometimes one needs a bit of studying silence to study the ambience of life. (but i always end up with epiphanies while listening to Messaien. 


and my top favourite. (for various reasons...) 
Sorabji. 
*nods, he never edited any thing of his music. So his works were always timely. Which any who would play them would understand them. (even though i have yet to play any of them. So this is just from the experience of improv-ing on the piano in my earlier years.) Yet, while listening, certain parts are amazing as hell. While others are require doing another activity. I originally found out about Sorabji here... (from a thread.) Which planted the seed of my obsession of Sorabji. I have only heard Opus Clavensembalisticum, Organ Symphony No. 1, Transendial Etudes, and Jami Symphony. 

Jami Symphony is my favourite work. There is so much there.  and it has such interesting style knowing that he has never edited his works. 

(i tried to keep this example short... but ended up just going with the flow.) :3


----------



## KenOC

Capeditiea said:


> ...I love Beethoven's First. Especially the fourth movement. (i often have excitement when i am listening to the third movement just knowing the beauty of what is coming next.)


Your opinion is the exact opposite of Berlioz's: "This is admirably crafted music, clear, alert, but lacking in strong personality, cold and sometimes rather small-minded, as for example in the final rondo, which has the character of a musical amusement. In a word, this is not Beethoven."

FWIW, I agree with your view.


----------



## bharbeke

The big differences are interpretation and longevity. These works of art have existed for 100s of years in some cases, so there is an assumption of merit there. I would wager that premiere recordings of 21st century classical-style works are treated differently by critics than a new release of Beethoven 5/7. Also, in listening to classical music, if it does not sound good, it could be the composer or the musicians who are not connecting with the listener. In pop music, the song is the song, so the distinction does not matter as much.


----------



## Bulldog

Capeditiea said:


> Bach, is fairly enjoyable, but his music is fun loving, along with educational. Yet the works with harpsichords pretty much sound quite monotonous. (which i probably could do better in composing.)


Or you could do a lot worse. :tiphat:


----------



## Capeditiea

Bulldog said:


> Or you could do a lot worse. :tiphat:


:O did hell freeze over. :O you could be absolutely correct on this... :3


----------



## MarkW

Two seperate threads:

1) Taking bodies of artistic creation as a whole (all CM, all movies, all painting, all plays, all sculpture, etc.), Sturgeon's 90% is probably the minimum for crap in each genre. That goes also for most human activity (99% of all baseball players can't hit a major league fastball; 99% of all physicists don't have a clue about a possible solution to quantum gravity . . .). Since 1600, there have been an estimated 30,000 operas composed. Name 300.

2) The only true purpose of a critic is to back up his judgment, and be consistent with his reasoning over time -- or admit it when he isn't -- so that the individual listener can compare his opinions and tastes with that of the critic, and thereby know more or less what his impression of an unheard work is likely to be based on that comparison.

A really good critic, with the space, backs up his opinion with historical details, context, and enough information to educate the reader, in the hopes that he will learn something that may be of importance in judging a piece (cf Andrew Porter's essays The New Yorkers of the '70s, and '80s.)


----------



## Gallus

ZJovicic said:


> But I've noticed that such an attitude is often absent in appreciation of classical music. Instead, there assumption of greatness. We tend to think that most pieces are great, just because it's classical music, or just because it's written by Mozart or whomever. Even if we don't like a work, we'd rather say we don't get it, and not that it sucks. Quite the opposite, the less we get a work, or the less we like it, sometimes we think more highly of it... it must be so good, inaccessible, avant-garde, etc.


I would say that the example of Mozart proves the opposite: many, in fact probably most listeners of classical music tend to write off as juvenilia anything he composed before about K.300. And I was just talking to someone yesterday who, when I mentioned the Prague symphony, told me that though he liked Mozart he didn't think the symphonies were any good! This is the opposite to 'people think anything written by a big-name composer is great'.


----------



## ZJovicic

Gallus said:


> I would say that the example of Mozart proves the opposite: many, in fact probably most listeners of classical music tend to write off as juvenilia anything he composed before about K.300. And I was just talking to someone yesterday who, when I mentioned the Prague symphony, told me that though he liked Mozart he didn't think the symphonies were any good! This is the opposite to 'people think anything written by a big-name composer is great'.


Good to see there are opposite examples!


----------



## Gottfried

Cinema is a much more logistically and commercially determined artform than classical music. While commercial imperatives have been a significant factor in the history of classical composition, and the availability and capability of musicians have affected the quality of _performance_, classical composition itself is not nearly so vulnerable to the complications that render the vast majority of films an unsatisfactory realisation of what are often either good ideas, or well filmed, or often enough, good performances of a particular role.

Accordingly, cinema is an art form the immense possibilities of which are much more frequently compromised than are those of composed music. There are just so many factors involved in the creation of a film, each of which can detract from the others. Consider, for example, how often potentially good films are ruined at the outset by poor casting. Moreover, a composition is not confined to its performance in the way a film, for all its scene taking and editing, cannot help but be.

Hence, not only do I disagree strongly with the initial premise on empirical grounds: a large proportion of classical composition does merit repeated listening and is of high quality - but on creative grounds. Of course, so many films, churned out for questionable reasons, employing vast numbers of staff whose calibre is necessarily uneven, constrained at every turn by issues of expenditure and concerns of time, liable to every kind of practical difficulty, are mediocre, or downright trash (sometimes, enjoyably so). Since very few of these factors constrain the process of composition, it is unsurprising that there is so much good classical music.


----------



## mbhaub

Of course 90% of everything is crap. Dahlhaus thought that there were some 20,000 symphonies written between the death of Beethoven and 1900. How many have made it into the standard repertoire? 25? 30? Sure, there are some fine works that have been wrongly neglected (IMHO), but most of the forgotten music has fallen from grace for the best of reasons. So yes, we can assume in general that music we encounter in concerts is there because it is great - or at least greater than other music. That doesn't mean I like it. There's a lot of great music that I don't like, and a lot of not-so-great music that I love dearly. Raff, anyone? Who cares about critics? Ignore them.


----------



## Nereffid

Don't have much time right now, but am I to infer from the thread so far that the word "crap" means either "I don't like it" or "not as good as the best things", and doesn't actually mean "really bad"?


----------



## Jacck

mbhaub said:


> Of course 90% of everything is crap. Dahlhaus thought that there were some 20,000 symphonies written between the death of Beethoven and 1900. How many have made it into the standard repertoire? 25? 30? Sure, there are some fine works that have been wrongly neglected (IMHO), but most of the forgotten music has fallen from grace for the best of reasons. So yes, we can assume in general that music we encounter in concerts is there because it is great - or at least greater than other music. That doesn't mean I like it. There's a lot of great music that I don't like, and a lot of not-so-great music that I love dearly. Raff, anyone? Who cares about critics? Ignore them.


I feel that many times pure luck and sociological factors decide who will enter the pantheon of the greatest and who not, a not the quality of the composers and compositions themselves. Think of Bach who was almost forgotten for several centuries. How many such Bachs are there? People mostly listen to only to what they see around them as being listened to by others, and that is dictated by fashion. There were many composers of the 19th century who were considered superstars then - Joachim Raff, Massenet etc. - and are all but forgotten today. Raff is great. I explored his string quartets on youtube not long ago. He (so I read) influenced both Sibelius and Strauss. Who cares about critics? I certainly dont. This is no mathematics.


----------



## Enthusiast

Is this then another of those threads where we claim that our own taste is the equal or superior to the time tested and established consensus? Where experts - people who know and remember well more music than we could ever hope to - know nothing compared to what is demonstrably popular? And even where we can rehash misunderstood history based upon a few "facts" simplified and taken out of context? Yawn.

Don't get me wrong, we all have our own tastes and know what we like ... and good for us. But even there isn't it somehow helpful to get clues to what is great - and what we might eventually greatly like even if at first we are turned off by it - from the established tradition? It might not work for us all the time - or even very often - but once or twice it might broaden our horizons and thereby enrich our lives.

I am sometimes amazed at how the experts on art - I mean paintings - can know so many really excellent practitioners from a distant time while the rest of us will only know the greatest and, probably, one or two favourites from the thousands of others who were active in the period and yet so many of us feel that our own subjective judgement is more valuable than the views of those who have given their life to studying and understanding in context so much more. We all want the status of expert and for this to be based on our own dabblings. Let's keep some respect for those who know more than we do and let's accept that our own experience - precious and inspiring though it is - is not more than it is. Neither is it less.

Forgive the rant but this thing of thinking that our own opinions and views are just as _true _as those of people who have given their lives to the matter is very dangerous - perhaps not in the field of music but in general I wonder what happened to humility.


----------



## Strange Magic

Nereffid said:


> Don't have much time right now, but am I to infer from the thread so far that the word "crap" means either "I don't like it" or "not as good as the best things", and doesn't actually mean "really bad"?


You're mostly right. "Crap" means "I don't like it".


----------



## Blancrocher

In order to conduct this experiment, I recommend that some enterprising entrepreneurs commit to spending millions to record whatever crap may have been composed.


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^Enthusiast, in general I share your often-stated respect for experts and authorities. Such respect is prudent and well-earned when the experts referenced are dealing in matters that permit of actual and "objective" measurement: the judgment of scientists, for example, on the risks v. the rewards of vaccination. But in the arts, all we can measure is popularity within defined audiences, and now, moreso, electrochemical reactions in the brain to various stimuli when music is heard or images seen--which may help explain popularity within defined audiences. But if you (or I) don't like something in the arts--or do like something--it is what it is; no "right", no "wrong". Turning dutifully to art "experts" in joy or chagrin to help justify or excuse or otherwise explain our reactions to art is understandable but we must keep in mind that much art criticism is an _ex post facto_ search for reasons why said critics justify to themselves why they like or dislike this or that.


----------



## Art Rock

Expert opinions can help you find your way in a new field. However, expert or not, they are still opinions.

If after dozens of listens I still dislike certain compositions or composers deemed excellent by experts, I simply conclude that tastes differ, and move on.


----------



## fluteman

ZJovicic said:


> Recently I've been watching a lot of movies, what I noticed is that both me, other people, and critics as well have a rather critical attitude to movies. If film is great, you're happy, you praise it, but if it sucks, well, you don't keep your mouth shut either. When I select movies to watch I look mostly for genre... which genre I am into mood for, then general themes that are explored, as well as critical rating. But I don't look only for critical rating. And even when I know what it is, I still watch a movie with an open mind, and sometimes I disagree with prevailing critical opinion.
> 
> The same apply to popular music albums, books, etc.
> 
> But I've noticed that such an attitude is often absent in appreciation of classical music. Instead, there assumption of greatness. We tend to think that most pieces are great, just because it's classical music, or just because it's written by Mozart or whomever. Even if we don't like a work, we'd rather say we don't get it, and not that it sucks. Quite the opposite, the less we get a work, or the less we like it, sometimes we think more highly of it... it must be so good, inaccessible, avant-garde, etc.
> 
> I'm not saying that this is always true, nor that it's the only attitude towards classical music, but it's quite common.
> 
> I am wondering if Strugeon's Law ("90% of everything is crap") applies to classical music as well. I guess not... the "law" is a bit humorous and is not meant to be taken literally, but still there is some truth to it.
> 
> I am wondering how would it be to be a classical music critic. (Is there such a thing at all? I am aware of music critics who write reviews of classical music *albums*, often featuring multiple compositions, sometimes by different composers, and the subject of their criticism is the CD, commenting the things like performance, mood, selection of works, etc... but often being quite shy when it comes to evaluating the compositions themselves)
> 
> Maybe good critics (especially if they are witty) would make the world of contemporary classical music interesting again. But really... any critic would need to assess old works as well, in order to make a name for themselves, and to establish their writing style, but really HOW to approach such writing, without being influenced by received opinion, and without being attacked for doing what some would call sacrilege... criticizing the likes of Bach, etc...
> 
> And regarding new works, can you really write a decent review of it, if you don't really get it, yet, for some reason you feel it's perhaps great, even if you can't really penetrate it, nor explain why. And if you just plain say that it sucks, you risk ridicule from others, and you're perhaps jumping to conclusions, because maybe at some point you WILL get it and appreciate it. How much confidence would you need to have to be able to say that a work sucks, and to really stand behind such an opinion, that is, you think that its not "just you", but the work indeed doesn't have redeeming qualities, and it's not just about getting it or not, sometimes there's simply nothing to get, because it doesn't exist (the quality that would make a work great).


One factor to consider in this regard is that classical music, in fact classical art of any kind, has been subjected to the most exacting and consistent (though not entirely infallible) critic of all: time. The passage of centuries is fearsomely effective in winnowing away the trivial, the banal, the clumsy, and the superficial, leaving only that which contains at least something significant and universal.

Having said all that, I have to concede that no work of art, however great it may be pronounced by critics, speaks exactly the same way to everyone. If Beethoven's Ode to Joy doesn't move you, that isn't necessarily a negative reflection on you or the Ode to Joy. On the other hand, there is an amazing documentary film (called Kinshasa Symphony) about people living in remote rural villages in the Democratic Republic of the Congo who walk miles through the bush for music lessons and rehearsals in Kinshasa and ultimately put on a stunning performance of Beethoven's 9th symphony, led by a former airline pilot. If that doesn't inspire you, I have to wonder if you are breathing.


----------



## science

I have assumed greatness, AMA.

This post is among the 1% according to the redacted and intensified Sturgeon's Law.


----------



## science

Seriously though, I'm happy to argue that 99% of classical music has been essentially forgotten by almost everyone, and the 1% is what we now have. Edit: Not necessarily the BEST 1%, because selection isn't that effective. But a pretty good selection of it! 

Secondly, I don't have anything like the expertise needed to evaluate music critically, and I find that I easily enjoy 99% of classical music. But I do have a bit of that expertise for literature and I don't believe it's merely a matter of taste. For example, anyone who likes can argue that Shakespeare isn't/wasn't "great," in the sense that they might not personally like his stuff, but no one can argue against the enormity of his influence, or his ability to do interesting things with language. The situation with other arts seems to be more or less anonymous.


----------



## Enthusiast

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^Enthusiast, in general I share your often-stated respect for experts and authorities. Such respect is prudent and well-earned when the experts referenced are dealing in matters that permit of actual and "objective" measurement: the judgment of scientists, for example, on the risks v. the rewards of vaccination. But in the arts, all we can measure is popularity within defined audiences, and now, moreso, electrochemical reactions in the brain to various stimuli when music is heard or images seen--which may help explain popularity within defined audiences. But if you (or I) don't like something in the arts--or do like something--it is what it is; no "right", no "wrong". Turning dutifully to art "experts" in joy or chagrin to help justify or excuse or otherwise explain our reactions to art is understandable but we must keep in mind that much art criticism is an _ex post facto_ search for reasons why said critics justify to themselves why they like or dislike this or that.


I think there roughly is a right and wrong about what is good and bad in art. The most extreme examples - a toddler bashing piano keys versus a Beethoven sonata - show that. Anyone can tell the difference. The question is how closely can we refine these judgments. When it comes to experts, I think it makes the world of difference to consider the consensus among them. Individual critics can be annoying and just plain wrong and certainly not especially reliable. I rarely read critical assessments of our heritage - I'm sure much less so that many here - but I do think the critical consensus is the best we can have about the art of the past and argue that we fail to respect it at our peril. I do think that this all breaks down with recent art as it often does with scientists predicting, say, the weather. Tastes and fashions are strong influencers when it comes to recent art. None of this stops us from having our own tastes and opinions or in celebrating these.


----------



## Enthusiast

Art Rock said:


> Expert opinions can help you find your way in a new field. However, expert or not, they are still opinions.
> 
> If after dozens of listens I still dislike certain compositions or composers deemed excellent by experts, I simply conclude that tastes differ, and move on.


So do I. But what do I try in the first place and how do I choose? And what do I persevere more with? I'm not at all new in this field but I still find the critical consensus of art in our history to be the best guide there is to what might be worthwhile to me. And, accepting this, doesn't negate my own opinions and tastes but does lead me to be more humble than I would otherwise be about them. That is all I am saying.

As an example, I often find myself underwhelmed and left a little cold by Debussy. But I "know" that I am "wrong" so you will never hear me saying that Debussy is rubbish. The opposite is the case: I hope one day to get Debussy more than I do now and am likely to try harder because of his reputation. My mind is more open.


----------



## Mal

KenOC said:


> I think it certainly applies to music. But one of the ideas of what we call "classical music" is that time has winnowed out a good portion of that 90%, and what remains (and what we're likely to hear) is to a large extent the remaining 10%.


If only this was so! But recently there has been a move to record everything a composer has composed and put it in massive box sets. Take Mozart's symphonies, only ten of the 41 are generally called "great" by discerning critics. But the complete box sets keep on coming, and get heavily pushed by the music media. And then there are complete sets of Haydn, Vivaldi, Britten... and other composers even more prolific than Mozart, and even less consistently great. I guess this is a marketing ploy: "get 30 CDs for £30", never mind that 27 of them are crap. Don't let them get away with it, buy individual CDs that are generally considered great.


----------



## Strange Magic

Enthusiast said:


> *I think there roughly is a right and wrong about what is good and bad in art. The most extreme examples - a toddler bashing piano keys versus a Beethoven sonata - show that. Anyone can tell the difference.*. The question is how closely can we refine these judgments. When it comes to experts, I think it makes the world of difference to consider the consensus among them. Individual critics can be annoying and just plain wrong and certainly not especially reliable. I rarely read critical assessments of our heritage - I'm sure much less so that many here - but I do think the critical consensus is the best we can have about the art of the past and argue that we fail to respect it at our peril. I do think that this all breaks down with recent art as it often does with scientists predicting, say, the weather. Tastes and fashions are strong influencers when it comes to recent art. None of this stops us from having our own tastes and opinions or in celebrating these.


Milton Babbitt. Chairman of the Music Department at Princeton University, and winner of a special Pulitzer for his services in furthering contemporary classical music. A major figure in 20th century musical history, much discussed.


----------



## Scopitone

I have not read the whole thread, but in my opinion time allows the dross to fall away.

Take movies, for instance: Are movies of the 70s (or 50s or 30s) inherently "better"? Of course not. For every _Godfather_ or _The Searchers_ or what have you, hundreds of mediocre and terrible movies were also made. It's just that over time, only the most popular ones have lasted. And usually they lasted because they have something of value to offer each new generation of viewers.

Literature is the same way. Dickens was not the only author of stories in his era. We still read his books and not the hundreds of others from the day not because "19th C Lit is always better". No, it's because the bad stuff has faded into history.

With classical music, it's no different. But in many cases, even more time has passed to allow the weak stuff to fall away. Why do we listen to Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven? Because they still have something to say to us all these centuries later.

In the end, a listener decides what they like. I am just trying to explain my model for why a composer might have "assumed greatness".


----------



## Eschbeg

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

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


----------



## Nereffid

Eschbeg said:


> In other words, the concept of greatness is a complex and circular system. By this point in time it's also a self-sustaining one, precisely because of the circularity.


Yes, we consider some music great _now_ because of a series of previous decisions by our predecessors about whether that music was great. This is part of the problem that today's music faces: many in the audience don't think it's great, ultimately because they disagree with a previous generation's decision about the greatness of music composed a century ago.


----------



## janxharris

Nereffid said:


> This is part of the problem that today's music faces: many in the audience don't think it's great, ultimately because they disagree with a previous generation's decision about the greatness of music composed a century ago.


Could you clarify please?


----------



## Nereffid

For many classical listeners, classical music took a "wrong turn" in the early 20th century (Schoenberg gets much of the blame, but I think it's a wider issue than just serialism), but for _composers_ there was no wrong turn, and music continued to evolve just as it always had. The music of the 20s followed the 10s, and the music of the 30s followed that, and so on, with one idea leading to another, until we reach the present day. But for a listener who thinks there was a wrong turn 100 years ago, it's been one _bad_ idea leading to another. If you don't accept the premise that it's possible for (say) Schoenberg, Stravinsky, or Bartók's music to be "great", then you're unlikely to accept that the music that followed on from it could be great either.


----------



## janxharris

Nereffid said:


> For many classical listeners, classical music took a "wrong turn" in the early 20th century (Schoenberg gets much of the blame, but I think it's a wider issue than just serialism), but for _composers_ there was no wrong turn, and music continued to evolve just as it always had. The music of the 20s followed the 10s, and the music of the 30s followed that, and so on, with one idea leading to another, until we reach the present day. But for a listener who thinks there was a wrong turn 100 years ago, it's been one _bad_ idea leading to another. If you don't accept the premise that it's possible for (say) Schoenberg, Stravinsky, or Bartók's music to be "great", then you're unlikely to accept that the music that followed on from it could be great either.


Thank you.

For my ears, there is quite a contrast between Schoenberg (whom, thus far, I have not enjoyed) and the music of Stravinsky and Bartók (much of who's music stayed relatively tonal and which I do enjoy).

Of course, I expect you are right - the majority find them all unbearable...


----------



## Strange Magic

A problem with the concept of the canon is--who is in and who is not? With small houses specializing in issuing recordings of a whole spectrum of previously obscure if not completely unknown late 19th-early 20th century composers, there are now many, many hundreds, if not thousands, of names and works bandied about on TC and elsewhere. Is Myaskovsky part of the canon? Medtner?


----------



## mbhaub

Milton Babbitt. Chairman of the Music Department at Princeton University, and winner of a special Pulitzer for his services in furthering contemporary classical music. A major figure in 20th century musical history, much discussed.





[/QUOTE]

Now, that is CRAP. It's not music - it's mathematics. Ugly, devoid of any feeling, lacking anything memorable. I don't care what Babbitt's qualifications were, this is a prime example of why some people turned from the classical world in mid-20th c. It is as far from great as can be imagined. He wasn't alone, either.


----------



## janxharris

mbhaub said:


> Milton Babbitt. Chairman of the Music Department at Princeton University, and winner of a special Pulitzer for his services in furthering contemporary classical music. A major figure in 20th century musical history, much discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, that is CRAP. It's not music - it's mathematics. Ugly, devoid of any feeling, lacking anything memorable. I don't care what Babbitt's qualifications were, this is a prime example of why some people turned from the classical world in mid-20th c. It is as far from great as can be imagined. He wasn't alone, either.


Why the irritation? Babbitt merely composed a piece of music.


----------



## janxharris

Stockhausen's Gruppen remains intriguing for me. I like some moments of it and it does, I think, open up possibilities. Is it cr#p?


----------



## Haydn70

janxharris said:


> Stockhausen's Gruppen remains intriguing for me. I like some moments of it and it does, I think, open up possibilities. Is it cr#p?


Indeed, it certainly is.


----------



## janxharris

For example the fragment heard here on the harp seems to be a building block of the piece - I can hear, I believe, variations of it from the beginning.


----------



## Jacck

another composer who used mathematics in composing music was Xenakis and he seems to irritate a lot of classical lovers too  I have a degree in physics so I can follow what Xenakis was doing, like painting a picture and using a Fourier transform to obtain music. Now, this is some music to irritate people 




I must admit I kind of like some of his music, for example Mists or some of his percussion music


----------



## janxharris

The notes are C, Ab, B, Bb, G, Gb (ie the Stockhausen).


----------



## janxharris

And this:





I've listened to it about 30 times and still like nothing about it.


----------



## janxharris

Hmm, just listened to it again and liked it.


----------



## janxharris

Okay - I'm a convert.


----------



## Jacck

janxharris said:


> I've listened to it about 30 times and still like nothing about it.


you need to train your brain to enjoy the Second Viennese School and serialism and 12-tone technique. I did not like it at first, but then decided to do an experiment. I took the Schoenberg piano concerto and listened to it once each day. It took well over 10 listenings, but then my brain memorized the music and got used to it and I think the piano concerto is a beautiful masterpiece. Since then I have no problem with serialism and enjoy Schoenbergs music. His string trio is great, as are his string quartets and violin concerto. Webern is similar, although I am less familiar with him than with Schoenberg. The easiest of the 2nd Viennese School is certainly Berg. His violin concerto sounds almost normal and he composed 2 absolute great operas - Lulu and Wozzeck.


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> you need to train your brain to enjoy the Second Viennese School and serialism and 12-tone technique. I did not like it at first, but then decided to do an experiment. I took the Schoenberg piano concerto and listened to it once each day. It took well over 10 listenings, but then my brain memorized the music and got used to it and I think the piano concerto is a beautiful masterpiece. Since then I have no problem with serialism and enjoy Schoenbergs music. His string trio is great, as are his string quartets and violin concerto. Webern is similar, although I am less familiar with him than with Schoenberg. The easiest of the 2nd Viennese School is certainly Berg. His violin concerto sounds almost normal and he composed 2 absolute great operas - Lulu and Wozzeck.


 See above............


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> Why the irritation? Babbitt merely composed a piece of music.


Why the psychologizing? Mbhaub merely composed a critical remark, which as criticism has far more coherence and value than Babbitt's "music" has as music.

He's right. The piece IS crap, and exquisitely representative of a time in which the classical tradition reached its nadir of human irrelevance, as did the visual arts. Artists have been struggling to restore meaning to their calling ever since, and at this distance in time the only thing that appears more ridiculous than "art" like this is the pseudoscientific pretentiousness of its propagators and the critics who supported it.


----------



## Haydn70

Woodduck said:


> Why the psychologizing? Mbhaub merely composed a critical remark, which as criticism has far more coherence and value than Babbitt's "music" has as music.
> 
> He's right. The piece IS crap, and exquisitely representative of a time in which the classical tradition reached its nadir of human irrelevance, as did the visual arts. Artists have been struggling to restore meaning to their calling ever since, and at this distance in time the only thing that appears more ridiculous than "art" like this is the pseudoscientific pretentiousness of its propagators and the critics who supported it.


Excellent post.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> Why the psychologizing? Mbhaub merely composed a critical remark, which as criticism has far more coherence and value than Babbitt's "music" has as music.
> 
> He's right. The piece IS crap, and exquisitely representative of a time in which the classical tradition reached its nadir of human irrelevance, as did the visual arts. Artists have been struggling to restore meaning to their calling ever since, and at this distance in time the only thing that appears more ridiculous than "art" like this is the pseudoscientific pretentiousness of its propagators and the critics who supported it.


I'm not sure why you suggest I am psychologizing? I merely wanted to know what I asked. Perhaps you have answered it:



> Artists have been struggling to restore meaning to their calling ever since


Why does the existence of such 'cr$p' (as you say) music hinder any artist from their calling? It hasn't stopped composers like Karl Jenkins from achieving success.

I'm genuinely interested.


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> you need to train your brain to enjoy the Second Viennese School and serialism and 12-tone technique. I did not like it at first, but then decided to do an experiment. I took the Schoenberg piano concerto and listened to it once each day. It took well over 10 listenings, but then my brain memorized the music and got used to it and I think the piano concerto is a beautiful masterpiece. Since then I have no problem with serialism and enjoy Schoenbergs music. His string trio is great, as are his string quartets and violin concerto. Webern is similar, although I am less familiar with him than with Schoenberg. The easiest of the 2nd Viennese School is certainly Berg. His violin concerto sounds almost normal and he composed 2 absolute great operas - Lulu and Wozzeck.


I'm actually wondering if I have actually brainwashed myself into liking by repeatedly listening to it (Webern that is). Thirty odd times of disliking it (to the point of irritation) and then suddenly it clicked.


----------



## Jacck

janxharris said:


> I'm actually wondering if I have actually brainwashed myself into liking by repeatedly listening to it (Webern that is). Thirty odd times of disliking it (to the point of irritation) and then suddenly it clicked.


I need multiple listenings with many pieces of classical music to fully enjoy them. Some works need more than others. There are some easy romantic pieces that I like at first listening, then there are pieces such as the Liszt sonata, which needed like 3-4 listenings to evoke a wow effect in me. And the most difficult pieces such as serialism need even more. Shostakovich symphonies need multiple listenings too. I think the 4th is to toughest, but also the most rewarding. The same goes for Prokofiev 2nd symphony, the toughest but most rewarding in the end.


----------



## KenOC

janxharris said:


> I'm actually wondering if I have actually brainwashed myself into liking by repeatedly listening to it (Webern that is). Thirty odd times of disliking it (to the point of irritation) and then suddenly it clicked.


I believe the North Koreans used the same sort of technique on American prisoners in the Korean War. It was called...wait a minute, it'll come to me... Anyway, just watch _The Manchurian Candidate,_ the Frank Sinatra one.


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> I need multiple listenings with many pieces of classical music to fully enjoy them. Some works need more than others. There are some easy romantic pieces that I like at first listening, then there are pieces such as the Liszt sonata, which needed like 3-4 listenings to evoke a wow effect in me. And the most difficult pieces such as serialism need even more. Shostakovich symphonies need multiple listenings too. I think the 4th is to toughest, but also the most rewarding. The same goes for Prokofiev 2nd symphony, the toughest but most rewarding in the end.


Is there a modern piece that you have listened to myriad times and thought that it was, indeed (as the OP asks), cr%p?


----------



## janxharris

KenOC said:


> I believe the North Koreans used the same sort of technique on American prisoners in the Korean War. It was called...wait a minute, it'll come to me... Anyway, just watch _The Manchurian Candidate,_ the Frank Sinatra one.


Haven't seen that film.

Have you tried this multiple run-throughs experiment with avant-garde music?


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> I'm not sure why you suggest I am psychologizing? I merely wanted to know what I asked. Perhaps you have answered it:
> 
> Why does the existence of such 'cr$p' (as you say) music hinder any artist from their calling? It hasn't stopped composers like Karl Jenkins from achieving success.
> 
> I'm genuinely interested.


You asked mbhaub why he was irritated. How do you know he was?

I didn't say anyone was hindered from anything. And who's Karl Jenkins?


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> You asked mbhaub why he was irritated. How do you know he was?


I thought: 'this is a prime example of why some people turned from the classical world in mid-20th c' was apportioning blame, thus the irritation. I could well be wrong.



> I didn't say anyone was hindered from anything.


'Artists have been *struggling to restore* meaning to their calling ever since'

Why does such cr$p music lead to this struggle?



> And who's Karl Jenkins?


I said he is a composer. Why are you asking?


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> I need multiple listenings with many pieces of classical music to fully enjoy them. Some works need more than others. There are some easy romantic pieces that I like at first listening, then there are pieces such as the Liszt sonata, which needed like 3-4 listenings to evoke a wow effect in me. And the most difficult pieces such as serialism need even more. Shostakovich symphonies need multiple listenings too. I think the 4th is to toughest, but also the most rewarding. The same goes for Prokofiev 2nd symphony, the toughest but most rewarding in the end.


Love the B minor Liszt.


----------



## Jacck

janxharris said:


> Love the B minor Liszt.


then challenge yourself with this




see you, I am logging off.... :tiphat:


----------



## Capeditiea

janxharris said:


> Okay - I'm a convert.


*rubs hands together in a mischievious manner, Good Good.


----------



## Capeditiea

cr#ppers i just posted my 222nd post there... *cries... well i guess it was worth it.


----------



## KenOC

janxharris said:


> Haven't seen that film.
> 
> Have you tried this multiple run-throughs experiment with avant-garde music?


I suspect we could brainwash ourselves into liking Hitler if we spent enough time listening to his speeches (and we spoke German, of course). After all, a lot of people did just that in the 1930s, even here in my own country.

So to those who believe that it's a good idea to _try to like_ something, I can only quote Saint-Saens: "Why cannot we understand that in art, as in everything else, there are some things to which we must not accustom ourselves?"


----------



## fluteman

janxharris said:


> I'm actually wondering if I have actually brainwashed myself into liking by repeatedly listening to it (Webern that is). Thirty odd times of disliking it (to the point of irritation) and then suddenly it clicked.


FWIW, after numerous rehearsals and finally performances with my college orchestra of Webern's Six Pieces for Orchestra Op. 6, it did begin to make sense. That was also true of Mozart's Jupiter Symphony after repeated listening when I was eight years old.

One issue I've noticed is that people happily and without comment accept modern and postmodern, including atonal, music as the soundtrack for a movie or TV show, for example, but not in a concert hall from a symphony orchestra, or a string quartet, or a pianist sitting in front of a Steinway grand, dressed in black formal attire. I think when confronted with such powerful symbols of an 18th and 19th century European cultural tradition, people expect to hear music in keeping with that tradition. In the 20th century, composers broke with that tradition in a number of ways, sometimes quite defiantly and dramatically. But it can be incongruous and even silly (to me) or disturbing or even disrespectful (to others) to hear it performed in the traditional setting.
That could explain the otherwise perplexing anger some people, including posters in this thread, seem to have when it comes to discussing this music.


----------



## janxharris

KenOC said:


> I suspect we could brainwash ourselves into liking Hitler if we spent enough time listening to his speeches (and we spoke German, of course). After all, a lot of people did just that in the 1930s, even here in my own country.
> 
> So to those who believe that it's a good idea to _try to like_ something, I can only quote Saint-Saens: "Why cannot we understand that in art, as in everything else, there are some things to which we must not accustom ourselves?"


Ok, but it was many listens before Sibelius's 7th symphony ended up astonishing me - so it need not apply just to avant-garde music. Though I like the Webern, I'm not saying I adore it like the Sibelius.

Anyway, just my two penneth.....


----------



## Capeditiea

KenOC said:


> I suspect we could brainwash ourselves into liking Hitler if we spent enough time listening to his speeches (and we spoke German, of course). After all, a lot of people did just that in the 1930s, even here in my own country.
> 
> So to those who believe that it's a good idea to _try to like_ something, I can only quote Saint-Saens: "Why cannot we understand that in art, as in everything else, there are some things to which we must not accustom ourselves?"


Yeah i probably should stockholm syndrome my self into liking Saint Saens...


----------



## Strange Magic

janxharris said:


> Is there a modern piece that you have listened to myriad times and thought that it was, indeed (as the OP asks), cr%p?


Here's what puzzles me. Why would someone listen to a piece myriad times (say, 30 times) that repels them? Two alternate uses of that time would be to listen to a piece you love 28 or 29 times, or to listen to 28 or 29 brand-new pieces. Or, better, some combination of those two strategies. Is it because some critic or critics said that the piece was wonderful, and that there was something wrong with a person if they didn't like it in defiance of the critics? It's that Assumption of Greatness (as expressed in an inappropriate submission to the opinions of "experts") that is clearly at play in such instances.


----------



## janxharris

fluteman said:


> FWIW, after numerous rehearsals and finally performances with my college orchestra of Webern's Six Pieces for Orchestra Op. 6, it did begin to make sense. That was also true of Mozart's Jupiter Symphony after repeated listening when I was eight years old.


Recently I described the Jupiter as full of cliches and not something that I enjoyed - but I will try again and give it a good few run-throughs.



> One issue I've noticed is that people happily and without comment accept modern and postmodern, including atonal, music as the soundtrack for a movie or TV show, for example, but not in a concert hall from a symphony orchestra, or a string quartet, or a pianist sitting in front of a Steinway grand, dressed in black formal attire. I think when confronted with such powerful symbols of an 18th and 19th century European cultural tradition, people expect to hear music in keeping with that tradition. In the 20th century, composers broke with that tradition in a number of ways, sometimes quite defiantly and dramatically. *But it can be incongruous and even silly (to me) or disturbing or even disrespectful (to others) to hear it performed in the traditional setting.
> That could explain the otherwise perplexing anger some people, including posters in this thread, seem to have when it comes to discussing this music.*


This has never crossed my mind. Intriguing.


----------



## KenOC

Capeditiea said:


> Yeah i probably should stockholm syndrome my self into liking Saint Saens...


Probably not a bad idea. And you can suggest that to this guy too: "It is one's duty to hate with all possible fervor the empty and ugly in art; and I hate Saint-Saëns the composer with a hate that is perfect." -- J. F. Runciman, 1896


----------



## janxharris

Strange Magic said:


> Here's what puzzles me. Why would someone listen to a piece myriad times (say, 30 times) that repels them? Two alternate uses of that time would be to listen to a piece you love 28 or 29 times, or to listen to 28 or 29 brand-new pieces. Or, better, some combination of those two strategies. Is it because some critic or critics said that the piece was wonderful, and that there was something wrong with a person if they didn't like it in defiance of the critics? It's that Assumption of Greatness (as expressed in an inappropriate submission to the opinions of "experts") that is clearly at play in such instances.


It was this comment here (regarding the Webern piece) that prompted me:

Stuart Segan 1 month ago:


> after listening to it a thousand times i try to recall how ridiculously non sensical and non musical it seemed during the first 50 listenings. And also recalling that I knew if I listened to it a thousand times it would start to make sense and would be worth the effort. I haven't really listened to Feldman much. I do like Ben Johnston or at least think I do.﻿


----------



## Larkenfield

Bravo, bravo, bravo, I heard it thrice. Unfortunately, the old and cranky generation may just have to die off if they can't appreciate an amazing performance such as this. Look at all the young people performing this music and the appreciative audience turnout! It was obviously a magnet and challenge to the young, and I greatly enjoyed hearing and seeing it. I listened through audiophile headphones and I was greatly disappointed to read the one-word dismissive comments. Good luck to them anyway. There's a new generation of beautiful and talented musicians on the rise and I wish them well.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> One issue I've noticed is that people happily and without comment accept modern and postmodern, including atonal, music as the soundtrack for a movie or TV show, for example, but not in a concert hall from a symphony orchestra, or a string quartet, or a pianist sitting in front of a Steinway grand, dressed in black formal attire. I think when confronted with such powerful symbols of an 18th and 19th century European cultural tradition, people expect to hear music in keeping with that tradition. In the 20th century, composers broke with that tradition in a number of ways, sometimes quite defiantly and dramatically. But it can be incongruous and even silly (to me) or disturbing or even disrespectful (to others) to hear it performed in the traditional setting.
> That could explain the otherwise perplexing anger some people, including posters in this thread, seem to have when it comes to discussing this music.


I don't think that's the basic explanation. I think people recognize the effectiveness of certain kinds of music in evoking certain feelings in certain contexts (dramatic situations in a movie), but may not find the evocation of those feelings agreeable or comprehensible isolated from that context. Isn't that perfectly understandable? A few minutes of violins screeching something atonal to create terror, or drums pounding out jagged rhythms to accompany a frantic chase, can be exciting because the action of the film tells us what it means and how it can be of value. We enjoy a lot of things we'd normally find disagreeable when they're suitably framed as components of a work of art. Watching a movie thriller and seeing someone knifed in a dark alley are rather different experiences.

Of course, the Steinway and the tuxedo might heighten the contrast!


----------



## science

Give me Schoenberg, Nono, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Babbitt, Cage, Crumb all day long. And Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, John Coltrane and pretty much all the music that people have ever dismissed as "just noise." Including actual noise music. 

A few years ago my brother speculated that I liked classical music because I just wanted relaxing, pretty music. I thought this comment showed how little he knew about classical music. And it did. But the truth is, it appears he understood classical music listeners very well. 

I read about the past and think how ridiculous people were to say hateful things about (say) the impressionists or Stravinsky, but I'm even more surprised to see people in our own time participated in the ritualized scandal of modernist art. It's old news--fifty, seventy, ninety years old. It's time to stop fighting our grandparents' and great-grandparents' and great-great-grandparents' battles.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> I don't think that's the basic explanation. I think people recognize the effectiveness of certain kinds of music in evoking certain feelings in certain contexts (dramatic situations in a movie), but may not find the evocation of those feelings agreeable or comprehensible isolated from that context. Isn't that perfectly understandable? A few minutes of violins screeching something atonal to create terror, or drums pounding out jagged rhythms to accompany a frantic chase, can be exciting because the action of the film tells us what it means and how it can be of value. We enjoy a lot of things we'd normally find disagreeable when they're suitably framed as components of a work of art. Watching a movie thriller and seeing someone knifed in a dark alley are rather different experiences.
> 
> Of course, the Steinway and the tuxedo might heighten the contrast!


Yes, except I think were are basically saying the same thing. The movie and the TV show are 20th century cultural phenomena that depart completely from everything that ever came before, thanks to technological developments. In fact, the 20th century generally saw a complete upheaval of western civilization in many basic ways. People got around by walking or riding horses for thousands of years. That began to change in the late 19th century, and in the 20th century, poof! No more horses, and no more walking for longer distances. Poof! Instead of only speaking to people within shouting distance, you could speak to someone in another continent. Etc.

We always listen to music in some context or other, and in the 20th century that context became profoundly and permanently different, generally speaking. Except when you step into, say, Carnegie Hall. That is a museum, a cathedral, even. And the musicians on stage with their traditional symphonic acoustic instruments, in their traditional black formal attire, all of that adds up to the recreation of a traditional context that dates back two centuries or more.

You say, "I think people recognize the effectiveness of certain kinds of music in evoking certain feelings in certain contexts." Absolutely, that has always been the central role of music in every era and every culture.

But as glad as I am that they didn't tear Carnegie Hall down (they nearly did at one point), those "certain contexts" have changed profoundly and permanently in the modern era. People who shrug and say, as you essentially just did, "that's just movies and TV", or, "that's just the internet" and when they listen to music always see in their mind's eye Carnegie Hall, or La Scala, or the Bolshoi Theater (to name three famous old venues I've been to), probably never will be much interested in a lot of 20th and 21st century music. Of course, a lot of other modern music likely will reflect the older traditions enough to interest you. But context is always of central importance to music, and the contexts, they are a changin'.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> 'Artists have been *struggling to restore* meaning to their calling ever since'
> 
> Why does such cr$p music lead to this struggle?


Any number of composers had to search their souls in the period after the mid-century academic serialist hegemony had taken "serious" music to the level of spiritual and social irrelevance which that work of Babbitt exemplifies. But in a larger view, the question of where art in general could go once its every traditional technique and value had been dismantled and nullified was very problematic. Composers disillusioned with serialism and painters unfulfilled by abstraction and "pop art" had to find ways to make their work meaningful to more than their academic in group - ways to recognize and restore human values that had been lost, while not merely retreating into the past. Many succeeded, and many more (the hundreds or thousands whose names we don't know) didn't.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> Give me Schoenberg, Nono, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Babbitt, Cage, Crumb all day long. And Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, John Coltrane and pretty much all the music that people have ever dismissed as "just noise." Including actual noise music.
> 
> A few years ago my brother speculated that I liked classical music because I just wanted relaxing, pretty music. I thought this comment showed how little he knew about classical music. And it did. But the truth is, it appears he understood classical music listeners very well.


You're setting up an absurd dichotomy here, and insulting a lot of people. I know many serious classical music listeners, none of whom expect music to be "relaxing and pretty." But listening to Xenakis and Cage all day long is not the necessary alternative.

There are no doubt many young listeners who must, in their own musical development, fight some of the same "battles" their great great grandparents fought. But I doubt that "battle" is a proper description of the process of developing one's musical sensibilities. If it were, I for one wouldn't have bothered.


----------



## mbhaub

Is it even possible for any "serious" composer to become relevant anymore? Let's face it, the cultural wars are over and popular culture won. Look at the movies these days coming out of Hollywood - is another loud, vulgar Marvel comics-based presentation the best we can do? The days of Paddy Chayefsky and Alfred Hitchcock are long gone. TV is a vast wasteland of dumb doctor, cop, zombie shows. Music is in bad shape, too. There is no one in the pop music scene who can rival the Beatles or many other 60's groups. Technology has given a way to escape the concert hall and program a concert of our liking on CD or DVD. Milton Babbitt's question Who Cares if You Listen? has come to fruition. Ok, so some crowd of young people listened to Gruppen by Stockhausen performed by young people. Big effing deal. I was at a concert series near where I live called Country Thunder - there were thousands of country/western fans every night whooping and dancing and loving every minute of it. Those hunks-in-a-cowboy-hat touched more people and delivered more pleasure than the likes of Babbitt, Carter and Stockhausen. And those music lovers would laugh you to death if you ever played Gruppen for them. Modern composers are in a tough place and I feel badly for them. For the past 60, 70 years composers have failed to write music that communicates with the common man - the stud-in-boots knows exactly how to do it - more power to them. 

Can classical ever become relevant again? I seriously doubt it. The media by and large ignores it. Newspapers don't review it and schools sure as heck don't teach it. The classical world is very small and very fragile. Someone commented that it's going to require the old-and-cranky generation to vanish to let music move on. He needs to be reminded that Gruppen predates the Beatles by several years. That older generation who didn't like it is long gone, and here we are 60 years later and it still is on the extreme fringes. It wasn't the old and cranky white guys holding it back, it was the composer. The music may be interesting, but that's not enough. It brings no beauty to the world. In a word, it's crap.


----------



## German Shepherd

Greatness is in the eye of the one who wishes greatness to exist


----------



## Bulldog

mbhaub said:


> He needs to be reminded that Gruppen predates the Beatles by several years. That older generation who didn't like it is long gone, and here we are 60 years later and it still is on the extreme fringes. It wasn't the old and cranky white guys holding it back, it was the composer. The music may be interesting, but that's not enough. It brings no beauty to the world. In a word, it's crap.


I don't hear beauty in Gruppen, but I can see how others might find it there (and they do).

Is a work that brings no beauty to the world automatically crap? I don't think so.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> There are no doubt many young listeners who must, in their own musical development, fight some of the same "battles" their great great grandparents fought. But I doubt that "battle" is a proper description of the process of developing one's musical sensibilities. If it were, I for one wouldn't have bothered.


Well put. We must bear in mind, as Mozart did, that the purpose of most (not entirely all, but almost all) classical music is to please the listener. This can take many forms, but to regard listening to CM as a sort of test of endurance or character or of the willingness to endure pain--sort of a modern equivalent of the Christian Knight's or monk's nightlong vigil, or a native American's vision quest--is to place a burden on the listener's psyche that is completely uncalled for. I don't mind "working" some in order to understand and then likely more greatly appreciate a piece of music, but there is a whiff of taking holy orders and vows of discipline and rigor in some of these approaches to music that I find both inappropriate and antithetical to the purpose for which the music was composed.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> You're setting up an absurd dichotomy here, and insulting a lot of people. I know many serious classical music listeners, none of whom expect music to be "relaxing and pretty." But listening to Xenakis and Cage all day long is not the necessary alternative.
> 
> There are no doubt many young listeners who must, in their own musical development, fight some of the same "battles" their great great grandparents fought. But I doubt that "battle" is a proper description of the process of developing one's musical sensibilities. If it were, I for one wouldn't have bothered.


It really is a battle, at least in the "war of words" sense, and everyone who likes Schoenberg, Nono, etc. have been implicitly insulted constantly throughout this discussion, so *if* my words are counter-insults - a point I do not concede - turnabout is fair play. If you don't like something, fine, whatever, but you don't have to portray your own distastes as objective trashing of what other people like. Nor is there the first damn thing wrong with wanting to listen to relaxing and pretty music.

Anyway, the reality is that none of us have that kind of authority anymore; Schoenberg, Nono, Stockhausen, Xenakis and so are already canonized, far above our poor power to add or detract, whether you or me or anyone else likes it or not, and there's exactly nothing we can do about it. If you don't like it, just choose not to listen to it. No one can make you. No one is going to make us listen to Gesualdo or Zelenka or Satie either, but it's not like anything we say is going to get them expelled from Olympus. It's simply the nature of the thing.

The fact is that people who are actually creating new music right now aren't fighting this battle anymore, and I don't see why listeners should either. It's not like Ted Hearne or Steve Reich or Tod Machover or Georg Friedrich Haas or Ellen Taaffe Zwilich or, like, seriously, like, really, bro, like _anybody_ is spending any amount of time worrying about twelve-tone music at this point, or anything from that era, any more than anyone is worrying about rock-and-roll or jazz fusion or art deco or Dada or pop art or anything else like that - *except as potentially interesting influences*. It's 2018 already. Schoenberg has been dead now almost as long as he was alive. It's all over, for better or worse, as over as Brahms v. Wagner or WWI.


----------



## science

Strange Magic said:


> Well put. We must bear in mind, as Mozart did, that the purpose of most (not entirely all, but almost all) classical music is to please the listener. This can take many forms, but to regard listening to CM as a sort of test of endurance or character or of the willingness to endure pain--sort of a modern equivalent of the Christian Knight's or monk's nightlong vigil, or a native American's vision quest--is to place a burden on the listener's psyche that is completely uncalled for. I don't mind "working" some in order to understand and then likely more greatly appreciate a piece of music, but there is a whiff of taking holy orders and vows of discipline and rigor in some of these approaches to music that I find both inappropriate and antithetical to the purpose for which the music was composed.


Maybe to please *A* listener, but definitely not to please all listeners, or you or me in particular. So it doesn't matter if you don't like it. It doesn't matter if no one you know likes it. It doesn't matter if no one but the composer likes it.

If it causes you pain or whatever, don't listen to it.

If someone judges you for that, don't listen to them.

Problem solved.


----------



## science

You can say I have a mental deficiency or psychological illness or whatever - I mean, in the public sphere, or even here if you find a way to slip it past the mods! - but I really like this. I mean this is damn interesting, damn fun, damn moving, damn creative music.

And enough people have shared the same mental deficiency and/or psychological illness that this is canon, and thank goodness it is because that's the only reason I ever heard of it anyway.


----------



## German Shepherd

science said:


> You can say I have a mental deficiency or psychological illness or whatever - I mean, in the public sphere, or even here if you find a way to slip it past the mods! - but I really like this. I mean this is damn interesting, damn fun, damn moving, damn creative music.
> 
> And enough people have shared the same mental deficiency and/or psychological illness that this is canon, and thank goodness it is because that's the only reason I ever heard of it anyway.


I am a massive lover of Braxton, it's awesome to see a fellow lover here! 

In the modern age, people use 'mental illness' as an insult to whatever they don't like. Don't take it to heart, it's just them showing their maturity.


----------



## Woodduck

It really is a battle, at least in the "war of words" sense, and everyone who likes Schoenberg, Nono, etc. have been implicitly insulted constantly throughout this discussion, so *if* my words are counter-insults - a point I do not concede - turnabout is fair play. If you don't like something, fine, whatever, but you don't have to portray your own distastes as objective trashing of what other people like.

I (and not only I) said that a piece by Babbitt is crap. That is an "implicit insult" to people who like the piece only if stating a value judgment about anything is an insult to anyone who disagrees.

A lot of music is crap. It was brought up that 90% (or whatever percentage you prefer) of _everything_ is is crap. Seems about right to me. But some crap is crappier than other crap. The bullying pseudoscientific serialist despotism of the mid-20th century academy, of which Babbitt was a hero, produced innumerable contenders for the most soulless and un-listened-to crap in the whole history of music. But, as Babbitt insists he didn't really say, "who cares if you listen?"

Anyway, the reality is that none of us have that kind of authority anymore; Schoenberg, Nono, Stockhausen, Xenakis and so are already canonized, far above our poor power to add or detract, whether you or me or anyone else likes it or not, and there's exactly nothing we can do about it. If you don't like it, just choose not to listen to it. 

Canonized? How grandiosely Biblical. Who gets to decide what's in the "canon"? Composers? Academics? Orchestra boards? Recording companies? Listeners? Oh, not listeners! God forbid!

Canons are not fixed for eternity. We have a right to debate them. History is often said to decide, but history is written by us, about us.

The fact is that people who are actually creating new music right now aren't fighting this battle anymore, and I don't see why listeners should either.

I don't think listeners "should" do anything - or, even more to the point, _say_ anything, or _refrain_ from saying anything, about what they're hearing.

It's not like Ted Hearne or Steve Reich or Tod Machover or Georg Friedrich Haas or Ellen Taaffe Zwilich or, like, seriously, like, really, bro, like _anybody_ is spending any amount of time worrying about twelve-tone music at this point, or anything from that era, any more than anyone is worrying about rock-and-roll or jazz fusion or art deco or Dada or pop art or anything else like that - *except as potentially interesting influences*. It's 2018 already. Schoenberg has been dead now almost as long as he was alive. It's all over, for better or worse, as over as Brahms v. Wagner or WWI.[/QUOTE]

It may be that some composers are happy to feel that the whole world has long since reverently embalmed them in shrouds of unquestionable acclaim, and that everyone who encounters them will henceforth and forever genuflect before their sarcophagi and depart in peace. Personally, I'd be more pleased if my work, and the effect my work had on the development of the art, were still being discussed and debated after I'm gone.

People encountering Serialism or Dada or Abstract Expressionism at this moment are not encountering something mummified but something new to them and very much alive. Each generation, and each person, will see those things with fresh eyes, and speak of them with fresh words. No one gives a damn whether something has been "canonized." We just want to know what it means to us now. We listen to music, not to canons - unless they're the kind you learn to write in composition class.

I don't "worry" about the _faits accomplis_ of music. Not for one second. I just want to find out whether there's a there there - and if I find that there isn't, I want to say so. The only "battle" I see being fought is by those who want to shut me up.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> The only "battle" I see being fought is by those who want to shut me up.


Since really all you're saying is "Your music sucks! You suck!" that battle is going to go on.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Jacck said:


> you need to train your brain to enjoy the Second Viennese School and serialism and 12-tone technique. I did not like it at first, but then decided to do an experiment. I took the Schoenberg piano concerto and listened to it once each day. It took well over 10 listenings, but then my brain memorized the music and got used to it and I think the piano concerto is a beautiful masterpiece. Since then I have no problem with serialism and enjoy Schoenbergs music. His string trio is great, as are his string quartets and violin concerto. Webern is similar, although I am less familiar with him than with Schoenberg. The easiest of the 2nd Viennese School is certainly Berg. His violin concerto sounds almost normal and he composed 2 absolute great operas - Lulu and Wozzeck.


That's an odd idea - would you train your palate to enjoy a particular cuisine?

Fortunately for me I liked Schoenbergs PC the first time I heard it. Not enough to go back and listen again though.


----------



## Jacck

stomanek said:


> That's an odd idea - would you train your palate to enjoy a particular cuisine?
> 
> Fortunately for me I liked Schoenbergs PC the first time I heard it. Not enough to go back and listen again though.


yes, I had to train myself to like beer. I did not like it as a kid. It is an acquired taste and I am glad I did acquire it


----------



## janxharris

science said:


> You can say I have a mental deficiency or psychological illness or whatever - I mean, in the public sphere, or even here if you find a way to slip it past the mods! - but I really like this. I mean this is damn interesting, damn fun, damn moving, damn creative music.
> 
> And enough people have shared the same mental deficiency and/or psychological illness that this is canon, and thank goodness it is because that's the only reason I ever heard of it anyway.


Curious piece of music / noise. Never heard of this before. It made me chuckle.

Would you pay for a performance or a CD?


----------



## Enthusiast

fluteman said:


> We always listen to music in some context or other, and in the 20th century that context became profoundly and permanently different, generally speaking. Except when you step into, say, Carnegie Hall. That is a museum, a cathedral, even. And the musicians on stage with their traditional symphonic acoustic instruments, in their traditional black formal attire, all of that adds up to the recreation of a traditional context that dates back two centuries or more.
> ...........
> 
> But as glad as I am that they didn't tear Carnegie Hall down (they nearly did at one point), those "certain contexts" have changed profoundly and permanently in the modern era. People who shrug and say, as you essentially just did, "that's just movies and TV", or, "that's just the internet" and when they listen to music always see in their mind's eye Carnegie Hall, or La Scala, or the Bolshoi Theater (to name three famous old venues I've been to), probably never will be much interested in a lot of 20th and 21st century music. Of course, a lot of other modern music likely will reflect the older traditions enough to interest you. But context is always of central importance to music, and the contexts, they are a changin'.


Well, yes and no. I hear you saying that film music is one of the forms that it replacing classical music as we knew it and if I have got this wrong then perhaps this post supports your view?

The new uses for music that you mention have not replaced classical music. Plenty of music in that tradition is still composed and performed and rewards listeners (those who "put in the work" to understand the constantly changing and very varied languages that it uses) in a totally different way to the music of the new contexts that you mention, a way that is closer to and stems from the classical tradition. The classical tradition _has _been through regular changes in what it offers us and how it is listened to throughout history but I think the music associated with the new contexts that you mention is _not_ the music that continues and extends the classical tradition - it merely uses some aspects of music _from the past _ in new ways.

But there really is a problem - a big one as far as I am concerned - with the museum-like quality of performing arrangements when used for contemporary classical music. This is worrying. The ways that people listened to classical music through history have changed regularly. For example, people talked and socialised throughout performances of, say, Handel and it wasn't really until the late Romantic that the concert practice we have today was really set. It needs to change again, I suspect, but it seems to me that the biggest change that it _has _benefited has been a move away from those museums and cathedrals. With the development of recording and broadcasting and streaming and all the rest we all listen to much more music in one or another form of recording than we do in concert. One thing this gives us is the ability to listen tens of times to a piece to get to know and understand it. This is a trend against the one I read about in your post (where musical argument gets degraded to playing a subsidiary role to drama) and allows composers to take us to places where drama perhaps never will.


----------



## Enthusiast

mbhaub said:


> Is it even possible for any "serious" composer to become relevant anymore? Let's face it, the cultural wars are over and popular culture won. Look at the movies these days coming out of Hollywood - is another loud, vulgar Marvel comics-based presentation the best we can do? The days of Paddy Chayefsky and Alfred Hitchcock are long gone. TV is a vast wasteland of dumb doctor, cop, zombie shows. Music is in bad shape, too. There is no one in the pop music scene who can rival the Beatles or many other 60's groups. Technology has given a way to escape the concert hall and program a concert of our liking on CD or DVD. Milton Babbitt's question Who Cares if You Listen? has come to fruition. Ok, so some crowd of young people listened to Gruppen by Stockhausen performed by young people. Big effing deal. I was at a concert series near where I live called Country Thunder - there were thousands of country/western fans every night whooping and dancing and loving every minute of it. Those hunks-in-a-cowboy-hat touched more people and delivered more pleasure than the likes of Babbitt, Carter and Stockhausen. And those music lovers would laugh you to death if you ever played Gruppen for them. Modern composers are in a tough place and I feel badly for them. For the past 60, 70 years composers have failed to write music that communicates with the common man - the stud-in-boots knows exactly how to do it - more power to them.
> 
> Can classical ever become relevant again? I seriously doubt it. The media by and large ignores it. Newspapers don't review it and schools sure as heck don't teach it. The classical world is very small and very fragile. Someone commented that it's going to require the old-and-cranky generation to vanish to let music move on. He needs to be reminded that Gruppen predates the Beatles by several years. That older generation who didn't like it is long gone, and here we are 60 years later and it still is on the extreme fringes. It wasn't the old and cranky white guys holding it back, it was the composer. The music may be interesting, but that's not enough. It brings no beauty to the world. In a word, it's crap.


Mass media has destroyed art? Maybe you need to get out more or find another way to expand your horizons. There is more variety before us now than ever. But you will need discussion forums and the like to find a community that enjoys broadly similar stuff to you - the people down the pub will probably be sold on the mass media stuff.


----------



## Myriadi

stomanek said:


> That's an odd idea - would you train your palate to enjoy a particular cuisine?


Thousands of people all over the world do that, most with success. It's such a well-known phenomenon there's even a Wikipedia article about it: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquired_taste


----------



## Enthusiast

Myriadi said:


> Thousands of people all over the world do that, most with success. It's such a well-known phenomenon there's even a Wikipedia article about it:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquired_taste


Yes, indeed. Nothing odd about it although it often happens without conscious effort. As a teenager I needed to like beer - British bitter - but did not very much like it at first. As a teenager it is hard to let on that you don't like beer so you drink it. And, before you know it, you love it. The same, sadly, is probably true of cigarettes. Both of these example are of substances that give you a buzz and I suppose the thing is that you unconsciously begin to associate the taste with the resulting buzz.

But is listening to music so different? Doesn't that also involve the so called reward centres of our brains? I guess with music, though, the difficult bit is knowing which pieces and which composers will give you a buzz that it worth the effort you put in. If music is easy to enjoy and gives you a huge and persistent buzz every time you listen to it then it is an obvious choice. But some music is easy and impresses at first but doesn't go on the deliver - or to keep delivering - all that much of a buzz. And other music is really hard to get any pleasure from at all but, when you keep at it, it delivers in spades. The good news is that cracking one such piece can often open up many more.


----------



## Myriadi

Enthusiast said:


> But is listening to music so different?


For many years now my job has involved dealing with all kinds of expensive foodstuff, like specialty foods etc. So the music <> food metaphor is always on my mind  I usually think of chocolate. The difference between commonly liked CM and the avantgarde (or Medieval/Renaissance music, for that matter) is roughly equivalent to that between commonly available chocolate and things like bean-to-bar chocolate. Same basic ingredients but you can't even eat them the same way - you can have a Mars bar while walking somewhere, or treat yourself to a nice truffle to accompany a cup of coffee in the morning, but you can't do that with an Amedei or Valrhona bar, since you'd completely miss the slow blossoming of flavor in your mouth. And while the difference between a Mars bar and a Belgian truffle is obvious to many people from their childhood, the differences between different chocolate varieties (Trinitario, Forastero, Criollo, and the many subcategories of those) are known only to those who choose to learn them by buying and comparing different bars from different brands. It's probably a flawed metaphor but I, having worked with bean-to-bar chocolate brands for so long, find it irresistible


----------



## Enthusiast

Myriadi said:


> It's probably a flawed metaphor but I, having worked with bean-to-bar chocolate brands for so long, find it irresistible


I think it's a good me good metaphor and probably involves similar pathways and mechanisms in our brain. But now I will have to try some of that chocolate. Are you sure you are not on a marketing mission, here?:angel:


----------



## janxharris

.....................................................


----------



## Myriadi

Enthusiast said:


> I think it's a good me good metaphor and probably involves similar pathways and mechanisms in our brain. But now I will have to try some of that chocolate. Are you sure you are not on a marketing mission, here?:angel:


FWIW a neuroscientist once explained to me that the pleasure processes in the brain are exactly the same between everyone, from a teenager enjoying their KFC nuggets to a seasoned wine expert enjoying their favorite vintage. I wasn't sold then but they were quite serious about it. Maybe someone here has some experience in the field and will be compelled to comment.

As for chocolate, I certainly didn't mean to market anything - both brands I mentioned are quite famous anyway. There's a nice non-commercial resource at http://www.chocolate-revolution.com/ explaining the basics of bean-to-bar and there are reviews for many brands. Hopefully the mods won't mind this one post and I swear I won't mention chocolate again :angel:


----------



## janxharris

Perhaps it's worth bringing up Rachmaninoff's second piano concerto simply because of it's overwhelming popularity amongst CM lovers. As a teenager, coming fresh to classical music, I liked it a lot and heard several performances - but now, I can hardly bear to listen to it. I recognise the skill with which Sergei crafted the piece, with highly complex chord sequences and melodies - but I find it extremely sentimental. 

That's just my view of course, but it is an example of a piece that no amount of repeated listens would effect a change in me.

I would never call it cr^p though.


----------



## Strange Magic

We may be losing sight of the fact that several things can be true simultaneously--at least I hold them to be true.

First, that art and music, and--yes, gastronomy while we're at it--are beyond Good and Evil: they just are. Their "value" is whatever we ascribe to them as individuals.

It follows then that any given art or music or food can be, for you, [email protected] or ecstasy or anything in between, and that's perfectly OK. But this means that none must like or dislike something that another likes or dislikes. This includes "experts" and critics.

It also means that, if you choose to listen to something thirty or one thousand times in order to "get it", you are perfectly free to do so. Others are perfectly free to express why they demur. I don't think here that asking composers will help much, in that I envision quite different answers coming from Mozart, Beethoven, and Babbitt on what their music is about, who should hear it, and how much time should be spent trying to "get it".

I will cheerfully concede that, if others are convinced that there is inherent value and greatness in musics and art--a Platonic ideal--that exists independently of any particular auditor or viewer, my arguments fall to pieces for them. May their quest to become the Platonic Ideal Receptor of such music and art go on!


----------



## Enthusiast

Myriadi said:


> FWIW a neuroscientist once explained to me that the pleasure processes in the brain are exactly the same between everyone, from a teenager enjoying their KFC nuggets to a seasoned wine expert enjoying their favorite vintage. I wasn't sold then but they were quite serious about it. Maybe someone here has some experience in the field and will be compelled to comment.
> 
> As for chocolate, I certainly didn't mean to market anything - both brands I mentioned are quite famous anyway. There's a nice non-commercial resource at http://www.chocolate-revolution.com/ explaining the basics of bean-to-bar and there are reviews for many brands. Hopefully the mods won't mind this one post and I swear I won't mention chocolate again :angel:


No please don't stop. The chocolate metaphor was good. But, seriously, it may be to a neuroscientist that KFC and Mozart give you the same buzz but .... . I'm speechless. Probably the difference is of the type that differentiates between what we mean by "mind" and what we mean by brain? Reductionism can be very useful in science but it can also lose important things.


----------



## Larkenfield

...............


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> Perhaps it's worth bringing up Rachmaninoff's second piano concerto simply because of it's overwhelming popularity amongst CM lovers. As a teenager, coming fresh to classical music, I liked it a lot and heard several performances - but now, I can hardly bear to listen to it. I recognise the skill with which Sergei crafted the piece, with highly complex chord sequences and melodies - but I find it extremely sentimental.
> 
> That's just my view of course, but it is an example of a piece that no amount of repeated listens would effect a change in me.
> 
> I would never call it cr^p though.


It is a work I only came to like recently. All those notes to so little purpose except to tax the player! That's how it seemed to me for a long time. The sentimentality seems to save it? Sentimentality is an easy impulse so all those notes probably also save it from its sentimentality. The two in balance make it satisfying. But I do agree - I also find its appeal has limits.


----------



## Myriadi

Enthusiast said:


> No please don't stop. The chocolate metaphor was good. But, seriously, it may be to a neuroscientist that KFC and Mozart give you the same buzz but .... . I'm speechless. Probably the difference is of the type that differentiates between what we mean by "mind" and what we mean by brain? Reductionism can be very useful in science but it can also lose important things.


The conversation took place a long time ago. I made the argument that an older, more experienced person's reactions would be more complex since they'd have a lot more context, and maybe some additional enjoyment simply from comparing the current piece (of food or music - doesn't matter) to others they know, from recognizing something. But she told me it was all irrelevant, since _that_ enjoyment would still be the same basic enjoyment produced by the same chemicals as any other enjoyment - or whatever it is produced by, electricity, neurons, I can't remember her exact wording. I just remember being somewhat annoyed :lol:


----------



## Enthusiast

Strange Magic said:


> First, that art and music, and--yes, gastronomy while we're at it--are beyond Good and Evil: they just are. Their "value" is whatever we ascribe to them as individuals.


It is surely not true of good and evil and also, I believe, untrue of good and less good that these are merely values ascribed by each and every individual. That seems to be a psychopathic way of looking at the world! (I don't know you: please don't take offense at my lazy use of language, here.)



Strange Magic said:


> It follows then that any given art or music or food can be, for you, [email protected] or ecstasy or anything in between, and that's perfectly OK. But this means that none must like or dislike something that another likes or dislikes. This includes "experts" and critics.
> 
> It also means that, if you choose to listen to something thirty or one thousand times in order to "get it", you are perfectly free to do so. Others are perfectly free to express why they demur. I don't think here that asking composers will help much, in that I envision quite different answers coming from Mozart, Beethoven, and Babbitt on what their music is about, who should hear it, and how much time should be spent trying to "get it".


I agree 100% with all that. I think most people would. It doesn't need your "psycopathic" argument to arrive at it.



Strange Magic said:


> I will cheerfully concede that, if others are convinced that there is inherent value and greatness in musics and art--a Platonic ideal--that exists independently of any particular auditor or viewer, my arguments fall to pieces for them. May their quest to become the Platonic Ideal Receptor of such music and art go on!


Thanks. I do think that there is "good" and "bad" music and even, probably, "the best music", at least for a given purpose. But, as you suggest, that is not worth discussing. But my interest is more practical. It is that, given that there is good and bad music, how can I get as close as possible to knowing which music is most worth spending my time getting to know? Where can I get the best guidance on which music will give me the best (subjective) bang for my buck (where time equals money!). Incidentally, those who believe I have argued that it is by consulting experts have greatly misunderstood what I have written.

My practical question may not be a practical question or problem of any interest to you. But, then, tell me how do you decide what music to listen to and how much effort to put into music that your don't immediately like?


----------



## Nereffid

Myriadi said:


> The conversation took place a long time ago. I made the argument that an older, more experienced person's reactions would be more complex since they'd have a lot more context, and maybe some additional enjoyment simply from comparing the current piece (of food or music - doesn't matter) to others they know, from recognizing something. But she told me it was all irrelevant, since _that_ enjoyment would still be the same basic enjoyment produced by the same chemicals as any other enjoyment - or whatever it is produced by, electricity, neurons, I can't remember her exact wording. I just remember being somewhat annoyed :lol:


I love the idea - I mean I find it hilarious - that there might be special molecules possessed only by people of superior taste.

I'm no neuroscientist either, but I'm pretty sure you're right in that the more discerning person will have a more complex neurological response, but still, your friend is right in terms of the fundamental basis of enjoyment being the same in everyone.


----------



## Myriadi

Nereffid said:


> I love the idea - I mean I find it hilarious - that there might be special molecules possessed only by people of superior taste.


Well, I've known some people who seemed to almost claim having antibodies against bad taste...


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> Any number of composers had to search their souls in the period after the mid-century academic serialist hegemony had taken "serious" music to the level of spiritual and social irrelevance which that work of Babbitt exemplifies. But in a larger view, the question of where art in general could go once its every traditional technique and value had been dismantled and nullified was very problematic. Composers disillusioned with serialism and painters unfulfilled by abstraction and "pop art" had to find ways to make their work meaningful to more than their academic in group - ways to recognize and restore human values that had been lost, while not merely retreating into the past. Many succeeded, and many more (the hundreds or thousands whose names we don't know) didn't.


I don't quite follow why you think such composers (i.e. serialists) have had such an effect on other composers as you describe. Presumably nothing prevents a composer from achieving success with their work if orchestras, whether community or professional, want to perform it and audiences enjoy it.

Apologies if I have misunderstood you.


----------



## janxharris

Perhaps some here view Stravinsky's Rite of Spring as cr$p? Certainly some of those at it's premier 105 years ago would have said as much.


----------



## Strange Magic

> Enthusiast: "It is surely not true of good and evil and also, I believe, untrue of good and less good that these are merely values ascribed by each and every individual. That seems to be a psychopathic was of looking at the world! (I don't know you: please don't take offense at my lazy use of language, here.)"


I confine my endorsement of the idea that good and evil have no demonstrable place in discussions of art to this specific area of human activity. No inference beyond music/art is intended or asserted.

As far as what/when to listen to, I follow my whim, often spontaneously following up on another's YouTube link--to quote Lawrence of Arabia's suggestion to Auda Abu Tayi that he go to Aqaba " because it is his pleasure." I often also track down more obscure works by composers I already know. I have found over the years that pure chance--serendipity, happenstance--brings me into contact with things that I quickly come to love. So, I make little or no serious planned effort to methodically explore the world of art; the workings of chance bring me all I need.


----------



## Enthusiast

Strange Magic said:


> So, I make little or no serious planned effort to methodically explore the world of art; the workings of chance bring me all I need.


Nor do I. But I don't use chance very often, either. As you know, I trust "the critical consensus" for music from the past. It seems to work much better than chance for me. For contemporary music, contemporary jazz and the music of other cultures I probably do much the same as you. But as a lot of what I end up really liking takes a while to get there this can be hard. I have traveled a lot (lived in many places) so have often been able to hear local musics live and I find this helps a lot. I find it more difficult to know how to proceed with so-called popular forms when they are not linked to stuff I liked in my 20s - but it isn't that hard because 1st or 2nd impressions seem to work.


----------



## fluteman

janxharris said:


> Curious piece of music / noise. Never heard of this before. It made me chuckle.
> 
> Would you pay for a performance or a CD?


I paid to go to a performance of a number of works, including one by Braxton. I'm not sure I'd call it a "music concert", at least not entirely, as it was more a multimedia experience, with a large video screen behind the stage and sometimes actors on the stage. The musicians were dressed in motorcycle gang or similarly casual attire, I assume to emphasize that this was not a Carnegie Hall, black tie and tails event, although they were symphony orchestra musicians who usually would be playing in black ties or gowns. The venue was in an artsy urban neighborhood, recently converted from industrial use.
It was a lot of fun, but not the typical concert experience, which was the point, of course.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> Since really all you're saying is "Your music sucks! You suck!" that battle is going to go on.


Fight on. If you relish feeling insulted by a criticism of something you enjoy, I can't and wouldn't deprive you of the pleasure.


----------



## Strange Magic

Enthusiast said:


> Nor do I. But I don't use chance very often, either. As you know, I trust "the critical consensus" for music from the past. It seems to work much better than chance for me. For contemporary music, contemporary jazz and the music of other cultures I probably do much the same as you. But as a lot of what I end up really liking takes a while to get there this can be hard. I have traveled a lot (lived in many places) so have often been able to hear local musics live and I find this helps a lot. I find it more difficult to know how to proceed with so-called popular forms when they are not linked to stuff I liked in my 20s - but it isn't that hard because 1st or 2nd impressions seem to work.


To be sure, my earlier years' explorations into classical music were influenced by books: First, Brockway and Weinstock's often acerbic _Men of Music_, and later Harold Schonberg's _Lives of the Great Composers_. A few good books are my usual best intros into new subjects of interest. And these themselves can be the fruit of chance--I became engrossed in 19th century American landscape painting as the result of a random receipt of a book on the Luminist painters.


----------



## science

janxharris said:


> Curious piece of music / noise. Never heard of this before. It made me chuckle.
> 
> Would you pay for a performance or a CD?


Are you kidding? It's one of my favorite CDs!


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> We may be losing sight of the fact that several things can be true simultaneously--at least I hold them to be true.
> 
> First, that *art and music, and--yes, gastronomy while we're at it--are beyond Good and Evil: they just are. Their "value" is whatever we ascribe to them as individuals*.
> 
> It follows then that any given art or music or food can be, for you, [email protected] or ecstasy or anything in between, and that's perfectly OK. But this means that none must like or dislike something that another likes or dislikes. This includes "experts" and critics.
> 
> It also means that, if you choose to listen to something thirty or one thousand times in order to "get it", you are perfectly free to do so. Others are perfectly free to express why they demur. I don't think here that asking composers will help much, in that I envision quite different answers coming from Mozart, Beethoven, and Babbitt on what their music is about, who should hear it, and how much time should be spent trying to "get it".
> 
> I will cheerfully concede that, if others are convinced that there is inherent value and greatness in musics and art--a Platonic ideal--that exists independently of any particular auditor or viewer, my arguments fall to pieces for them. May their quest to become the Platonic Ideal Receptor of such music and art go on!


It seems to me much easier to show that a work of art has inherent greatness than to argue that there is no such thing. The conviction of excellence is experienced first by the artist and then by his audience, it's experienced intellectually, emotionally and socially, and it gives rise to a notable amount of consensus (which is never universal and is not immutable, but is remarkably durable).

The cultivation of artistic sensitivity, perception and understanding isn't gastronomy. Art is food only metaphorically, and the metaphor breaks down faster than saliva breaks down starch.

A thing can have both inherent quality AND personal value. It needn't be either/or, and there needn't be any correspondence or causal relationship between the two (but for very good reasons there often is).

There is probably nothing in the universe so lacking in quality, meaning, virtue or value that someone won't find it marvelous. Could any fact be less useful or interesting?


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> It seems to me much easier to show that a work of art has inherent greatness than to argue that there is no such thing.


Berlioz and I disagree with you. But Berlioz, at least, is none too happy about it. "Where is the truth, and where is the error? Everywhere and nowhere. Everybody is right. What to someone seems beautiful is not so for someone else, simply because one person was moved and the other remained indifferent, and the former experienced profound delight while the latter acute boredom. What can be done about this?… nothing… but it is dreadful; I would rather be mad and believe in absolute beauty."


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Berlioz and I disagree with you. But Berlioz, at least, is none too happy about it. "Where is the truth, and where is the error? Everywhere and nowhere. Everybody is right. What to someone seems beautiful is not so for someone else, simply because one person was moved and the other remained indifferent, and the former experienced profound delight while the latter acute boredom. What can be done about this?… nothing… but it is dreadful; I would rather be mad and believe in absolute beauty."


A fascinating statement! As I read it, it's clear to me that Berlioz - like nearly every artist who slaves over perfecting his work - did believe in objectively existing artistic values. He simply made the common mistake of thinking that individual preference might cast doubt on it.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> A fascinating statement! As I read it, it's clear to me that Berlioz - like nearly every artist who slaves over perfecting his work - did believe in objectively existing artistic values. He simply made the common mistake of thinking that individual preference might cast doubt on it.


It is indeed a common notion that individual preference not only might but often does cast doubt upon the existence Out There of artistic values--a sort of Platonic idea of art that the gods of Lucretius, suspended in the interplanetary void, hold in being by the combined power of their minds. But is that doubt a mistake? Besides the greater preference for some art over others by certain peer groups--a measure of popularity and probably of shared electrochemical reactions within the brains of those groups, what is the evidence for objectively existing art values? Berlioz offers us only that doubt, countered by a wish to rather be mad, were he to succumb to that doubt.


----------



## janxharris

science said:


> Are you kidding? It's one of my favorite CDs!


Ok.

Kidding???


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> It is indeed a common notion that individual preference not only might but often does cast doubt upon the existence Out There of artistic values--a sort of Platonic idea of art that the gods of Lucretius, suspended in the interplanetary void, hold in being by the combined power of their minds. But is that doubt a mistake? Besides the greater preference for some art over others by certain peer groups--a measure of popularity and probably of shared electrochemical reactions within the brains of those groups, what is the evidence for objectively existing art values? Berlioz offers us only that doubt, countered by a wish to rather be mad, were he to succumb to that doubt.


Whether you find those objective values depends on what sort of thing you think they are, and thus on where you're looking for them.

Artists (I'm speaking now as one who has painted, sculpted, composed, sung and played) don't have the problem of knowing where to look, since they're applying aesthetic values with intense concentration all the time. They're constantly concerned with "getting it right" and "making it work," and the better an artist is the more exact and necessary his solutions to his self-created problems will be. When a Botticelli or a Boccherini is able to say to himself, "Si! Bellissima! Finita!", he isn't just saying "I like it." He's recognizing that he's got his work to a place where every part affirms and supports, not contradicts or undermines, every other part. A place where nothing could be added or taken away without detriment to the whole - without upsetting its equilibrium or obscuring its meaning. He's made a thing that's coherent and satisfying. He's created a thing of _beauty._

Beauty, as I've described it, is not the only thing that distinguishes great art from mediocre or poor art, but it's possibly the most open to universal appreciation. It isn't surprising that we can perceive (or easily learn to perceive) the principles of beauty in art of radically different kinds from radically dissimilar cultures, since they constitute nothing more or less than the perceptual equivalent of reason, which orders the experience of reality for the conceptual mind as art orders it for the senses and feelings. This is one possible meaning of Keats' famous line, "Beauty is truth, truth beauty, - that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know". It's true that "standards of beauty" differ between cultures and individuals (hence "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"), but that speaks to various factors which influence preference but are extrinsic to the mind's perception of art's internal coherence. Humans value all sorts of qualities in art, from its raw sensory qualities to its personal or cultural message, and that's why artistic tastes vary. But, all else being equal, the human mind, by its very nature, values the comprehensible - the feeling and knowledge that "this is as it should be."

The perception of artistic excellence isn't a knowledge that can ever be fully conceptualized and expressed verbally, which is why art seems magical and "subjective." But beauty isn't the only reality of which that's true. No one can prove that Mozart's 40th is a great - a beautiful - symphony. But one can know it nonetheless.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> Whether you find those objective values depends on what sort of thing you think they are, and thus on where you're looking for them.
> 
> Artists (I'm speaking now as one who has painted, sculpted, composed, sung and played) don't have the problem of knowing where to look, since they're applying aesthetic values with intense concentration all the time. They're constantly concerned with "getting it right" and "making it work," and the better an artist is the more exact and necessary his solutions to his self-created problems will be. When a Botticelli or a Boccherini is able to say to himself, "Si! Bellissima! Finita!", he isn't just saying "I like it." He's recognizing that he's got his work to a place where every part affirms and supports, not contradicts or undermines, every other part. A place where nothing could be added or taken away without detriment to the whole - without upsetting its equilibrium or obscuring its meaning. He's made a thing that's coherent and satisfying. He's created a thing of _beauty._
> 
> Beauty, as I've described it, is not the only thing that distinguishes great art from mediocre or poor art, but it's possibly the most open to universal appreciation. It isn't surprising that we can perceive (or easily learn to perceive) the principles of beauty in art of radically different kinds from radically dissimilar cultures, since they constitute nothing more or less than the perceptual equivalent of reason, which orders the experience of reality for the conceptual mind as art orders it for the senses and feelings. This is one possible meaning of Keats' famous line, "Beauty is truth, truth beauty, - that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know". It's true that "standards of beauty" differ between cultures and individuals (hence "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"), but that speaks to various factors which influence preference but are extrinsic to the mind's perception of art's internal coherence. Humans value all sorts of qualities in art, from its raw sensory qualities to its personal or cultural message, and that's why artistic tastes vary. But, all else being equal, the human mind, by its very nature, values the comprehensible - the feeling and knowledge that "this is as it should be."
> 
> The perception of artistic excellence isn't a knowledge that can ever be fully conceptualized and expressed verbally, which is why art seems magical and "subjective." But beauty isn't the only reality of which that's true. No one can prove that Mozart's 40th is a great - a beautiful - symphony. But one can know it nonetheless.


Mozart's 40th is unlikely to be deemed a tendentious example, but what of more contemporary, less assayed works?

Perhaps you missed this? No worries if you don't want to respond.


----------



## Haydn70

Woodduck said:


> Whether you find those objective values depends on what sort of thing you think they are, and thus on where you're looking for them.
> 
> Artists (I'm speaking now as one who has painted, sculpted, composed, sung and played) don't have the problem of knowing where to look, since they're applying aesthetic values with intense concentration all the time. They're constantly concerned with "getting it right" and "making it work," and the better an artist is the more exact and necessary his solutions to his self-created problems will be. When a Botticelli or a Boccherini is able to say to himself, "Si! Bellissima! Finita!", he isn't just saying "I like it." He's recognizing that he's got his work to a place where every part affirms and supports, not contradicts or undermines, every other part. A place where nothing could be added or taken away without detriment to the whole - without upsetting its equilibrium or obscuring its meaning. He's made a thing that's coherent and satisfying. He's created a thing of _beauty._
> 
> Beauty, as I've described it, is not the only thing that distinguishes great art from mediocre or poor art, but it's possibly the most open to universal appreciation. It isn't surprising that we can perceive (or easily learn to perceive) the principles of beauty in art of radically different kinds from radically dissimilar cultures, since they constitute nothing more or less than the perceptual equivalent of reason, which orders the experience of reality for the conceptual mind as art orders it for the senses and feelings. This is one possible meaning of Keats' famous line, "Beauty is truth, truth beauty, - that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know". It's true that "standards of beauty" differ between cultures and individuals (hence "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"), but that speaks to various factors which influence preference but are extrinsic to the mind's perception of art's internal coherence. Humans value all sorts of qualities in art, from its raw sensory qualities to its personal or cultural message, and that's why artistic tastes vary. But, all else being equal, the human mind, by its very nature, values the comprehensible - the feeling and knowledge that "this is as it should be."
> 
> The perception of artistic excellence isn't a knowledge that can ever be fully conceptualized and expressed verbally, which is why art seems magical and "subjective." But beauty isn't the only reality of which that's true. No one can prove that Mozart's 40th is a great - a beautiful - symphony. But one can know it nonetheless.


A superb post, Woodduck...mille grazie!


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> Mozart's 40th is unlikely to be deemed a tendentious example, but what of more contemporary, less assayed works?
> 
> Perhaps you missed this? No worries if you don't want to respond.


I didn't miss your previous post. A proper response would require a certain fund of knowledge in common, which can't be assumed. My sense is that I'd have to work too hard to ensure that we both know what we're discussing. Sometimes I'm lazy.

On the current question, it certainly isn't always easy, and can take time, to perceive the qualities of works unfamiliar in style and content. And some works are complex and inherently difficult, but ultimately rewarding. Luckily there's no hurry!


----------



## Nereffid

Strange Magic said:


> It is indeed a common notion that individual preference not only might but often does cast doubt upon the existence Out There of artistic values--a sort of Platonic idea of art that the gods of Lucretius, suspended in the interplanetary void, hold in being by the combined power of their minds. But is that doubt a mistake? Besides the greater preference for some art over others by certain peer groups--a measure of popularity and probably of shared electrochemical reactions within the brains of those groups, what is the evidence for objectively existing art values? Berlioz offers us only that doubt, countered by a wish to rather be mad, were he to succumb to that doubt.


The last time this topic came up I made an analogy with gymnastics and other judgement-based sports. Unlike, say, the 100 m sprint, which has a simple rule to decide who wins, in gymnastics there are a set of agreed-upon criteria for what an excellent gymnast must be able to do. The criteria, while to some degree arbitrary (it's possible to completely change these criteria, and the notion of what constitutes an excellent gymnast changes), are objective ones. Of course they're then judged on subjectively, but it's not difficult to produce consensus among judges because they're all looking at the same things more-or-less the same way.
Personally I think it's impossible to have a single set of agreed-upon criteria for assessing _all_ music, but I guess this is the sort of thing the objectivity camp have in mind. (Although last time I suggested this analogy I was told very firmly by someone that music is not a sport, so there's that.)


----------



## KenOC

Nereffid said:


> ...(Although last time I suggested this analogy I was told very firmly by someone that music is not a sport, so there's that.)


If we were allowed to bet money on music, say in league-based orchestral playoffs, it'd become a sport soon enough. And classical musicians would get a *much *better wage. :lol:


----------



## science

We have arguments, mostly from authority, that objective, verifiable, and knowable (with certainty!) aesthetic truths exist. 

We have the plain, abundant evidence of everyday experience that, even if we limit our inquiry to beings of our own species and cultural environment, aesthetic opinions vary widely.

"Who're ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> We have arguments, mostly from authority, that objective, verifiable, and knowable (with certainty!) aesthetic truths exist.
> 
> We have the plain, abundant evidence of everyday experience that, even if we limit our inquiry to beings of our own species and cultural environment, aesthetic opinions vary widely.


These two things are not contradictory. I know, without any doubt, that Mozart's _Le Nozze di Figaro_ is a great opera. At the same time, I don't much care for it. This is not a conundrum.

The evidence for actual excellence in art is every bit as "plain, abundant and everyday" as the evidence for varying aesthetic opinions.

Nobody said that making aesthetic judgments is easy, or that it isn't subject to biases. What field of human knowledge isn't?

It is a fundamental error to assume that nothing that cannot be explained, verified and communicated in words can really exist.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> I know, without any doubt, that Mozart's _Le Nozze di Figaro_ is a great opera.


A lot of people know, without any doubt, a lot of things, some of which you would find quite silly. Your statement only shows that you have a subjective opinion on the matter.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> A lot of people know, without any doubt, a lot of things, some of which you would find quite silly. Your statement only shows that you have a subjective opinion on the matter.


My statement doesn't show that. Your statement only shows that that's all you get out of it.

Some people think they know things they don't actually know. The difference is not always publicly demonstrable. Phenomena of consciousness - aesthetic appreciation being one of them - are fundamentally incommunicable. If you think that beauty is only a product of your imagination, no one will ever persuade you that it exists. So that's that.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> It is a fundamental error to assume that nothing that cannot be explained, verified and communicated in words can really exist.


Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.


----------



## Jacck

science said:


> Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.


I wonder wether Wittgenstein meant religion and God. He seems like the mystic type.


----------



## Blancrocher

I couldn't really care less whether someone on this forum believed that artistic taste is subjective or objective—we're all a bunch of music addicts, after all, which makes individual tastes interesting. But I hope that when we leave the private confines of the forum none of us will mention that everything's as good as everything around a budget-slashing politician or administrator.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Phenomena of consciousness - aesthetic appreciation being one of them - are fundamentally incommunicable.


So "aesthetic appreciation" is as instinctive as the five senses? It's not a "skill" at all, but a mode of perceiving?


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> So "aesthetic appreciation" is as instinctive as the five senses? It's not a "skill" at all, but a mode of perceiving?


It's a perceptual skill. Perception is not sensing, but the brain's organizing of sensations. Artists practice it all their lives in order to get better at it. But even the senses can be improved.


----------



## ST4

"Greatness" is an idea, it is a sense of validity for those who can't enjoy and be moved by the music as it is.


----------



## mmsbls

The thread focuses on attitudes towards music. Please comment on the thread content and not other members.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> It's a perceptual skill. Perception is not sensing, but the brain's organizing of sensations. Artists practice it all their lives in order to get better at it. But even the senses can be improved.


I'm keen to narrow this down, since it seems to me to go to the heart of what is being argued about.

So, if it's a perceptual skill, it's similar to the kind of processing that is required to enable us to learn to read? It's not like a physical skill such as juggling or gymnastics that we can acquire?


----------



## KenOC

As I've mentioned so many times before, you can shortcut all this and just buy my patented Great-o-Meter. See my ads on eBay. PayPal accepted. Results guaranteed!


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> I'm keen to narrow this down, since it seems to me to go to the heart of what is being argued about.
> 
> So, if it's a perceptual skill, it's similar to the kind of processing that is required to enable us to learn to read? It's not like a physical skill such as juggling or gymnastics that we can acquire?


I'm not sure of your question, but certainly the perception of aesthetic qualities is mental, like reading skills (which are partly perceptual and partly conceptual), and not physical, like juggling (which however is also acutely perceptual). Like any skill, aesthetic perception becomes stronger with use. Artists are (or at least were traditionally) engaged in a lifelong quest to refine their sense of formal relationships and embody the most coherent and satisfying (beautiful) constructions in whatever medium they work in.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> I'm not sure of your question,


I'm trying to understand your terms "perceptual skill" and "phenomena of consciousness" so that I can better understand the idea that aesthetic appreciation isn't something that can simply be taught - like juggling.

I'm not an artists, but I'm married to one (a textile artist). Every time she shares her work with me, and asks my opinions, I must exercise my "aesthetic judgement" (as well as marital diplomacy). I believe I have a functioning aesthetic sense, but I don't know if it's wholly acquired by deliberate exposure to the arts or I have an innate sense, or a knack. So, is it near the surface of my conscious skill range (such as knowing how to write) or deeper than that (such as knwoing without looking where the ends of my fingers are, essential for excellence in gymnastics)? Or...?


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> I'm trying to understand your terms "perceptual skill" and "phenomena of consciousness" so that I can better understand the idea that aesthetic appreciation isn't something that can simply be taught - like juggling.
> 
> I'm not an artists, but I'm married to one (a textile artist). Every time she shares her work with me, and asks my opinions, I must exercise my "aesthetic judgement" (as well as marital diplomacy). I believe I have a functioning aesthetic sense, but I don't know if it's wholly acquired by deliberate exposure to the arts or I have an innate sense, or a knack. So, is it near the surface of my conscious skill range (such as knowing how to write) or deeper than that (such as knwoing without looking where the ends of my fingers are, essential for excellence in gymnastics)? Or...?


Marital diplomacy...Hmmm, yes. Very important. In fact, I've found that diplomacy is important whenever an artist asks, "What do you think?" Sometimes they don't really want to know.

I'm no expert in aesthetic brain science (a discipline I just invented), but I can speak from observation, cursory reading, and personal experience as one active in several arts since early childhood. I believe that aesthetic sensitivity is innate and more or less universal (I suppose there are exceptional individuals born without it). Virtually everyone is sensitive to beauty, even if it goes no farther than an attraction to beautiful faces or an interest in looking nice in clothes. There are innumerable cultural differences in fashion, of course, yet it's been proven that humans are remarkably consistent even in infancy in what they recognize as human beauty; babies are pleased by faces generally thought attractive, and disturbed by those considered ugly. Clearly aesthetic perception is present early in our mental development. The extraordinary degree of enlargement and refinement which can produce a Goldberg Variations would therefore be based on principles innate to the brain's way of organizing data, uniting our perceptual and affective faculties in the experience we call "aesthetic."

Is that going anywhere helpful?


----------



## Strange Magic

I missed so much of this discussion, as I was out in my kayak amid a natural landscape I found most pleasing. Emerson tells us that God, acting through Nature, contrives to have our eyes and minds frame landscapes just so, so that they appear beautiful and harmonious to the eye and mind. Leaving out Transcendentalism, if you like (and I do like to leave it out), Woodduck's notion of "objectivity" works if one postulates that beauty has no necessary extrinsic component--there is nothing "inherently" or 'intrinsically" beautiful in the landscape (waterscape) I was immersed in. Woodduck's objectivity, to the extent it exists, does so entirely within the confines of the human brain, and derives its validity and its potency from a deeply-felt conviction that it is both real and--if not universally felt--felt strongly by like-minded people. One might say its foundations rest upon assertion and conviction. The question (for me) is whether the landscape itself contains within itself any intrinsic qualities that make it beautiful "objectively".

So this is the area wherein we differ, and, for all I know, the differences may be trivial. I take "objective, objectively, objectivity" to mean actual things or attributes that exist outside of as well as within the human mind and imagination, and therefore can exist in a world without (human) observers. Such things, as I understand them, just are; they are neither good nor evil--certainly not good art or bad art, other than individual human minds make them so. If many minds--obviously these will be like minds in this regard--however, find the same thing beautiful, then aesthetic goodness, beauty, etc., can be said to objectively exist, if that is one's working definition of objective. It is not mine.


----------



## WildThing




----------



## Jacck

science said:


> ... that unless you demonstrate these objective aesthetic truths, it's just naked assertion that your tastes are correct and other people's tastes are wrong. The whole point is whether people can have different but legitimate tastes, or whether you're simply superior to people who disagree with you.


so is there no objectivity in aesthetics? Should we send Beyoncé instead of Beethoven to the aliens?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/beauty/


----------



## Strange Magic

WildThing, Many Thanks! What would David Hume make of much of Picasso's work?


----------



## WildThing

Strange Magic said:


> I take "objective, objectively, objectivity" to mean actual things or attributes that exist outside of as well as within the human mind and imagination, and therefore can exist in a world without (human) observers.


Now you're opening up a whole new can of worms! 

Immanuel Kant would argue that empirical reality presents itself to us as experience, and this can only take the forms mediated by the mental and bodily equipment we possess. Therefore there has to be a detailed correlation between our powers of apprehension and reality as we perceive it. Subject and object are interdependent: neither could exist as we apprehend them if the other did not also exist. Pure subject without an object and pure object without a subject are both metaphysical concepts, to which nothing could correspond in the empirical world.


----------



## Jacck

WildThing said:


> Now you're opening up a whole new can of worms!
> 
> Immanuel Kant would argue that empirical reality presents itself to us as experience, and this can only take the forms mediated by the mental and bodily equipment we possess. Therefore there has to be a detailed correlation between our powers of apprehension and reality as we perceive it. Subject and object are interdependent: neither could exist as we apprehend them if the other did not also exist. Pure subject without an object and pure object without a subject are both metaphysical concepts, to which nothing could correspond in the empirical world.


have you heard about constructivism? People like Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela? Their opinions are a little more modern than Hume or Kant, are are grounded more in empirical neuroscientific research. Had Kant lived today, he would no doubt be a neuroscientist.


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^Unhappily for Kant, I can't like Kant. I find the likelihood that nothing existed prior to an agency perceiving it to be too Bishop Berkeleyan--too "ideal"--an idea to hold seriously. Ernest Nagel, one of my favorite philosophers, said he preferred to believe "off the clock" exactly the same things he believed while on the job as a professional. So, no Solipsism for him, no Berkeleyist or Transcendental/Emersonian Idealism for him either. I think it's entirely possible that a world inhabited by dinosaurs existed before we arrived on the scene--at least the paleontological evidence very strongly suggests this.


----------



## WildThing

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^Unhappily for Kant, I can't like Kant. I find the likelihood that nothing existed prior to an agency perceiving it to be too Bishop Berkeleyan--too "ideal"--an idea to hold seriously. Ernest Nagel, one of my favorite philosophers, said he preferred to believe "off the clock" exactly the same things he believed while on the job as a professional. So, no Solipsism for him, no Berkeleyist or Transcendental/Emersonian Idealism for him either. I think it's entirely possible that a world inhabited by dinosaurs existed before we arrived on the scene--at least the paleontological evidence very strongly suggests this.


Ah, but this is a common misconception and not at all what Kant (or Berkley for that matter) is saying. He is not saying _nothing_ existed prior to an agency perceiving it. That's actually almost the complete opposite of what he's saying. He is saying that except for that part of total reality that we ourselves constitute, whatever exists exists independently of the human mind and it's capacities.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^Unhappily for Kant, I can't like Kant. I find the likelihood that nothing existed prior to an agency perceiving it to be too Bishop Berkeleyan--too "ideal"--an idea to hold seriously. Ernest Nagel, one of my favorite philosophers, said he preferred to believe "off the clock" exactly the same things he believed while on the job as a professional. So, no Solipsism for him, no Berkeleyist or Transcendental/Emersonian Idealism for him either. I think it's entirely possible that a world inhabited by dinosaurs existed before we arrived on the scene--at least the paleontological evidence very strongly suggests this.


Yes, the universe is 13.5 billion years old. That means it has existed for 13.5 billion years, not just the last 3-4 billion years when organisms emerged on planet Earth.

Some of these Western philosophers need to get out more.


----------



## Strange Magic

WildThing said:


> Ah, but this is a common misconception and not at all what Kant (or Berkley for that matter) is saying. He is not saying _nothing_ existed prior to an agency perceiving it. That's actually almost the complete opposite of what he's saying. He is saying that except for that part of total reality that we ourselves constitute, whatever exists exists independently of the human mind and it's capacities.


Sounds like Kant agrees with me then! I thought the Good Bishop Berkeley held that God held everything that existed in being by being He Who Perceived All (constantly). But I will cheerfully submit to correction.


----------



## Kieran

Strange Magic said:


> Sounds like Kant agrees with me then!


He's doing great, so! Looks like he's got a great future behind him...  :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> I missed so much of this discussion, as I was out in my kayak amid a natural landscape I found most pleasing. Emerson tells us that God, acting through Nature, contrives to have our eyes and minds frame landscapes just so, so that they appear beautiful and harmonious to the eye and mind. Leaving out Transcendentalism, if you like (and I do like to leave it out), Woodduck's notion of "objectivity" works if one postulates that beauty has no necessary extrinsic component--there is nothing "inherently" or 'intrinsically" beautiful in the landscape (waterscape) I was immersed in. Woodduck's objectivity, to the extent it exists, does so entirely within the confines of the human brain, and derives its validity and its potency from a deeply-felt conviction that it is both real and--if not universally felt--felt strongly by like-minded people. One might say its foundations rest upon assertion and conviction. The question (for me) is whether the landscape itself contains within itself any intrinsic qualities that make it beautiful "objectively".
> 
> So this is the area wherein we differ, and, for all I know, the differences may be trivial. I take "objective, objectively, objectivity" to mean actual things or attributes that exist outside of as well as within the human mind and imagination, and therefore can exist in a world without (human) observers. Such things, as I understand them, just are; they are neither good nor evil--certainly not good art or bad art, other than individual human minds make them so. If many minds--obviously these will be like minds in this regard--however, find the same thing beautiful, then aesthetic goodness, beauty, etc., can be said to objectively exist, if that is one's working definition of objective. It is not mine.


I'm thinking at this point that our basic point of disagreement or misunderstanding may be over the concept of "objectivity." You define as "objective" that which can exist in a world without human observers. But what about observers themselves? Do they have "objective" existence? Do their sensations, perceptions, thoughts and emotions exist "objectively"? I find it absurd to claim that they do not. If they do have objective existence, don't we have to ask what kind of objects they are - what we can objectively know about them? And mustn't there be specific, objectively existing ways in which they relate to the world outside them?

"Beauty" obviously would not exist in a world without observers (although a Platonist might say that it does). "Beautiful" is an evaluation, and an evaluation implies a relationship between the observer and the observed. The question of whether beauty is something "real" is futile if we insist on splitting reality into "subject" and "object" and excluding from consideration any phenomenon which doesn't exist exclusively on one side of that divide. This shouldn't be surprising; a great many very real and rather important things will end up being defined as unreal if we divide up reality in this way. Is love "real"?

I think the real question - the fundamental question in aesthetics - is: are there specific (objectively existing) perceptual qualities in (objectively existing) things which the (objectively existing) human mind, by its (objectively existing) nature, finds pleasing? There are many more questions for aesthetics to address after that, but if that first question is answered in the affirmative, we have a basis (though not the sole basis) for evaluating works of art - for stating with confidence that a symphony of Beethoven is finer than a symphony of Dittersdorf - and for regarding artistic values as something more significant than a preference for chocolate or vanilla.


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^I completely agree with the above, with the additional thought or caveat (if you will) that it all does come down to a vote/consensus/popularity contest, once the abstract philosophizing--both mine and everybody else's--is stripped away.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^I completely agree with the above, with the additional thought or caveat (if you will) that it all does come down to a vote/consensus/popularity contest, once the abstract philosophizing--both mine and everybody else's--is stripped away.


I guess that depends on what you mean by "it all." If you're saying that no one has any reason to feel that they ought to prefer Beethoven to Dittersdorf, I agree. Beethoven's music may be objectively better - in perfection of form, in imagination, in inventiveness, in originality, in breadth of meaning, power of expression, or cultural influence - but it may not be better _for me_ (although of course it is...).


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> I guess that depends on what you mean by "it all." If you're saying that no one has any reason to feel that they ought to prefer Beethoven to Dittersdorf, I agree. Beethoven's music may be objectively better - in perfection of form, in imagination, in inventiveness, in originality, in breadth of meaning, power of expression, or cultural influence - but it may not be better _for me_ (although of course it is...).


I agree: Beethoven's music pleases more people than does Dittersdorf's......


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> I agree: Beethoven's music pleases more people than does Dittersdorf's......


Oh, you!


----------



## JosefinaHW

Woodduck said:


> I'm thinking at this point that our basic point of disagreement or misunderstanding may be over the concept of "objectivity." You define as "objective" that which can exist in a world without human observers. But what about observers themselves? Do they have "objective" existence? Do their sensations, perceptions, thoughts and emotions exist "objectively"? I find it absurd to claim that they do not. If they do have objective existence, don't we have to ask what kind of objects they are - what we can objectively know about them? And mustn't there be specific, objectively existing ways in which they relate to the world outside them?
> 
> "Beauty" obviously would not exist in a world without observers (although a Platonist might say that it does). "Beautiful" is an evaluation, and an evaluation implies a relationship between the observer and the observed. The question of whether beauty is something "real" is futile if we insist on splitting reality into "subject" and "object" and excluding from consideration any phenomenon which doesn't exist exclusively on one side of that divide. This shouldn't be surprising; a great many very real and rather important things will end up being defined as unreal if we divide up reality in this way. Is love "real"?
> 
> I think the real question - the fundamental question in aesthetics - is: are there specific (objectively existing) perceptual qualities in (objectively existing) things which the (objectively existing) human mind, by its (objectively existing) nature, finds pleasing? There are many more questions for aesthetics to address after that, but if that first question is answered in the affirmative, we have a basis (though not the sole basis) for evaluating works of art - for stating with confidence that a symphony of Beethoven is finer than a symphony of Dittersdorf - and for regarding artistic values as something more significant than a preference for chocolate or vanilla.


Have you ever considered that the combination of skills; knowledge, including knowledge obtained from praxis; tools; particular neurological structure, and whatever else an artist uses to be able to recognize a great work of art--forms another type of consciousness/ability that is greater than the component parts? A way of being in the world that enables you to perceive more effectively? (I am not using the correct words here, but I hope you get the idea anyway.)

A dynamic and reality similar to that when the actions, thoughts and behaviors of a group of individuals becomes something that behaves very different: e.g., psychology and sociology? Isn't that a mysterious difference that no one has been able to explain?


----------



## Woodduck

JosefinaHW said:


> Have you ever considered that the combination of skills; knowledge, including knowledge obtained from praxis; tools; particular neurological structure, and whatever else an artist uses to be able to recognize a great work of art--forms another type of consciousness/ability that is greater than the component parts? A way of being in the world that enables you to perceive more effectively? (I am not using the correct words here, but I hope you get the idea anyway.)
> 
> A dynamic and reality similar to that when the actions, thoughts and behaviors of a group of individuals becomes something that behaves very different: e.g., psychology and sociology? Isn't that a mysterious difference that no one has been able to explain?


I don't understand the question, specifically this: "another type of consciousness/ability that is greater than the component parts." Isn't every functioning system greater than its parts?


----------



## science

I cannot understand using the word "objective" to describe a partial agreement between various individuals' subjective responses - or even a complete agreement! Even if every human mind that has ever existed has the same aesthetic response to some stimulus (which of course would not happen even with the simplest stimulus), that's still just a collection of opinions. 

Nor can I understand considering any partial agreement among a few people as normative for all other people. If, however, I were to try to elevate some set of people above the rest of humanity that way, I'd probably try to include representatives of a very wide variety of cultures and classes and other perspectives.

Human diversity is a fact. That it is legitimate is merely my opinion, though one that many others share with me; however, anyone participating on this forum is a member of a relatively eccentric community of taste, so we should all hope that people who regard homogeneity as desirable do not gain power over us. That is a game none of us would win. We should therefore, at a minimum, stand up for the legitimacy of a diversity of tastes.


----------



## JosefinaHW

science said:


> I cannot understand using the word "objective" to describe a partial agreement between various individuals' subjective responses - or even a complete agreement! Even if every human mind that has ever existed has the same aesthetic response to some stimulus (which of course would not happen even with the simplest stimulus), that's still just a collection of opinions.
> 
> Nor can I understand considering any partial agreement among a few people as normative for all other people. If, however, I were to try to elevate some set of people above the rest of humanity that way, I'd probably try to include representatives of a very wide variety of cultures and classes and other perspectives.
> 
> Human diversity is a fact. That it is legitimate is merely my opinion, though one that many others share with me; however, anyone participating on this forum is a member of a relatively eccentric community of taste, so we should all hope that people who regard homogeneity as desirable do not gain power over us. That is a game none of us would win. We should therefore, at a minimum, stand up for the legitimacy of a diversity of tastes.


It is my understanding that no one who has posted in this thread believes that Beauty is an eternal Truth that is in someway shared in objects in the world, besides me, anyway. The adoption of this belief does not necessarily entail the desire to produce a list of prohibited works, a reason to scorn other people's music choices, etc..

Also regarding your signature: "Liberty for wolves is death to the lambs." Are you recommending that the wolves among us adopt the behavior that follows from such a belief? Do you live it yourself?


----------



## Woodduck

JosefinaHW said:


> It is my understanding that no one who has posted in this thread believes that Beauty is an eternal Truth that is in someway shared in objects in the world, besides me, anyway. The adoption of this belief does not necessarily entail the desire to produce a list of prohibited works, a reason to scorn other people's music choices, etc..
> 
> Also regarding your signature: "Liberty for wolves is death to the lambs." Are you recommending that the wolves among us adopt the behavior that follows from such a belief? Do you live it yourself?


If I understand you correctly, you appear to hold the idea that beauty is a transcendent thing or substance in which individual objects "participate." That is perfect Platonism. I suspect you're right in thinking it likely that few others here agree. Platonism is a rather unpopular metaphysic nowadays. :tiphat:

I believe that beauty - or aesthetic quality - is not a metaphysical entity but an attribution based on the nature of the entity that attributes it - namely, the human mind. I think things are beautiful because they are _perceived_ as beautiful, but unlike some (most?) here I don't consider this perception identical with taste, but rather a product of the structure of human consciousness as such.

Taste in art is not identical with aesthetic perception or necessarily based on it. A work may be perceived as aesthetically inferior yet appealing for other reasons, or aesthetically fine yet uninteresting. For most people, nonetheless, taste and the sense of aesthetic excellence coincide to a great extent, and this is what we would expect if the perception of beauty is based on the way the human mind works. We would also expect very broad consensus about aesthetic quality, and we do find exactly that - even, to a surprising extent, through the ages and across cultures. The cave paintings of prehistoric France are as beautiful to me as they must have been to their creators, and once I'd adjusted to a musical idiom initially strange, an Indian raga played by a master was understood by me, a kid from New Jersey, as a great work of art.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> I think things are beautiful because they are _perceived_ as beautiful,


I think I probably do too,



Woodduck said:


> unlike some (most?) here I don't consider this perception identical with taste, but rather a product of the structure of human consciousness as such.


...and it is because no two human minds are wired exactly the same that perceptions differ. I certainly don't think alternative ideas of beauty are simply a matter of 'taste' which, it seems to me, contains a strong element of conscious choice.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> If I understand you correctly, you appear to hold the idea that beauty is a transcendent thing or substance in which individual objects "participate." That is perfect Platonism. I suspect you're right in thinking it likely that few others here agree. Platonism is a rather unpopular metaphysic nowadays. :tiphat:
> 
> I believe that beauty - or aesthetic quality - is not a metaphysical entity but an attribution based on the nature of the entity that attributes it - namely, the human mind. I think things are beautiful because they are _perceived_ as beautiful, but unlike some (most?) here I don't consider this perception identical with taste, but rather a product of the structure of human consciousness as such.
> 
> Taste in art is not identical with aesthetic perception or necessarily based on it. A work may be perceived as aesthetically inferior yet appealing for other reasons, or aesthetically fine yet uninteresting. For most people, nonetheless, taste and the sense of aesthetic excellence coincide to a great extent, and this is what we would expect if the perception of beauty is based on the way the human mind works. We would also expect very broad consensus about aesthetic quality, and we do find exactly that - even, to a surprising extent, through the ages and across cultures. The cave paintings of prehistoric France are as beautiful to me as they must have been to their creators, and once I'd adjusted to a musical idiom initially strange, an Indian raga played by a master was understood by me, a kid from New Jersey, as a great work of art.


You have a definition of taste?


----------



## Larkenfield

There are the intangibles that attract people to great art that cannot always be named. If everything could be named, it wouldn’t be music... Now someone is going to ask: “What are the intangibles that cannot be named?”


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> Human diversity is a fact... [W]e should all hope that people who regard homogeneity as desirable do not gain power over us. That is a game none of us would win. We should therefore, at a minimum, stand up for the legitimacy of a diversity of tastes.


I've seen no one here suggest that homogeneity of taste is desirable, and no effort by anyone to gain power over anyone else's musical life. How could anyone do that even if they wanted to?


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> You have a definition of taste?


Same as everyone else's definition. Personal preference.


----------



## Guest

We're still left with the thorny problem of the 'beauty' that I see is considered by some to be inferior to the beauty that they see. I can explain what it is that I find beautiful about the second movement of Haydn's 99th Symphony, but there's always the queue of people ready to tell me that Mozart's 41st is more beautiful. And they would claim that is not a matter of taste but of objective fact.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> ... it is because no two human minds are wired exactly the same that perceptions differ. I certainly don't think alternative ideas of beauty are simply a matter of 'taste' which, it seems to me, contains a strong element of conscious choice.


Ask a thousand accomplished artists whether a painting's composition balances, and they will nearly all give you the same answer, slightly different "wiring" or not. But they'll differ greatly in how much they like the painting.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Ask a thousand accomplished artists whether a painting's composition balances, and they will nearly all give you the same answer, slightly different "wiring" or not. But they'll differ greatly in how much they like the painting.


Ask a thousand experienced, but amateur viewers of art...

I get that the more exposure and practice, the more likely that your perceptive apparatus is attuned to some of the things - form, line, colour, light etc - that combine to greater or lesser 'beautiful' effect. But it doesn't account for the totality of difference reported here by those who like and those who don't like Sibelius.

Oh, and ask a hundred conductors which is "the best" symphony and they don't agree.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> We're still left with the thorny problem of the 'beauty' that I see is considered by some to be inferior to the beauty that they see. I can explain what it is that I find beautiful about the second movement of Haydn's 99th Symphony, but there's always the queue of people ready to tell me that Mozart's 41st is more beautiful. And they would claim that is not a matter of taste but of objective fact.


The word "beauty" is used very loosely. I've been trying, over a number of posts, to give it a more specific and useful meaning, one recognized by artists and aestheticians. This paragraph, from post #125, puts it as well as I can:

_Artists (I'm speaking now as one who has painted, sculpted, composed, sung and played) don't have the problem of knowing where to look, since they're applying aesthetic values with intense concentration all the time. They're constantly concerned with "getting it right" and "making it work," and the better an artist is the more exact and necessary his solutions to his self-created problems will be. When a Botticelli or a Boccherini is able to say to himself, "Si! Bellissima! Finita!", he isn't just saying "I like it." *He's recognizing that he's got his work to a place where every part affirms and supports, not contradicts or undermines, every other part. A place where nothing could be added or taken away without detriment to the whole - without upsetting its equilibrium or obscuring its meaning. He's made a thing that's coherent and satisfying. He's created a thing of beauty.*_

Btw, I think it's presumptuous to argue over which of two supremely beautiful things is more beautiful.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> Same as everyone else's definition. Personal preference.


The human mind can lead to a taste preference at odds with one's aesthetic perception that same mind produces? Isn't this just semantics?


----------



## Guest

Larkenfield said:


> "What are the intangibles that cannot be named?"


Dunno, but I bet there's ten thousand of them.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> Ask a thousand experienced, but amateur viewers of art...
> 
> I get that the more exposure and practice, the more likely that your perceptive apparatus is attuned to some of the things - form, line, colour, light etc - that combine to greater or lesser 'beautiful' effect. But it doesn't account for the totality of difference reported here by those who like and those who don't like Sibelius.
> 
> Oh, and ask a hundred conductors which is "the best" symphony and they don't agree.


I fully agree that aesthetic perception doesn't "account for the totality of difference reported here by those who like and those who don't like Sibelius." I thought I was clear about that.

Why should anyone _want_ or _have_ to agree about what's the "best" symphony? "Best" in what way? For what purpose?


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> The human mind can lead to a taste preference at odds with one's aesthetic perception that same mind produces? Isn't this just semantics?


Not at all. Taste is governed by many factors. We're different, we like different things. But most of us (potentially) can see the excellence even of things we don't care for.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> But most of us (potentially) can see the excellence even of things we don't care for.


Would you cite an example please? I'm struggling to think of one myself - usually I don't care for a work because I think it flawed in some way...which is perhaps where taste ends up being the same thing as aesthetic perception.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> I fully agree that aesthetic perception doesn't "account for the totality of difference reported here by those who like and those who don't like Sibelius." I thought I was clear about that.
> 
> Why should anyone _want_ or _have_ to agree about what's the "best" symphony? "Best" in what way? For what purpose?


"Best" to suit those who insist that there are objective standards. I thought that was what we were trying to explore?


----------



## DeepR

Art would be terribly boring if all it had to do was tick the right boxes to meet some kind of objective, universal standard. In the end, there's always a strong subjective element to it. 
A shared opinion that's consistent through time probably does say a lot about the quality of art, but it can just as easily be dismissed or ignored by the individual. And that's the wonderful thing about it: you can make your own subjective journey through music without giving a damn about these shared notions of what's great and what's not (it's what I do, or try to do, most of the time) and still get a most rewarding experience from it all.
Of course, you could also choose to ignore all the things we usually consider part of "objective reality", like facts, logic, or a car racing towards you at high velocity, but aside from a healthy degree of skepticism, that would generally be a foolish thing to do.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Ask a thousand accomplished artists whether a painting's composition balances, and they will nearly all give you the same answer, slightly different "wiring" or not.


Not to seem overly skeptical, but are there some data to support this assertion? Across cultures and times?


----------



## JosefinaHW

@science In case you missed this:








Originally Posted by *science*  
I cannot understand using the word "objective" to describe a partial agreement between various individuals' subjective responses - or even a complete agreement! Even if every human mind that has ever existed has the same aesthetic response to some stimulus (which of course would not happen even with the simplest stimulus), that's still just a collection of opinions.

Nor can I understand considering any partial agreement among a few people as normative for all other people. If, however, I were to try to elevate some set of people above the rest of humanity that way, I'd probably try to include representatives of a very wide variety of cultures and classes and other perspectives.

Human diversity is a fact. That it is legitimate is merely my opinion, though one that many others share with me; however, anyone participating on this forum is a member of a relatively eccentric community of taste, so we should all hope that people who regard homogeneity as desirable do not gain power over us. That is a game none of us would win. We should therefore, at a minimum, stand up for the legitimacy of a diversity of tastes.
It is my understanding that no one who has posted in this thread believes that Beauty is an eternal Truth that is in someway shared in objects in the world, besides me, anyway. The adoption of this belief does not necessarily entail the desire to produce a list of prohibited works, a reason to scorn other people's music choices, etc..

Also regarding your signature: "Liberty for wolves is death to the lambs." Are you recommending that the wolves among us adopt the behavior that follows from such a belief? Do you live it yourself?


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Not to seem overly skeptical, but are there some data to support this assertion? Across cultures and times?


I'm unaware of any surveys that have been done of artists since prehistoric times asking them to look at the same painting and say whether its forms balance satisfactorily. 

To non-artists who just don't get this, I'd suggest reading some books and taking some courses at art schools. At the latter the instructor will walk around the room pointing out problems with your design and showing you why it doesn't work, either as abstract design or as an expression of your apparent objective, despite the fact that at the moment you "like" it and frown when corrected. If the teacher is good and you have talent, you will soon understand what he's getting at and produce better work.

Music is not different from visual art in this way.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> "Best" to suit those who insist that there are objective standards. I thought that was what we were trying to explore?


Any number of works may - and do - exemplify aesthetic integrity. There need be no "best." But art is more than aesthetics; there's also the not small matter of what the work is about, what it's trying to say, and the human significance of that. And then there's the matter of whether the artist has found an effective way of saying it. It's just not a question of "best," although in any given group of works, some, or one, may stand out from the pack.

Pitting Mozart's 40th against Beethoven's 5th - both works of supreme accomplishment - is foolish.


----------



## JosefinaHW

Strange Magic said:


> Not to seem overly skeptical, but are there some data to support this assertion? Across cultures and times?


There are at least two points that I think are important to consider or remember in the course of this conversation.

First, that the scientific method is not the tool for every type of inquiry. When I think of creative endeavors such as the arts and the scientific method method I get the image of using a circular saw to build an intricate paper model or a stone wall. Or trying to observe the beautiful details of an insect by pinning it down alive. It's a destructive force or process to clearly consider an act of creation; a beautiful piece of music, painting, piece of literature is an act of creation, to me it's (almost?) a living thing.

Second, in many (if not all) of the sciences discoveries and learning advances by an act of creativity, an act of the imagination, precognitive idea.


----------



## JosefinaHW

I was writing as your were posting, Woodduck.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> Pitting Mozart's 40th against Beethoven's 5th - both works of supreme accomplishment - is foolish.


But making book on the contest can be very rewarding.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> Would you cite an example please? I'm struggling to think of one myself - usually I don't care for a work because I think it flawed in some way...which is perhaps where taste ends up being the same thing as aesthetic perception.


There are plenty of examples in my experience. I can hear the excellence of a lot of Stravinsky's music, for example, and enjoy it on an intellectual level, but I find much of it cold and unappealing. I'd rather listen to Elgar's violin concerto, which I think is is less well-composed, than Stravinsky's. Another example: I admire Mozart's operas, and I find no fault with _Le Nozze di Figaro,_ for example, but I get bored with it long before it's over. I much prefer Weber's _Der Freischutz_, a very fine opera, certainly, but not quite on Mozart's level. I'd even rather hear an operetta by Kalman.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Any number of works may - and do - exemplify aesthetic integrity. There need be no "best." But art is more than aesthetics; there's also the not small matter of what the work is about, what it's trying to say, and the human significance of that. And then there's the matter of whether the artist has found an effective way of saying it. It's just not a question of "best," although in any given group of works, some, or one, may stand out from the pack.
> 
> Pitting Mozart's 40th against Beethoven's 5th - both works of supreme accomplishment - is foolish.


I think you're telling me what I already knew. It's not _me _that wants there to be a single best, greatest, supreme - or even a top 10, 200, 1000.

But I still don't think it's a matter of mere taste that justifies differing perceptions about 'beauty' (and I'll take your definition for now - I know it's not a synonym for pretty).

Take the work of Egon Schiele. Is that "beautiful"? Ask 100 TC members and someone will come along and declare that it's not a patch on the work of Raphael.


----------



## JosefinaHW

MacLeod said:


> But I still don't think it's a matter of mere taste that justifies differing perceptions about 'beauty' (and I'll take your definition for now - I know it's not a synonym for pretty).
> 
> Take the work of Egon Schiele. Is that "beautiful"? Ask 100 TC members and someone will come along and declare that it's not a patch on the work of Raphael.


The several works that I've seen by Schiele I would characterize as expressionistic; he did not want to convey beauty. Although it's been a long time since I've seen his works, he conveys his anger and hatred very beautifully.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> I'm unaware of any surveys that have been done of artists since prehistoric times asking them to look at the same painting and say whether its forms balance satisfactorily.
> 
> To non-artists who just don't get this, I'd suggest reading some books and taking some courses at art schools. At the latter the instructor will walk around the room pointing out problems with your design and showing you why it doesn't work, either as abstract design or as an expression of your apparent objective, despite the fact that at the moment you "like" it and frown when corrected. If the teacher is good and you have talent, you will soon understand what he's getting at and produce better work.
> 
> Music is not different from visual art in this way.


Did not René Leibowitz (composer and teacher) effectively do this with Sibelius? Theodor Adorno too.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> I still don't think it's a matter of mere taste that justifies differing perceptions about 'beauty' (and I'll take your definition for now - I know it's not a synonym for pretty).
> 
> Take the work of Egon Schiele. Is that "beautiful"? Ask 100 TC members and someone will come along and declare that it's not a patch on the work of Raphael.


I do agree that differing perceptions of whether something is beautiful are not simply matters of taste. They can also be a matter of which elements of a work one gives priority to in judging it. The paintings of Schiele are a great example. For myself, I can say that I find them both beautiful and ugly - _but not in the same respect._ It's no more meaningful, in general, to compare Schiele with Raphael than to compare Mozart with Wagner. Their objectives are radically different.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> Did not René Leibowitz (composer and teacher) effectively do this with Sibelius? Theodor Adorno too.


Didn't they do what?


----------



## science

JosefinaHW said:


> @science In case you missed this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *science*
> I cannot understand using the word "objective" to describe a partial agreement between various individuals' subjective responses - or even a complete agreement! Even if every human mind that has ever existed has the same aesthetic response to some stimulus (which of course would not happen even with the simplest stimulus), that's still just a collection of opinions.
> 
> Nor can I understand considering any partial agreement among a few people as normative for all other people. If, however, I were to try to elevate some set of people above the rest of humanity that way, I'd probably try to include representatives of a very wide variety of cultures and classes and other perspectives.
> 
> Human diversity is a fact. That it is legitimate is merely my opinion, though one that many others share with me; however, anyone participating on this forum is a member of a relatively eccentric community of taste, so we should all hope that people who regard homogeneity as desirable do not gain power over us. That is a game none of us would win. We should therefore, at a minimum, stand up for the legitimacy of a diversity of tastes.
> It is my understanding that no one who has posted in this thread believes that Beauty is an eternal Truth that is in someway shared in objects in the world, besides me, anyway. The adoption of this belief does not necessarily entail the desire to produce a list of prohibited works, a reason to scorn other people's music choices, etc..
> 
> Also regarding your signature: "Liberty for wolves is death to the lambs." Are you recommending that the wolves among us adopt the behavior that follows from such a belief? Do you live it yourself?


I'm not sure what's going on with the formatting of your post, so I'm sorry it's all screwed up.

"Liberty for wolves is death to the lambs" is primarily a political point that I'd better not go into here, but I'll just say it's a decent one-sentence rebuttal of most conservatism and particularly of libertarianism. The wolves, for example, are those who make a little more money if they poison the groundwater; the lambs are the people who die drinking it. And so on. But that's more than enough on that for this context.

As for the topic: there's a lot of obfuscation going on, but it's fundamentally simple. We're not talking about objective issues like, "Is it green?" We're talking about, "Do you like this color?"

Either people are right and wrong to like or not like a particular work of art, or it's a matter of taste.

In the former case, it's objective. In the latter case, it's subjective.

In the former case, there would be some kind of evidence or proof. In the latter, evidence and proof is impossible.

In the former case, we would see a convergence of opinion among thoughtful people. In the latter, we would see diversity.

So, in view of everyone's unwillingness and apparent inability to produce evidence or proof, and in view of the astounding diversity of taste that we actually observe in the world, it's pretty obviously the latter.

But I'm really glad you mentioned scorn. That's precisely the point. There is a reason that some of the most scornful people you'll ever meet want to attribute objectivity to their opinions: when your tastes differ, they want to pretend that you're not simply different in a legitimate way, they want to pretend that you're deficient somehow. Not that they agree with each other. Someone will say you're a coward if you don't like Schoenberg; someone else will say you're soulless if you do.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> There are plenty of examples in my experience. I can hear the excellence of a lot of Stravinsky's music, for example, and enjoy it on an intellectual level, but I find much of it cold and unappealing. I'd rather listen to Elgar's violin concerto, which I think is is less well-composed, than Stravinsky's. Another example: I admire Mozart's operas, and I find no fault with _Le Nozze di Figaro,_ for example, but I get bored with it long before it's over. I much prefer Weber's _Der Freischutz_, a very fine opera, certainly, but not quite on Mozart's level. I'd even rather hear an operetta by Kalman.


If the Stravinsky is unappealing then that is you perceiving a flaw is it not? Can you - would you be more specific?
You find no fault with the Mozart but get bored with it - again, that is you expressing disapproval implying that Mozart could have done better isn't it?


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> Didn't they do what?


René Leibowitz thought Sibelius _the worst composer in the world_ and Adorno said:

_If Sibelius is good this invalidates the standards of music quality that have persisted from Bach to Schoenberg._


----------



## JosefinaHW

science said:


> In the former case, we would see a convergence of opinion among thoughtful people. In the latter, we would see diversity.
> 
> So, in view of everyone's unwillingness and apparent inability to produce evidence or proof, and in view of the astounding diversity of taste that we actually observe in the world, it's pretty obviously the latter.
> 
> But I'm really glad you mentioned scorn. That's precisely the point. There is a reason that some of the most scornful people you'll ever meet want to attribute objectivity to their opinions: when your tastes differ, they want to pretend that you're not simply different in a legitimate way, they want to pretend that you're deficient somehow. Not that they agree with each other. Someone will say you're a coward if you don't like Schoenberg; someone else will say you're soulless if you do.


If others think that I am disrupting this thread with my question here *please just tell me* and I will just ask science if he would be interested in continuing this conversation elsewhere or in private.

One of my concerns, science, is that you and others who share your opinion here began with anger and fear that some people do and will scorn you for the type of music (other arts, other beliefs and thoughts) that you like. From that anger and fear you work backwards (for lack of a better word) to fight against any hint of objective value in the arts, ethics, etc.. Yes, it's a very direct question, but why should I beat around the bush.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> Either people are right and wrong to like or not like a particular work of art, or it's a matter of taste.
> 
> In the former case, it's objective. In the latter case, it's subjective.
> 
> In the former case, there would be some kind of evidence or proof. In the latter, evidence and proof is impossible.
> 
> In the former case, we would see a convergence of opinion among thoughtful people. In the latter, we would see diversity.
> 
> So, in view of everyone's unwillingness and apparent inability to produce evidence or proof, and in view of the astounding diversity of taste that we actually observe in the world, it's pretty obviously the latter.


The appreciation of art is based on both objective and subjective factors - on both understanding and taste. It isn't either-or, and the relationship between these is not simple.

No one's artistic tastes are "right" or "wrong"; those concepts do not apply, regardless of the applicability of aesthetic principles, or the many factors governing preference, with reference to any particular work of art.

The concept of "proof" doesn't apply either. "Proof" is for logic and the physical sciences. Aesthetic experience, like moral experience, is a relationship of subject to object, and is not transferable between persons. No one can "prove" to another that a particular experience, or kind of experience, is real or important. No one can show another what it's like. But one can give evidence of its existence and meaning. Various evidences for the existence of transcendent aesthetic values - values which cut across artistic styles, cultures and individual preferences, values not only perceived but exploited by the foremost authorities on art, namely artists - have been presented here. But for some reason you've either failed to read and understand them or have chosen to ignore them.

The experience of art is a unique and incredibly complex one which unites in dynamic interplay the sensual, cognitive and affective faculties. The idea that there are no specific factors inherent in subject and object directing that unique and universally human category of experience would be ridiculous on its face, even if innumerable examples of consensus in the matter of artistic values did not exist. They do, whether or not you care to examine them and ask why.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> René Leibowitz thought Sibelius _the worst composer in the world_ and Adorno said:
> 
> _If Sibelius is good this invalidates the standards of music quality that have persisted from Bach to Schoenberg._


Oh come on! How can you not look at such statements and laugh your head off?

The Modernist period in music was rife with such opera-house-burning pronouncements (see Boulez).


----------



## Guest

There is more than one 'current' in this thread regarding objective/subjective. One is the challenge frequently encountered in TC in responding to those who fail to make any evidential case for the greatness of a work, preferring to appeal to a range of other fallacies (or none but simple personal assertion). Another is recognising, as does Woodduck and others, that there is evidence to support the idea that criteria can be offered to show the value of a work - though not necessarily its superiority - and that one component of that evidence is that which is common to all humans, though more sharply attuned in some than in others - such as the perception of, for example, the Golden Ratio. This can stand to some extent as 'objective criteria'.

There is another current which wants to say that these objective criteria are also absolute, immutable, ordained by either an ideal or even a god. We should take care to distinguish between these arguments.

As for Adorno and Leibovitz, there are just as many equivalent authorities who take the opposite view of Sibelius, and it just illustrates that the appeal to authority is a poor argument.


----------



## Star

janxharris said:


> René Leibowitz thought Sibelius _the worst composer in the world_ and Adorno said:
> 
> _If Sibelius is good this invalidates the standards of music quality that have persisted from Bach to Schoenberg._


There was a host of much greater conductors from Beecham, Karajan, Bernstein, Davis, Maazel, et al who would disagree.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> If the Stravinsky is unappealing then that is you perceiving a flaw is it not? Can you - would you be more specific?
> You find no fault with the Mozart but get bored with it - again, that is you expressing disapproval implying that Mozart could have done better isn't it?


No in both cases. It's a lack of sympathy or interest in the expressive content or meaning of the work. There's nothing "wrong" with what Stravinsky or Mozart are saying or how they're saying it. The message just doesn't resonate with me.


----------



## Nereffid

JosefinaHW said:


> One of my concerns, science, is that you and others who share your opinion here began with anger and fear that some people do and will scorn you for the type of music (other arts, other beliefs and thoughts) that you like. From that anger and fear you work backwards (for lack of a better word) to fight against any hint of objective value in the arts, ethics, etc.. Yes, it's a very direct question, but why should I beat around the bush.


Seeing as I largely share science's opinion, I'll give you _my_ answer, which is that your concerns are wrong in my case. If anything, my current disagreement with the notion of objective value comes from processing _my_ scorn for other people's music. I posted this back in 2015:


Nereffid said:


> Some years ago, I first discovered Insane Clown Posse via that Internet meme regarding magnets, and I proceeded to spend a bit of time laughing at how bad the song "Miracles" was, how bad their other music was, how stupid ICP was, and how stupid their fans were. And then I realised _Those fans love this music and love this band, possibly more than I love all the music I love. Who am I to tell them their tastes are misguided and wrong? That really they should be listening to the music I love, because that music is inherently better? Because it isn't inherently better, is it?_
> Any comments I make these days about musical greatness and popularity are coloured by my memory of realising I was being an a**hole back then.


Add to this many years of things like trying to work out how two perceptive reviewers could hear the same CD and come to utterly different opinions about the performances, or reading many posters here adamantly and intelligently defending music I didn't like (Schoenberg). Plus tie it in with ideas circulating in the wider world with more frequency these days, concerning the default settings of "western civilization".
If there's any fear and anger on my part, it's fear and anger that people can look at this vast and diverse world and be absolutely certain that there's One True Answer.


----------



## JosefinaHW

Nereffid said:


> If there's any fear and anger on my part, it's fear and anger that people can look at this vast and diverse world and be absolutely certain that there's One True Answer.


This is what I mean, Nerefid. Your bottom line is above. You are angry and you do fear any assertion of an absolute truth.


----------



## Woodduck

Originally Posted by Nereffid:

"Some years ago, I first discovered Insane Clown Posse via that Internet meme regarding magnets, and I proceeded to spend a bit of time laughing at how bad the song "Miracles" was, how bad their other music was, how stupid ICP was, and how stupid their fans were. And then I realised Those fans love this music and love this band, possibly more than I love all the music I love. Who am I to tell them their tastes are misguided and wrong? That really they should be listening to the music I love, because that music is inherently better? Because it isn't inherently better, is it?
Any comments I make these days about musical greatness and popularity are coloured by my memory of realising I was being an a**hole back then."

Nothing you've said here has any bearing on whether there are valid criteria for judging works of music. It shows only that you were once a snob and no longer are. Congrats! :tiphat:


----------



## Nereffid

JosefinaHW said:


> This is what I mean, Nerefid. Your bottom line is above. You are angry and you do fear any assertion of an absolute truth.


You're wrong to say that I worked backwards from this position. The "fear and anger" (which actually I meant only as a rhetorical exaggeration) is what followed and has nothing to do with music.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> Oh come on! How can you not look at such statements and laugh your head off?
> 
> The Modernist period in music was rife with such opera-house-burning pronouncements (see Boulez).


And many lovers of classical music slag off modern pieces. I've done it myself but admit I was probably too hasty.


----------



## Nereffid

Woodduck said:


> Originally Posted by Nereffid:
> 
> "Some years ago, I first discovered Insane Clown Posse via that Internet meme regarding magnets, and I proceeded to spend a bit of time laughing at how bad the song "Miracles" was, how bad their other music was, how stupid ICP was, and how stupid their fans were. And then I realised Those fans love this music and love this band, possibly more than I love all the music I love. Who am I to tell them their tastes are misguided and wrong? That really they should be listening to the music I love, because that music is inherently better? Because it isn't inherently better, is it?
> Any comments I make these days about musical greatness and popularity are coloured by my memory of realising I was being an a**hole back then."
> 
> Nothing you've said here has any bearing on whether there are valid criteria for judging works of music. It shows only that you were once a snob and no longer are. Congrats! :tiphat:


So you agree that considering one thing to be inherently superior to another is just snobbery? Ok then not sure what the argument is


----------



## JosefinaHW

Nereffid said:


> You're wrong to say that I worked backwards from this position. The "fear and anger" (which actually I meant only as a rhetorical exaggeration) is what followed and has nothing to do with music.


My apologies, Nerefid. I suppose I was wrong to post my question in this thread.


----------



## Jacck

What's wrong with being a self-conscious elitist snob? Those who claim we should not be snobs are just self-righteously trying to impose their subjective ethical values on others under the pretense that these ethical standards are some objective truth.


----------



## science

JosefinaHW said:


> If others think that I am disrupting this thread with my question here *please just tell me* and I will just ask science if he would be interested in continuing this conversation elsewhere or in private.
> 
> One of my concerns, science, is that you and others who share your opinion here began with anger and fear that some people do and will scorn you for the type of music (other arts, other beliefs and thoughts) that you like. From that anger and fear you work backwards (for lack of a better word) to fight against any hint of objective value in the arts, ethics, etc.. Yes, it's a very direct question, but why should I beat around the bush.


There's nothing wrong with your concern at all. I don't see why anyone would be bothered.

I should not boast, but I will... just a little bit....

I think it's fairly clear, even through the BS of the internet, that no one really looks down on me. Or when they do, it's ironic or counter-snobbery or something like that. Anyone who looks down on me is probably more to be pitied than resented.

I don't even mind people looking down on each other, where there's a good reason for it. If someone's bigoted or willfully ignorant, we _should_ look down on them. We can pity them too, of course. I'm not at all against _values_.

It's just that in the particular case of looking down on people for liking or not liking some work by Schoenberg or Cage or Stockhausen or Beethoven (or Michelangelo or Pollack or Warhol or Shakespeare or Joyce or Lessing or Bergman or Kurosawa or Majidi) or whatever: I see nothing there but affectation. I could say more about that but I'm supposed to be polite on this site! And there's no need not to be polite. In real life, face to face, if someone expressed scorn for people who don't like some work of art or music or whatever - not excluding pink flamingo lawn art and country music and prints of Sallman's _Head of Christ_ on velvet - I'd probably just wave it off. People in real life can usually be shamed out of that kind of thing really easily.

There are definitely things that some - or sometimes, many - people perceive as "excellent" in various arts. Like lots of people, I could go on for hours about why I think various works are better than others. But at the end of all those hours, someone else could just say that they don't value the things I value, and we'd just disagree.

In fact, that is what happens in real life over and over again. Joe he loves George Orwell's work, Tom says he doesn't, and they start to discuss what they like and don't like about it. Joe talks about how insightful Orwell is about propaganda, Tom says that doesn't matter to him. But Tom talks about how artificial Orwell's dialogues are, and Joe that doesn't matter to him. Neither one of them are right or wrong. It's not right or wrong to care about different things.

But let's say Joe actually looks down on Tom for - in effect, though he probably wouldn't use these words - having "the wrong" aesthetic values. In this case, Joe's actually wrong, not in an aesthetic sense but in an ethical one. There's nothing wrong with his aesthetic values - they're no better or worse than anyone else's - but there's something wrong _morally_. And the rest of us really should look down on Joe for that. It's not a very serious deal, we could still be friends, the way we're still friends with all our flawed friends, and of course all our friends are flawed.

But we're not all friends here, so, though I have a lot more that I could say about Joe and how we should react to him, I probably should not in this context. Someone would surely identify someone with Joe, and I don't want to be trying to get away with saying those things about someone here (i.e. to try to say impolite things about a member here in a way that the mods might not punish), nor even to seem to. I've said my impolite things before and I trust they're remembered well enough for now!

I'm willing to entertain the possibility that I'm wrong. All that I have to see is an argument that the laws of beauty really do exist independently of the human mind, so that one person's perception of beauty really could be superior to another person's, analogously to the way that some people see better than others, or do math better than others. Someone just needs to tell me what the laws are and how we can know those laws. Again, no one is stepping up to that challenge. And of course they're not. It's impossible. In a case like this, we're supposed to be swayed not by the force of argument but by the force of assertion.


----------



## science

Jacck said:


> What's wrong with being a self-conscious elitist snob? Those who claim we should not be snobs are just self-righteously trying to impose their subjective ethical values on others under the pretense that these ethical standards are some objective truth.


If ethical values had the same status as aesthetic values, this would actually be a fantastic point.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> No one's artistic tastes are "right" or "wrong"; those concepts do not apply....


Ah, well, then, we're done!

I assume the fans of Schoenberg and Babbitt will be allowed to love their music in peace. I sincerely hope they return the favor to you.


----------



## JosefinaHW

^^Science, I do not want to derail this thread. I think Woodduck effectively addressed your last paragraph with this post:



Woodduck said:


> The appreciation of art is based on both objective and subjective factors - on both understanding and taste. It isn't either-or, and the relationship between these is not simple.
> 
> No one's artistic tastes are "right" or "wrong"; those concepts do not apply, regardless of the applicability of aesthetic principles, or the many factors governing preference, with reference to any particular work of art.
> 
> The concept of "proof" doesn't apply either. "Proof" is for logic and the physical sciences. Aesthetic experience, like moral experience, is a relationship of subject to object, and is not transferable between persons. No one can "prove" to another that a particular experience, or kind of experience, is real or important. No one can show another what it's like. But one can give evidence of its existence and meaning. Various evidences for the existence of transcendent aesthetic values - values which cut across artistic styles, cultures and individual preferences, values not only perceived but exploited by the foremost authorities on art, namely artists - have been presented here. But for some reason you've either failed to read and understand them or have chosen to ignore them.
> 
> The experience of art is a unique and incredibly complex one which unites in dynamic interplay the sensual, cognitive and affective faculties. The idea that there are no specific factors inherent in subject and object directing that unique and universally human category of experience would be ridiculous on its face, even if innumerable examples of consensus in the matter of artistic values did not exist. They do, whether or not you care to examine them and ask why.


----------



## science

JosefinaHW said:


> ^^Science, I do not want to derail this thread. I think Woodduck effectively addressed your last paragraph with this post:


If "No one's artistic tastes are 'right' or 'wrong,'" then it doesn't matter if we kind find some aesthetic values that tend to be shared. Of course we can. Calling them "transcendent" is a little bit much for me, and dressing them up as "specific factors inherent in subject and object directing that unique and universally human category of experience" is even more, but that's a matter of preference.

The point is that we are left having to tolerate and respect people who don't share our taste.

There is in this case no room for scorn.

So I assume I won't see words like "soulless" and "cowardly" used from now on - edit: except of course in ethical contexts, where they belong.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> Oh come on! How can you not look at such statements and laugh your head off?
> 
> The Modernist period in music was rife with such opera-house-burning pronouncements (see Boulez).


Your words are along the same lines and are pretty forthright:



Woodduck said:


> Artists have been struggling to restore meaning to their calling ever since, and at this distance in time the only thing that appears more ridiculous than "art" like this is the *pseudoscientific pretentiousness of its propagators and the critics who supported it*.


 (regarding Babbitt's Partitions)


----------



## janxharris

Regarding Sibelius, who was 'right' during his lifetime? - the Uk and USA who adored him, or Europe who didn't? Objectivity?


----------



## Larkenfield

The 'objective' part of Sibelius is that his performance scores were presumably and measurably fixed on paper the same in the US as they were in Europe, with the same number and duration of notes regardless of how the various interpretations were subjectively performed. Once the scores were determined to reflect his conception and wishes for each work, they have an objective, separate, measurable existence in content independent of how they are interpreted or subjectively received. Like both hemisphere's of the brain, there's an objective and subjective reality to everything if one takes the time to find them. The objective reality of those scores exists whether they are being performed or not, and the relationship of the whole of their parts remains objectively and exactly the same as a blueprint, regardless of the difference in acceptance in the US or Europe when performed. The greatness of any work must somehow first be inherent as a potential within the fixed relationship of the notes in the score, whether it’s brought out in each performance or not, or the audience likes it or not with their individual subjective reactions, because not all audiences will react the same, yet the objective blueprint of the score remains exactly the same.


----------



## Strange Magic

After many, many posts, what is offered by way of support for the notion of an objective aesthetics comes down to the assertion that artists (if they're proper artists ) are the experts in art (which they are, no argument there) and can tell us what's good and bad art, and, just as important, that they agree on these things. 

I fail to be convinced that this is true, as it lacks evidence, and it flies in the face of the enormous observed diversity of human taste. Bell curves I do understand, and will assert with confidence that a selected audience large enough to be statistically valid will prefer something to something else. But I think people seize upon this simple fact of a select group preference, and build upon this slender foundation a theory (or theories) of objective aesthetics that is far too dense and massive to be supported by the facts.


----------



## Nereffid

JosefinaHW said:


> My apologies, Nerefid. I suppose I was wrong to post my question in this thread.


I don't think you were wrong to ask, it was just your assumption that was wrong.
None of us approaches these questions from first principles, we all have some sort of baggage that affects what we think about specific topics. And once we get a feel for an individual's baggage or underlying philosophy it's pretty easy to see their response to some particular question and say "well, you would think that, wouldn't you?" No harm in inquiring further to see if one's ideas are actually correct...


----------



## Strange Magic

Larkenfield said:


> The greatness of any work must somehow first be inherent as a potential within the fixed relationship of the notes in the score, whether it's brought out in each performance or not, or the audience likes it or not with their individual subjective reactions, because not all audiences will react the same, yet the objective blueprint of the score remains exactly the same.


Again, we assert here that, _a priori_, greatness, if it is present, pre-exists in the score. I'm not sure how this advances an argument for the reality of an objective aesthetics; it seems to be yet another assertion that the thing in the box is good, rather than that it just is.


----------



## science

Strange Magic said:


> After many, many posts, what is offered by way of support for the notion of an objective aesthetics comes down to the assertion that artists (if they're proper artists ) are the experts in art (which they are, no argument there) and can tell us what's good and bad art, and, just as important, that they agree on these things.
> 
> I fail to be convinced that this is true, as it lacks evidence, and it flies in the face of the enormous observed diversity of human taste. Bell curves I do understand, and will assert with confidence that a selected audience large enough to be statistically valid will prefer something to something else. But I think people seize upon this simple fact of a select group preference, and build upon this slender foundation a theory (or theories) of objective aesthetics that is far too dense and massive to be supported by the facts.


Thus, the No True Artist Fallacy, a well-known principle that anyone who disagrees with the received positions is No True Artist.


----------



## Nereffid

Woodduck said:


> I think the real question - the fundamental question in aesthetics - is: are there specific (objectively existing) perceptual qualities in (objectively existing) things which the (objectively existing) human mind, by its (objectively existing) nature, finds pleasing? There are many more questions for aesthetics to address after that, but if that first question is answered in the affirmative, we have a basis (though not the sole basis) for evaluating works of art - for stating with confidence that a symphony of Beethoven is finer than a symphony of Dittersdorf - and for regarding artistic values as something more significant than a preference for chocolate or vanilla.


I'm totally OK with someone being confident that a Beethoven symphony _is_ (and not just _in their opinion_) finer than a Dittersdorf symphony, because - as with my gymnastics analogy - there are standards of late-18th/early-19th C symphonies that we may as well call objective by which to judge. But I think a crucial point being missed is that those standards are in part based on the fact that people liked Beethoven's symphonies. Music evolves because composers bend or break the current rules, but that's not enough: other composers (and audiences) have to agree that the results are good and that this is a path worth following. So the rules keep changing to accommodate certain deviations from the rules. But it's not that hard to imagine a world in which Beethoven's symphonies were collectively deemed to have deviated too much from the standards, and classical music followed a new path, with no Berlioz or Liszt et al to persuade everyone of the excellence of Beethoven. The reason _we_ can be confident that Beethoven's symphony is superior to Dittersdorf's is that we've had a couple of centuries of other people being confident.


----------



## Strange Magic

MacLeod said:


> There is more than one 'current' in this thread regarding objective/subjective. One is the challenge frequently encountered in TC in responding to those who fail to make any evidential case for the greatness of a work, preferring to appeal to a range of other fallacies (or none but simple personal assertion). Another is recognising, as does Woodduck and others, that there is evidence to support the idea that criteria can be offered to show the value of a work - though not necessarily its superiority - and that one component of that evidence is that which is common to all humans, though more sharply attuned in some than in others - *such as the perception of, for example, the Golden Ratio. This can stand to some extent as 'objective criteria'.*
> 
> There is another current which wants to say that these objective criteria are also absolute, immutable, ordained by either an ideal or even a god. We should take care to distinguish between these arguments.
> 
> As for Adorno and Leibovitz, there are just as many equivalent authorities who take the opposite view of Sibelius, and it just illustrates that the appeal to authority is a poor argument.


You bring up the Golden Ratio. The Wikipedia entry on the Golden Ratio is well worth reading in full, because both the properties and the history of the ratio are fascinating. But that history reflects exactly the issues we discuss here: whether there is something about the ratio itself that triggers specific, universal, reproducible responses in the human mind, or whether it just registers with or pleases some, not all, and whether that register is the result of some outside influence or authority figure telling someone that the ratio exists and is (ought to be) important. While a fascinating ratio (and number), it is no more important than _pi_ or _e_, and perhaps less so. The Wikipedia article makes clear that some artists and architects doted upon the ratio while others ignored it. Another case of _de gustibus......._

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio


----------



## Jacck

Strange Magic said:


> You bring up the Golden Ratio. The Wikipedia entry on the Golden Ratio is well worth reading in full, because both the properties and the history of the ratio are fascinating. But that history reflects exactly the issues we discuss here: whether there is something about the ratio itself that triggers specific, universal, reproducible responses in the human mind, or whether it just registers with or pleases some, not all, and whether that register is the result of some outside influence or authority figure telling someone that the ratio exists and is (ought to be) important. While a fascinating ratio (and number), it is no more important than _pi_ or _e_, and perhaps less so. The Wikipedia article makes clear that some artists and architects doted upon the ratio while others ignored it. Another case of _de gustibus......._


Leaving aside music, I could tell you about beauty in mathematics or in equations describing the structure of physical reality. 
https://skullsinthestars.com/2016/01/24/beautiful-equations-of-math-and-physics-my-picks/
one of the most beautiful equations in mathematics is the Euler identity (which links e, pi and i), one of the most beautiful equations in physics is the Dirac equation. Anyone can appreciate beautiful music, but to appreciate mathematics or physics requires years of difficult study. But I assure you that the beauty hidden in physics is greater than the beauty hidden in music. There are also many more platonists among mathematicians than among musicians, because it is more tempting to believe that the equations describe something real. You would not believe the beauty of the symmetries of nature described by the theory of groups. The symmetry of the theory of relativiy is described by Poincare group, there are deep hidden symmetries in particle physics (gauge symmetry). Or the fascinating area of prime numbers which haunts mathematicians for several centuries and they are still unable to prove the Riemann hypothesis. The Golden ratio is only one such mystery. Why is it so prevalent everywhere in nature? Why do humans find it beautiful? etc etc.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> I think the real question - the fundamental question in aesthetics - is: are there specific (objectively existing) perceptual qualities in (objectively existing) things which the (objectively existing) human mind, by its (objectively existing) nature, finds pleasing? There are many more questions for aesthetics to address after that, but if that first question is answered in the affirmative, we have a basis (though not the sole basis) for evaluating works of art - for stating with confidence that a symphony of Beethoven is finer than a symphony of Dittersdorf - and for regarding artistic values as something more significant than a preference for chocolate or vanilla.


Continuing along the path of Nereffid in examining Woodduck's quote, I ask whether the "(objectively existing) human mind" to which Woodduck refers is a Universal Human Mind, common to and shared by all humans (perhaps over a certain age and not suffering from a brain disease)? If that is the case, then indeed the assessment of the objective goodness or worth of a given piece of art may be--nay, must be--universal. Woodduck has somewhat accounted for individual variation by stipulating that we can separate out whether or not we like something but his implication is that, because of this postulated universality of the human mind, everyone will agree on any given artwork's intrinsic, objective value. But the validity of a universal human mind universal enough to account for the outcome Woodduck implies is yet to be demonstrated.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

I've always considered the issue of subjective/objective greatness in art to be so obvious and so simple that Shakespeare nailed it over 400 years ago in a single sentence from Hamlet: 

"there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so..."

In philosophy, the distinction between subjective/objective (and this is often lost or ignored in these types of discussions) is the distinction between things external to the mind (objective) and things internal to the mind (subjective). The question is always: would X exist if there wasn't a human mind to think about X? Generally, we assume objects like the sun, or trees, or apples to exist independantly of the mind because we directly sense them, everyone seems to sense them too, and because merely thinking about them doesn't seem to change our ability to sense them. Objectivity is when you try to walk through a wall just by thinking the wall isn't there but continue to fail spectacularly. 

The moment the question turns to greatness in art, or beauty, or any notions of good or bad (even in morality), we have no such direct sensation, we have no such universal agreement, and we realize that by thinking about them differently we can change how we experience them and what things we categorize under them. These three differences are a key to understanding that such things are undoubtedly subjective, they only exist within the thinking mind. They aren't like the sun, or trees, or apples. You can't locate "greatness" or "beauty" in the arrangements of particles and atoms.

To me, the real issue isn't whether concepts like greatness or beauty are objective (they're not); the real issue is why do we come to form the standards we do: why is there such broad agreement, and such broad disagreement. To answer that requires understanding how aesthetics works on a cognitive level, how we experience the same objects in decidedly similar and dissimilar ways. Part of it is certainly cultural, and it's not surprising that across cultures we find much broader disagreement than agreement, while within cultures we find smaller degrees of disagreement. Part of it is likely just the innate similarity of brains. It stands to reason that, given that all humans are more similar than dissimilar (otherwise we wouldn't be part of the same species), that there would be a lot of agreement about what objective experiences appeal and don't appeal to us. 

Another issue is why, exactly, people feel compelled to insist that the obviously subjective--like aesthetics, or morals--are objective. I think that stems from several sources. For one, as Shakespeare/Hamlet realized, extreme subjectivity/relativity easily leads to anxiety, a sense of insecurity. It simply FEELS better to think that things that are really reliant on mutable feelings, standards, etc. are as factually real as the sun's existence. I'm sure this was beneficial in terms of our evolution, since agreement on morality would obviously strengthen tribes/societies and if everyone in a society thought their morality/philosophy was as objectively true as the sun, then there was no need to question, to rebel, and to potentially destroy the society itself. I'm guessing that the war over aesthetic subjectivity/objectivity--like so many other "civilized" wars (like most Politics)--stems from thinking that was leftovers from our primitive ancestors. For another, people have an innate need to feel that they're better than others, and thinking one's aesthetic tastes are superior would be one such way of cultivating such a feeling, so there's an ego-driven desire to think that aesthetics are objective, so that one can claim objective superiority over others (even if few would ever admit they were doing this; or even if many would ever realize they're doing this). 

A final issue is this: assuming that qualitative judgments in aesthetics are indeed subjective, then what is the point of creating standards, constructing canons, debating goodness/greatness/badness, etc.? I think you can answer that most easily if you indeed think about morality. Morality is just as subjective as aesthetics, but the moral standards we choose and live by have a profound impact on the world we live in and our own lives. You can recognize that it's "just" a subjective preference not to be murdered, but at the same time it's a REALLY strong preference! So you do your darndest to create a world in which you're unlikely to be murdered by, for instance, making murder illegal and punishable for whomever commits it so as to dissuade others from murdering you (and others). Transferring that to aesthetics it's much the same: we want to create a world in which the art we like and want to experience is proliferated and continues to be made, so of course we create standards and canons and debate them; it's all part of the process in which we decide what art is preserved and what art continues to get made. Just think of all the composers you'll never hear because other people decided they weren't good enough to promote; think of all those you've heard SOLELY because other people thought they were good enough to promote. This process has impacted the music that each and every one of us has been exposed to, and likely impacted our tastes to a large degree as well (probably more than we'd ever know or admit it). So the lesson is that aesthetics being subjective doesn't make it any less important. In fact, its importance is what makes debate about canons and standards mandatory; same thing with morality and politics. It's the method in which we try to influence the world to be the way we want it to be for ourselves and others.


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^Most excellent post (objectively so!)


----------



## Resurrexit

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^Most excellent post (objectively so!)


One I subjectively disagree with


----------



## Strange Magic

Resurrexit said:


> One I subjectively disagree with


You don't objectively disagree??


----------



## Guest

I object subjectively. To what, I can't remember.


----------



## science

Eva Yojimba's post just about closes this thread. 

But there's one other thing we need to say to give the "objectivists" (see, I have a sense of humor) their due: 

When you are learning to do anything artistic - cooking, painting, musical composition, whatever - you should probably be taught some basic principles of aesthetics. These are things that have proven "true" over and over again: food should not be "too" spicy, compositions should be balanced, parallel fifths should be avoided. It's probably good for most students to be taught these things. 

But they're ultimately just guides to much profounder mysteries. Following even the best set of rules is not the way of genius. At some point any creative person has to declare independence from the rules and put as much spice in the curry as he damn well pleases. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but the one thing we can agree on is: even if someone says it works, someone else will say it doesn't. 

This is a way that human groups differentiate themselves from other groups in order to enable us to wage violence against each other... but it is also part of our glory. If we all agreed that Gregorian Chant was the supreme music, we'd be impoverished.


----------



## Jacck

science said:


> But they're ultimately just guides to much profounder mysteries. Following even the best set of rules is not the way of genius. At some point any creative person has to declare independence from the rules and put as much spice in the curry as he damn well pleases. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but the one thing we can agree on is: even if someone says it works, someone else will say it doesn't.


this is valid for the soft/social sciences, where there is no objective truth. That is the reason why the natural scientists often look down upon the soft sciences or even ridicule them (the Sokal affair etc). There is no objective truth in fields such as ethics, aesthetics, politology, law etc. On the other hand there is objective truth in natural sciences. The natural sciences are discovering truth that is out there, while the social sciences construct various "truths" that have no objective existence.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

science said:


> Eva Yojimba's post just about closes this thread.
> 
> But there's one other thing we need to say to give the "objectivists" (see, I have a sense of humor) their due:
> 
> When you are learning to do anything artistic - cooking, painting, musical composition, whatever - you should probably be taught some basic principles of aesthetics. These are things that have proven "true" over and over again: food should not be "too" spicy, compositions should be balanced, parallel fifths should be avoided. It's probably good for most students to be taught these things.
> 
> But they're ultimately just guides to much profounder mysteries. Following even the best set of rules is not the way of genius. At some point any creative person has to declare independence from the rules and put as much spice in the curry as he damn well pleases. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but the one thing we can agree on is: even if someone says it works, someone else will say it doesn't.
> 
> This is a way that human groups differentiate themselves from other groups in order to enable us to wage violence against each other... but it is also part of our glory. If we all agreed that Gregorian Chant was the supreme music, we'd be impoverished.


First, thanks for the kudos.

Second, I absolutely agree with you about learning the basics, the "rules" so to speak. I'm reminded of an old issue of Poetry Magazine where several poets were assigned the task of writing a list of DO's and DON'Ts for poets to follow. It was an interesting look at the ways in which poets think about aesthetics of their craft. One that stuck with me was from William Logan to formalist poets that went (paraphrased):

"Don't think if  you cheat on form or slip the meter, no one will notice. They'll know and think you a fool. Don't think it impossible to cheat on form. If you do it well, they'll think you a genius."

I always thought there was a great deal of truth in that; that the geniuses are the ones that break the rules and, in doing so, create their OWN standards--which naturally some accept and others reject--by which to judge their art by. When we look at the War of the Romantics it's remarkably clarified how we can have seemingly irreconcilable aesthetic standards in a culture, with conservatives (sometimes) arguing that the progressives are destroying musical standards, and the progressives (sometimes) arguing that the conservatives are stuck in the past (remind you of anything?); yet time has essentially ruled that neither was right or wrong, that both approaches managed to create art that appeal(ed) to a great many people, and often times both appealing to the same people. Today, most don't feel compelled to pick the side of Brahms/Mendelssohn/Schubert/Schumann or Berlioz/Wagner/Liszt/Chopin; instead most people now manage to find value in what were, at the time, diametrically opposed aesthetic value systems. Funny how that worked out!

(And there's no such thing as food too spicy for me!  ).


----------



## Strange Magic

Jacck said:


> this is valid for the soft/social sciences, where there is no objective truth. That is the reason why the natural scientists often look down upon the soft sciences or even ridicule them (the Sokal affair etc). There is no objective truth in fields such as ethics, aesthetics, politology, law etc. On the other hand there is objective truth in natural sciences. The natural sciences are discovering truth that is out there, while the social sciences construct various "truths" that have no objective existence.


I want to demur slightly from the idea that the natural sciences are discovering truth that is out there. As I posted at some length down in Groups, it's best to think of science as searching for understanding rather than truth. The idea is that science, over time, approaches whatever "objective truth" that is indeed out there asymptotically--always getting closer, always increasing and refining our understanding. But finally achieving Truth? Very high probabilities are all we can and should be content with.


----------



## Jacck

Strange Magic said:


> I want to demur slightly from the idea that the natural sciences are discovering truth that is out there. As I posted at some length down in Groups, it's best to think of science as searching for understanding rather than truth. The idea is that science, over time, approaches whatever "objective truth" that is indeed out there asymptotically--always getting closer, always increasing and refining our understanding. But finally achieving Truth? Very high probabilities are all we can and should be content with.


You are interchanging Truth ("Ding an sich" by Kant) with the description of truth (ie scientific theory). The scientific theories are only reflections of Truth within the human consciousness, only descriptions, images, metaphors. The best language by far to discribe the transcendental Truth out there is mathematics. For example the theory of quantum electrodynamics for which Feynman was awarded the Nobel prize, makes predictions which were verified by experiment to several bilion decimal places and that is a fantastic aproximation
http://chadorzel.com/principles/2011/05/05/the-most-precisely-tested-theo/
Everything scientific has to be quantifiable with mathematics. If aesthetics would aspire to be an objective science, it would need to be able to quantify with numbers the easthetic values of various works of art, and do it intrinsically, from within the work of art itself. Popularity is no objective measure, because then you would have to conclude that Beyonce is more popular than Beethoven and claim that it means that Beyonce is a better piece of art than Beethoven.


----------



## Star

janxharris said:


> And many lovers of classical music slag off modern pieces. I've done it myself but admit I was probably too hasty.


Me too. But probably not hasty enough!


----------



## KenOC

Jacck said:


> ...Popularity is no objective measure, because then you would have to conclude that Beyonce is more popular than Beethoven and claim that it means that Beyonce is a better piece of art than Beethoven.


Popularity is absolutely an objective measure. It can be observed, measured, expressed numerically, and all that can be done repeatedly. Whether it's an _appropriate _measure of greatness is, of course, a different question.

But in that regard, I'm sure there are plenty of people who find Beyoncé's art greater than Beethoven's. Can you prove them wrong?


----------



## Jacck

KenOC said:


> Popularity is absolutely an objective measure. It can be observed, measured, expressed numerically, and all that can be done repeatedly. Whether it's an _appropriate _measure of greatness is, of course, a different question.
> But in that regard, I'm sure there are plenty of people who find Beyoncé's art greater than Beethoven's. Can you prove them wrong?


In a certain sense, popularity is an objective measure, because it can be quantified. On the other hand, it has not the same level of absolute truthfulness as the law of gravity. Popularity is dictated by fashion, by historical context, by irrational emotions, by advertisement. People like Hitler or Mussolini were once popular. The human mass as a whole is pretty irrational and stupid (read the Psychology of Crowds by Gustave Le Bon which is a classic on the topic of mass stupidity). For me personally, popularity means nothing. You can call me an elitist snob. You have the same situation in literature. Milions read Stephen King and think he writes great novels. His novels are good entertainment, I admit, I read a few myself. But his books have no depth whatsoever. You cannot compare him with books such as The Magic Mountain by Mann, or The Man Without Qualities by Musil. And so you cannot compare Beethoven to Beyonce. But I admit it cannot be proven scientifically or objectively that one is better than the other.


----------



## Strange Magic

Jacck, I also am gratified by the degree with which QED measurements correspond with theory; also other examples. Our difference in viewpoint is very slight in practice, as the measurements asymptotically approach theory (or vice versa) astonishingly closely, close enough perhaps to be considered "Truth". But there still remains, always, for no other reason perhaps than our ability to accurately measure things, a distinction between Understanding and Truth. Even in mathematics, or maybe especially in mathematics, there remain yet-to-be-fully-elucidated "truths". I am thinking of the problem of the exact counting of primes less than any given number, for example.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> You can recognize that it's "just" a subjective preference not to be murdered, but at the same time it's a REALLY strong preference! So you do your darndest to create a world in which you're unlikely to be murdered by, for instance, making murder illegal and punishable for whomever commits it so as to dissuade others from murdering you (and others).


I wondered when someone would get around to making the analogy to ethics. I was considering doing so myself, just to see how many moral relativists we had here. I know it's best not to conclude that all the people who "liked" this post regard the desire not to murder or be murdered as "just a really strong subjective preference."


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> I wondered when someone would get around to making the analogy to ethics. I was considering doing so myself, just to see how many moral relativists we had here. I know it's best not to conclude that all the people who "liked" this post regard the desire not to murder or be murdered as "just a really strong subjective preference."


It's all in the definition. "I want to murder Hitler!". Suicide by cop. Etc.


----------



## Nereffid

Woodduck said:


> I wondered when someone would get around to making the analogy to ethics. I was considering doing so myself, just to see how many moral relativists we had here. I know it's best not to conclude that all the people who "liked" this post regard the desire not to murder or be murdered as "just a really strong subjective preference."


Given the numbers of people who have been killed by other people throughout human history, it's hard to make a case that opposition to murder is a universal, though.


----------



## JeffD

Capeditiea said:


> Bach,..(which i probably could do better in composing.)


What would be more important is "I am doing better in composing".

One hears from multitudes about every artist and every art "Anyone could do that. I could do it better". And very little of "I am doing it better."


----------



## Woodduck

Nereffid said:


> I'm totally OK with someone being confident that a Beethoven symphony _is_ (and not just _in their opinion_) finer than a Dittersdorf symphony, because - as with my gymnastics analogy - there are standards of late-18th/early-19th C symphonies that we may as well call objective by which to judge. But I think a crucial point being missed is that those standards are in part based on the fact that people liked Beethoven's symphonies. Music evolves because composers bend or break the current rules, but that's not enough: other composers (and audiences) have to agree that the results are good and that this is a path worth following. So the rules keep changing to accommodate certain deviations from the rules. But it's not that hard to imagine a world in which Beethoven's symphonies were collectively deemed to have deviated too much from the standards, and classical music followed a new path, with no Berlioz or Liszt et al to persuade everyone of the excellence of Beethoven. *The reason we can be confident that Beethoven's symphony is superior to Dittersdorf's is that we've had a couple of centuries of other people being confident.*


You are right about socially accepted standards being accepted because they are socially accepted. 

Beethoven certainly couldn't have been recognized as a greater composer than Dittersdorf until Beethoven composed something to earn him that recognition. So why did he earn that recognition - and rather quickly at that? And why does he still receive it 200 years later, when we all have access to the music of Beethoven, Dittersdorf, and practically everyone else living and dead?


----------



## JeffD

ZJovicic said:


> I am wondering if Strugeon's Law ("90% of everything is crap") applies to classical music as well. I guess not... the "law" is a bit humorous and is not meant to be taken literally, but still there is some truth to it.


Thats why 90% of what was written back then is no longer listened to. Whats left (the 10%) is whats still being listened to.


----------



## Woodduck

Nereffid said:


> Given the numbers of people who have been killed by other people throughout human history, it's hard to make a case that opposition to murder is a universal, though.


Nothing is universally agreed to, and any ridiculous thing will be accepted by someone. That fact is of no significance whatsoever.


----------



## JeffD

Its so much easier to question the greatness of something than it is to find out and figure out why something is great.


----------



## JeffD

One measure of the greatness of something might be the legions who who are critical of it. If it was bad would anyone care. Would anyone take the time to comment.


----------



## Nereffid

Woodduck said:


> You are right about socially accepted standards being accepted because they are socially accepted.


I didn't say that, but OK, I'll take the compliment. 



Woodduck said:


> Beethoven certainly couldn't have been recognized as a greater composer than Dittersdorf until Beethoven composed something to earn him that recognition.


Jesus, you're really struggling here, aren't you!



Woodduck said:


> So why did he earn that recognition - and rather quickly at that? And why does he still receive it 200 years later, when we all have access to the music of Beethoven, Dittersdorf, and practically everyone else living and dead?


1. Because inevitably there will be some composers who have a knack of hitting a "sweet spot" for a relatively high number of listeners compared with other composers. Doesn't mean there are objective aesthetic values.
2. Because we (for a given value of "we") are sticking with many of the same standards. Also doesn't mean there are objective aesthetic values.


----------



## Nereffid

Woodduck said:


> Nothing is universally agreed to, and any ridiculous thing will be accepted by someone. That fact is of no significance whatsoever.


The fact that millions of people have been OK with murder is of no significance to the suggestion that rejection of murder is a subjective idea?


----------



## KenOC

Jacck said:


> In a certain sense, popularity is an objective measure, because it can be quantified. On the other hand, it has not the same level of absolute truthfulness as the law of gravity. Popularity is dictated by fashion, by historical context, by irrational emotions, by advertisement.


I think not relevant. EMF varies from place to place and time to time for a thousand reasons, and yet we are happy to measure it precisely and consider the "volt" a quite objective measure.


----------



## KenOC

Nereffid said:


> The fact that millions of people have been OK with murder is of no significance to the suggestion that rejection of murder is a subjective idea?


The sixth commandment is stated in a very few words. The list of authorized exceptions fills volumes.


----------



## Woodduck

JeffD said:


> One measure of the greatness of something might be the legions who who are critical of it. If it was bad would anyone care. Would anyone take the time to comment.


I think that would depend on the nature of the badness. Some bad things are merely mediocre and forgettable. Other bad things are offensive and people feel the need to criticize and oppose them. Nowadays the two categories seem to have merged; the mediocre and forgettable is forced on us to an offensive extent. But I agree that greatness creates controversy. On this forum the very _idea_ of greatness creates controversy, which continues to amaze me given that people constantly exposed to great music can readily compare it to the junk food that comes over the PA system at their local supermarket.


----------



## Woodduck

Nereffid said:


> The fact that millions of people have been OK with murder is of no significance to the suggestion that rejection of murder is a subjective idea?


I mean that the fact that there's no universal agreement about anything is of no epistemological significance - i.e., it isn't a criterion of truth or value. If it were, no knowledge would be possible.


----------



## Larkenfield

JeffD said:


> One measure of the greatness of something might be the legions who who are critical of it. If it was bad would anyone care. Would anyone take the time to comment.


Whether one is passionately for something or critical of what's considered great art, such as the operas of Wagner, the intensity of the reactions in different directions could be measurably the same or highly similar. But either way, the person was likely to have been noticeably affected, and that can be an attribute of great art or no one would even notice. Art if it's art, creates a response within the individual that is of interest to the individual, and that interest can either be passionately for or against, though some people have the ability to suspend their judgment either way in order to experience a wider variety of reactions in any given direction. It's called the third way and it transcends opposites.


----------



## Larkenfield

JeffD said:


> One measure of the greatness of something might be the legions who who are critical of it. If it was bad would anyone care. Would anyone take the time to comment.


Whether one is passionately for something or critical of it, the intensity of the reaction in different directions could be measurably the same or highly similar. Art, if it's art, creates a response within the individual that is of interest to the individual, and that interest can either be passionately for or against, though some people have the ability to suspend their judgment either way in order to experience a wider variety of reactions in any direction, and that's called _freedom_.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> The human mass as a whole is pretty irrational and stupid (read the Psychology of Crowds by Gustave Le Bon which is a classic on the topic of mass stupidity).


But why bother to read this social science book, given that



Jacck said:


> ... the soft/social sciences, where there is no objective truth. That is the reason why the natural scientists often look down upon the soft sciences or even ridicule them (the Sokal affair etc). There is no objective truth in fields such as ethics, aesthetics, politology, law etc. On the other hand there is objective truth in natural sciences. The natural sciences are discovering truth that is out there, while the social sciences construct various "truths" that have no objective existence.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> I wondered when someone would get around to making the analogy to ethics. I was considering doing so myself, just to see how many moral relativists we had here. I know it's best not to conclude that all the people who "liked" this post regard the desire not to murder or be murdered as "just a really strong subjective preference."


I'm assuming by the tone of this post (and what you've said in others) you disagree with the notion that the desire not to murder/be murdered is "just a really strong subjective preference." Well what argument would you make for it being objective? You say yourself here that it's a desire. How can a desire exist independently of human minds?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> I mean that the fact that there's no universal agreement about anything is of no epistemological significance - i.e., it isn't a criterion of truth or value. If it were, no knowledge would be possible.


Universal agreement may not be a criterion for truth or value, but in the case of truth it's certainly evidence. In the case of objectively existing things that are able to be directly sensed--sun, trees, apples--we would expect everyone with working senses to confirm their existence (unless a person rejects their senses as a basis for determining truth). I don't know any sun-atheists out there. In the case of subjective things that are a product of how we mentally react to objective things, we would expect there to be a great deal of disagreement; and in the case of good/bad/great/awful in art (or ethics), that's precisely what we see. It's not even that hard to distinguish between subjects where an objective truth exists but is unknown, in doubt, or which requires a certain knowledge and reason to arrive at--say General Relativity or the Theory of Evolution--and those in which truth values are simply impossible because of a category error. Hume helped to distinguish the differences centuries ago with the Is-Ought problem.


----------



## janxharris

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It's not even that hard to distinguish between subjects where an objective truth exists but is unknown, in doubt, or which requires a certain knowledge and reason to arrive at--say General Relativity or the Theory of Evolution--and those in which truth values are simply impossible because of a category error. Hume helped to distinguish the differences centuries ago with the Is-Ought problem.


Have followed everything with great interest but could you clarify this please? You lost me.


----------



## janxharris

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I've always considered the issue of subjective/objective greatness in art to be so obvious and so simple that Shakespeare nailed it over 400 years ago in a single sentence from Hamlet:
> 
> "there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so..."
> 
> In philosophy, the distinction between subjective/objective (and this is often lost or ignored in these types of discussions) is the distinction between things external to the mind (objective) and things internal to the mind (subjective). The question is always: would X exist if there wasn't a human mind to think about X? Generally, we assume objects like the sun, or trees, or apples to exist independantly of the mind because we directly sense them, everyone seems to sense them too, and because merely thinking about them doesn't seem to change our ability to sense them. Objectivity is when you try to walk through a wall just by thinking the wall isn't there but continue to fail spectacularly.
> 
> The moment the question turns to greatness in art, or beauty, or any notions of good or bad (even in morality), we have no such direct sensation, we have no such universal agreement, and we realize that by thinking about them differently we can change how we experience them and what things we categorize under them. These three differences are a key to understanding that such things are undoubtedly subjective, they only exist within the thinking mind. They aren't like the sun, or trees, or apples. You can't locate "greatness" or "beauty" in the arrangements of particles and atoms.
> 
> To me, the real issue isn't whether concepts like greatness or beauty are objective (they're not); the real issue is why do we come to form the standards we do: why is there such broad agreement, and such broad disagreement. To answer that requires understanding how aesthetics works on a cognitive level, how we experience the same objects in decidedly similar and dissimilar ways. Part of it is certainly cultural, and it's not surprising that across cultures we find much broader disagreement than agreement, while within cultures we find smaller degrees of disagreement. Part of it is likely just the innate similarity of brains. It stands to reason that, given that all humans are more similar than dissimilar (otherwise we wouldn't be part of the same species), that there would be a lot of agreement about what objective experiences appeal and don't appeal to us.
> 
> Another issue is why, exactly, people feel compelled to insist that the obviously subjective--like aesthetics, or morals--are objective. I think that stems from several sources. For one, as Shakespeare/Hamlet realized, extreme subjectivity/relativity easily leads to anxiety, a sense of insecurity. It simply FEELS better to think that things that are really reliant on mutable feelings, standards, etc. are as factually real as the sun's existence. I'm sure this was beneficial in terms of our evolution, since agreement on morality would obviously strengthen tribes/societies and if everyone in a society thought their morality/philosophy was as objectively true as the sun, then there was no need to question, to rebel, and to potentially destroy the society itself. I'm guessing that the war over aesthetic subjectivity/objectivity--like so many other "civilized" wars (like most Politics)--stems from thinking that was leftovers from our primitive ancestors. For another, people have an innate need to feel that they're better than others, and thinking one's aesthetic tastes are superior would be one such way of cultivating such a feeling, so there's an ego-driven desire to think that aesthetics are objective, so that one can claim objective superiority over others (even if few would ever admit they were doing this; or even if many would ever realize they're doing this).
> 
> A final issue is this: assuming that qualitative judgments in aesthetics are indeed subjective, then what is the point of creating standards, constructing canons, debating goodness/greatness/badness, etc.? I think you can answer that most easily if you indeed think about morality. Morality is just as subjective as aesthetics, but the moral standards we choose and live by have a profound impact on the world we live in and our own lives. You can recognize that it's "just" a subjective preference not to be murdered, but at the same time it's a REALLY strong preference! So you do your darndest to create a world in which you're unlikely to be murdered by, for instance, making murder illegal and punishable for whomever commits it so as to dissuade others from murdering you (and others). Transferring that to aesthetics it's much the same: we want to create a world in which the art we like and want to experience is proliferated and continues to be made, so of course we create standards and canons and debate them; it's all part of the process in which we decide what art is preserved and what art continues to get made. Just think of all the composers you'll never hear because other people decided they weren't good enough to promote; think of all those you've heard SOLELY because other people thought they were good enough to promote. This process has impacted the music that each and every one of us has been exposed to, and likely impacted our tastes to a large degree as well (probably more than we'd ever know or admit it). So the lesson is that aesthetics being subjective doesn't make it any less important. In fact, its importance is what makes debate about canons and standards mandatory; same thing with morality and politics. It's the method in which we try to influence the world to be the way we want it to be for ourselves and others.


Just to be clear, your views on this subject are informed by an acceptance of Darwinian evolution - or to be more exact (and pedantic) neo-Darwinism?


----------



## janxharris

Perhaps we might ask if anyone here is willing to admit the following:



Eva Yojimbo said:


> For another, people have an innate need to feel that they're better than others, and thinking one's aesthetic tastes are superior would be one such way of cultivating such a feeling, so there's an ego-driven desire to think that aesthetics are objective, so that one can claim objective superiority over others (even if few would ever admit they were doing this; or even if many would ever realize they're doing this).


----------



## KenOC

In fact, my views are entirely objective while those of others, especially those who hold differing views, and entirely subjective and prey to error.


----------



## janxharris

KenOC said:


> In fact, my views are entirely objective while those of others, especially those who hold differing views, and entirely subjective and prey to error.


I think the this thread might continue for some time.


----------



## janxharris

KenOC said:


> In fact, my views are entirely objective while those of others, especially those who hold differing views, and entirely subjective and prey to error.


I thought you argued against objectivity in musical greatness?


----------



## KenOC

janxharris said:


> I thought you argued against objectivity in musical greatness?


Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.


----------



## janxharris

KenOC said:


> Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.


You permit us to think you are consistently inconsistent?


----------



## Faustian

Can our aesthetic judgments be objective? It depends. Part of what is so wonderful about art is it's subjectivity. Much of it is deeply personal, imaginative, even otherworldly. Sometimes we gravitate to works and form our judgments for reasons that are ours alone and need no justification. But when our judgments turn on matters of perception, familiarity with the medium, styles and conventions used by the artist, the skill of the artist in executing their intention, the success of the artist in conveying emotion or the ability of the artwork to enlarge our understanding of ourselves and the world we inhabit...when those matters are under consideration, we can marshal objective evidence to support our evaluations. True, the whole of art does not rotate around these concerns. But some aspects do, and when they do we can cut through the sea of opinions using the same dedication to reason and evidence that we use to resolve other disputes. Will this put to rest all disputes over merits of particular works? Of course not. But they will at very least allow you to distinguish some judgments as being better than others.


----------



## Jacck

dogen said:


> But why bother to read this social science book, given that


I did not say that all social science is worthless and not worth studying/reading. You just need to take it with a lot of grains of salt, because a large part of it is more ideology and wishthinking than truth.

And Le Bon is certainly one of those books worth reading
https://www.amazon.com/Crowd-Study-Popular-Mind/dp/1636000169
another great one relating to the nature of human knowledge is this one
https://www.amazon.com/Tree-Knowledge-Biological-Roots-Understanding/dp/0877736421


----------



## science

janxharris said:


> Just to be clear, your views on this subject are informed by an acceptance of Darwinian evolution - or to be more exact (and pedantic) neo-Darwinism?


How does evolution relate to this?


----------



## janxharris

science said:


> How does evolution relate to this?


I have always thought it was the foundation of moral relativism, which has been tied here with the subjectivism of this topic - of musical 'greatness'


----------



## Strange Magic

janxharris said:


> I have always thought it was the foundation of moral relativism, which has been tied here with the subjectivism of this topic - of musical 'greatness'


As TC's most persistent advocate for Groups (I annoy even myself), I can think of no better place to discuss the hypothesis that Darwinian evolution--or even Neo-Darwinian evolution--provided the foundation of moral relativism. Darwin himself would be amazed that he was the first to strongly underpin such an idea. Anyway, either the Talk Science or the Religious Discussion forums downstairs would be ideal for examining further this and similar ideas .


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'm assuming by the tone of this post (and what you've said in others) you disagree with the notion that the desire not to murder/be murdered is "just a really strong subjective preference." Well what argument would you make for it being objective? You say yourself here that it's a desire. How can a desire exist independently of human minds?


You're assuming that perceptions of non-physical phenomena are inherently doubtful by definition. The terms "objective" and "subjective" are taken as synonymous with "knowable" and "unknowable." That is scientistic bias. Not all truths are empirically provable. Some must be apprehended "subjectively," which most of us know when we aren't seduced by the ideology of science. This is not to say that there's no experiential or rational support for such truths, however. That killing other people unnecessarily is wrong is one such apprehension, a nearly universal one requiring no great depth of thought to understand. (Debates may arise as to when killing is necessary, but then necessary killing is not murder.)

The very idea of bringing up murder as a mere "subjective preference" is pretty repugnant.


----------



## Nereffid

Woodduck said:


> (Debates may arise as to when killing is necessary, but then necessary killing is not murder.)


Necessary to _whom_?

Godwin's rule in 3... 2...


----------



## Woodduck

Nereffid said:


> Necessary to _whom_?
> 
> Godwin's rule in 3... 2...


What a peculiar question.

Necessary to one whose survival requires it. What else could excuse killing someone?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Jacck said:


> I did not say that all social science is worthless and not worth studying/reading. You just need to take it with a lot of grains of salt, because a large part of it is more ideology and wishthinking than truth. ..


Whereas Krishnamurti and the rest of the 'spiritualists' which I recall you hold in great esteem, are solid as a rock, right?


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> ...The very idea of bringing up murder as a mere "subjective preference" is pretty repugnant.


(Says to self) Bite your tongue...bite your tongue...


----------



## Nereffid

Woodduck said:


> What a peculiar question.
> 
> Necessary to one whose survival requires it. What else could excuse murder?


I thought the reference to Godwin's rule would have made it clear. If "necessary" killing isn't murder, who gets to decide what's "necessary"? State-run genocide tends to be regarded as necessary by the people doing the killing; by the people being killed, not so much.

But I think we can probably both agree that we've wandered too far from the original topic at this stage!


----------



## eugeneonagain

Nereffid said:


> I thought the reference to Godwin's rule would have made it clear. If "necessary" killing isn't murder, who gets to decide what's "necessary"? State-run genocide tends to be regarded as necessary by the people doing the killing; by the people being killed, not so much.
> 
> But I think we can probably both agree that we've wandered too far from the original topic at this stage!


If you are being attacked by a known psychopathic murderer and your only exit from the situation is to kill him, it was an act necessary to your survival. There may well be questions later, but I don't see how it could ever be considered an _unnecessary_ act.

In matters such as these it is necessary to pettifog a bit rather than floating universal ideas that don't cover complicated scenarios.

"Godwin's Law" is tripe and should be ignored.


----------



## Nereffid

I take it back... genocide is cool.


----------



## Resurrexit

Woodduck said:


> You're assuming that perceptions of non-physical phenomena are inherently doubtful by definition. The terms "objective" and "subjective" are taken as synonymous with "knowable" and "unknowable." That is scientistic bias. Not all truths are empirically provable. Some must be apprehended "subjectively," which most of us know when we aren't seduced by the ideology of science. This is not to say that there's no experiential or rational support for such truths, however. That killing other people unnecessarily is wrong is one such apprehension, a nearly universal one requiring no great depth of thought to understand. (Debates may arise as to when killing is necessary, but then necessary killing is not murder.)
> 
> The very idea of bringing up murder as a mere "subjective preference" is pretty repugnant.


If nothing else, it strikes me as a scary prospect. If the ethics of murder is based on nothing but preference, what is the rationale behind being able to punish someone who commits murder? After all, they were just acting out on their personal preference. Would it be based on majority rule? If more people have a subjective preference to not murdering others, fine and good. But if the majority is all for murdering...more power to them? In cases of institutionalized rape and murder (say slavery), there's no good ethical reason to be opposed to such a structure?


----------



## Woodduck

Nereffid said:


> I thought the reference to Godwin's rule would have made it clear. If "necessary" killing isn't murder, *who gets to decide what's "necessary"*? State-run genocide tends to be regarded as necessary by the people doing the killing; by the people being killed, not so much.


So you want to make even the clear necessity of killing for one's own survival a "subjective preference," or perhaps take a poll before pulling the trigger?

The answer is: _I_ get to decide, when I perceive that someone is threatening my life. What the hell does this have to do with genocide or Godwin's law?


----------



## Woodduck

Resurrexit said:


> If nothing else, it strikes me as a scary prospect. If the ethics of murder is based on nothing but preference, what is the rationale behind being able to punish someone who commits murder? After all, they were just acting out on their personal preference. Would it be based on majority rule? If more people have a subjective preference to not murdering others, fine and good. But if the majority is all for murdering...more power to them? In cases of institutionalized rape and murder (say slavery), there's no good ethical reason to be opposed to such a structure?


I agree completely. I assume your questions are not directed at me...?


----------



## Resurrexit

Woodduck said:


> I agree completely. I assume your questions are not directed at me...?


No, not at all. I agree with much of what you have to say. I was simply trying to follow the logical implications of such a scenario as it's been posed.


----------



## Jacck

eugeneonagain said:


> Whereas Krishnamurti and the rest of the 'spiritualists' which I recall you hold in great esteem, are solid as a rock, right?


In esteem yes, solid as rock no. I did not claim that K is at the same level of solid rock knowledge that are scientific facts confirmed by countless experiments. He is at the same level as poetry, ie can inspire you, get you some insight or illusion of an insight. Religion is like art, like poetry, it arouses certain religious feelings which are not objective. And it is as meaningless to argue whos gods are better as is meaningless to argue if Beethoven was better than Mozart. In speaking about ideological social sciences, I primarily mean economics which is both the least scientific and the most powerful in shaping our civilization. (some believe in trickle down economics, some in free market, some in welfare state etc). These economic-political ideologies became the new religions.


----------



## Nereffid

Woodduck said:


> So you want to make even the clear necessity of killing for one's own survival a "subjective preference," or perhaps take a poll before pulling the trigger?
> 
> The answer is: _I_ get to decide, when I perceive that someone is threatening my life. What the hell does this have to do with genocide or Godwin's law?


What is has to do with genocide is that, yeah, obviously saving one's life from immediate threat is a perfectly good reason to kill someone, but people keep coming up with _other_ reasons to kill people and claiming that they're "necessary".

What a bizarre turn of events. I agree with someone's basic point that "people really don't want to be murdered" and I end up accused of being on the side of the psychopaths.

Maybe I could have saved you all this rage if I'd originally said "yes, murder is _objectively_ wrong, but people keep coming up with _subjective_ ways of changing the definition of murder, and to such an extent that maybe the word _murder _just means _the sort of killing that I personally am against_, and so it is subjective after all". But I think I've had enough of other people's red mist for now.


----------



## KenOC

Nothing to do with psychopaths. We have always freely killed those who are not members of our own gang/tribe. For example, my country has been bombing the [email protected] out of several other countries, thousands of miles away, for the crime of not cooperating with our foreign policy. After all, they could be coming ashore in San Diego next week, otherwise!

In one memorable weekend late in the Obama administration we bombed six different countries. Going for a record obviously. Don’t know about the record, but I do seem to recall that Obama won a Nobel Prize for his “Drones for Peace” program… 

And of course, none here call it “murder.”


----------



## Strange Magic

While we're ranting up here, where we shouldn't, I've been ranting downstairs in General Politics on the latest massacre of schoolchildren. That is a real issue as opposed to the "moral issue" of a Nichols and May skit. Have a nice day.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Our attention has been drawn to the large number of off-topic posts which have been made lately in this thread.

Edit: I closed the thread temporarily until we decided how to proceed. On balance, we feel it's probably better to let the discussion proceed.

Ergo the thread is open again - sorry for any disruption caused to your journey today.


----------



## KenOC

Probably my fault -- sorry! But in my defense, I yield to nothing except temptation.


----------



## Room2201974

"'Understanding Poetry,' by Dr. J. Evans Pritchard, Ph.D. To fully understand poetry, we must first be fluent with its meter, rhyme and figures of speech, then ask two questions: 1) How artfully has the objective of the poem been rendered and 2) How important is that objective? Question 1 rates the poem's perfection; question 2 rates its importance. And once these questions have been answered, determining the poem's greatness becomes a relatively simple matter. If the poem's score for perfection is plotted on the horizontal of a graph and its importance is plotted on the vertical, then calculating the total area of the poem yields the measure of its greatness. A sonnet by Byron might score high on the vertical but only average on the horizontal. A Shakespearean sonnet, on the other hand, would score high both horizontally and vertically, yielding a massive total area, thereby revealing the poem to be truly great. As you proceed through the poetry in this book, practice this rating method. As your ability to evaluate poems in this matter grows, so will your enjoyment and understanding of poetry."


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

janxharris said:


> Just to be clear, your views on this subject are informed by an acceptance of Darwinian evolution - or to be more exact (and pedantic) neo-Darwinism?


My views on subjectivity/objectivity are informed by philosophy; my views on why people get the issue so utterly wrong are indeed influenced by evolutionary psychology.



janxharris said:


> Have followed everything with great interest but could you clarify this please? You lost me.


Sure. What I mean is that when discussing objective truth there are a few different categories it can fall under. In the case of mere existence--take, e.g., the sun--the truth of its existence is easily established via direct sensory perception: we can see it, so we assume it exists objectively, independent of our minds. However, we can ask other questions about objective reality that we may not be able to directly sense: why does the Earth and planets orbit the sun the way they do? For cases like that, we construct hypotheses, test them, and form theories when the tests are confirmed. So to know the answers requires understanding the theory. Other objective issues may require a large amount of reason: "Who murdered John Doe?" may require piecing together a lot of disparate information in order to arrive at a conclusion that any given suspect is the most likely answer. Yet for other objective issues, we have no ways to answer them at all: What did Julius Caesar eat for dinner 10 days before his death? We know there's SOME objective answer to that, but have no way of answering.

One thing all of those issues have in common, though, is that the answer is completely independent of our minds: the sun's existence, why the planets orbit the sun, who killed John Doe, what Caesar ate for dinner... the answer doesn't depend on what we think about them. For some issues, this isn't the case. For issues about how we feel, there can be no objective truth by definition because the feeling is dependent on our mind. If we had no mind, we wouldn't feel any way about something.

So the question is: what issues are dependent on our minds (subjective) and which are independent of our minds (objective)? I mentioned Hume as he gave us one reliable way of distinguishing such things: the Is-Ought Problem. Hume commented that one could not move from describing how things are ("Is"es) to how things ought to be; there was always some hidden/unspoken connection between the is and the ought. EG, "There IS a road here, we OUGHT to cross it." How did we go from from the is to the ought there? The answer is that oughts depend upon subjective goals and desires. Only once you include the subjective goal/desire can you derive an ought from an is: "We want to get to the restaurant across the road, there is a road here, we ought to cross it." THAT sentence makes logical sense, as the "ought" is now fulfilling the goal of getting to the restaurant across the street. An important point to understand about the Is-Ought problem is that you can't derive an Ought from purely objective statements. It's impossible to do.

Now, there are other ways of distinguishing between the subjective and objective, but the Is-Ought problem is one reliable way to do so.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> You're assuming that perceptions of non-physical phenomena are inherently doubtful by definition. The terms "objective" and "subjective" are taken as synonymous with "knowable" and "unknowable." That is scientistic bias. Not all truths are empirically provable. Some must be apprehended "subjectively," which most of us know when we aren't seduced by the ideology of science. This is not to say that there's no experiential or rational support for such truths, however. That killing other people unnecessarily is wrong is one such apprehension, a nearly universal one requiring no great depth of thought to understand. (Debates may arise as to when killing is necessary, but then necessary killing is not murder.)
> 
> The very idea of bringing up murder as a mere "subjective preference" is pretty repugnant.


There's a lot of of argument by assertion here, each one of which could be disputed, making this post the length of a small novel. However, despite all your statements, none of them answered my question: you admitted the desire not to murder/be murdered was a desire; how can a desire exist independently of minds?

However, you rather supported my original post with your: "The very idea of bringing up murder as a mere "subjective preference" is pretty repugnant." Your feeling the idea is "repugnant" is a tell that you're rejecting the idea not based on reason/facts/truth, but based on an emotional reaction. It's basically "Argument by 'Ewwww!'"


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Resurrexit said:


> If nothing else, it strikes me as a scary prospect. If the ethics of murder is based on nothing but preference, what is the rationale behind being able to punish someone who commits murder? After all, they were just acting out on their personal preference. Would it be based on majority rule? If more people have a subjective preference to not murdering others, fine and good. But if the majority is all for murdering...more power to them? In cases of institutionalized rape and murder (say slavery), there's no good ethical reason to be opposed to such a structure?


Indeed, more people reject it because they find the prospect "scary" or "repugnant" rather than because it's false. To answer your questions:

The rationale behind punishing people is to influence the behavior of others. Most people don't want to be imprisoned or killed, so having the threat of being imprisoned or killed if they commit murder is a good deterrent.

What morality is based on depends on the society/culture. In many cases it's majority rule (in democracies), while in others the morality is controlled by the state or religious institutions (basically "the authorities").

Generally, the majority will almost never be "all for murdering" because indiscriminate murdering weakens societies which is dangerous to the individuals within a society. Generally, when murdering is OK'd by the majority it's only against other groups they deem undesirable (Godwin's Law again).

In cases of institutionalized rape and murder there can be ethical reasons to oppose them depending on what values we start with. Reason and logic, in general, requires starting with values/propositions that are assumed rather than proven. Once you have them, you can reason from there. The problem is that it's very difficult to build rationally consistent moral systems, and it's very difficult finding values that everyone agrees on. If, eg, we all agree with the value that "everyone is created equal," then it would be hard to justify why some people should be held as slaves and considered unequal. If we all agree on "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you," then it would be hard to justify rape and murder, in general. But we have to agree on those values before we reason from them.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> So you want to make even the clear necessity of killing for one's own survival a "subjective preference," or perhaps take a poll before pulling the trigger?


Killing for one's own survival is indeed a "subjective preference," the subjective preference of wanting to keep living. A suicidal person may not object to being killed because they do not value their life.


----------



## KenOC

Alas, I am tempted again. We can learn much about ourselves from our pets. I have observed my dog, caught in some unwelcome behavior, exhibiting all the signs of shamefaced guilt. Of course he has read no books on ethics, no religious classics telling him what God allows and what is forbidden. But he knows well enough what his owner expects of him. In fact, I am quite sure that a wild wolf running in a pack can feel the same guilt from violating the behavioral norms that he has learned from birth.

Similarly, some tribes of the Maori used to sail to remote islands and, on discovering inhabitants, would kill all the men and children and return to their villages with the women as breeding stock. They were wise in the ways of Darwin! The British, on settling New Zealand, found it quite difficult to convince the Maori that this was poor behavior indeed, since it had worked and worked well for a very long time. And I do wonder what has happened to the numbers of the Maori since the British taught them that lesson.

Finally, we should remind ourselves that the Biblical fall of man occurred when Adam and Even ate the fruit of a forbidden tree, making them “like God, knowing good and evil.” Think about that.

Which is all by the way of asking: Does the idea of “morality” make any logical sense at all? Or is it all a network of encouragements and prohibitions that have worked over time to promote the successful survival of genetic material?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

KenOC said:


> Which is all by the way of asking: Does the idea of "morality" make any logical sense at all? Or is it all a network of encouragements and prohibitions that have worked over time to promote the successful survival of genetic material?


Well, I sure wish that question could be answered with _classical music!_  But alas, it cannot, and must be closed here. I'm surprised that everyone just ignored TurnaboutVox so quickly! Was this thread just worn thin and people can't help changing the subject because enough was said?

I would like to reply to the OT, about his observance of critical bias, that we listen to critics before we listen to ourselves. I heard the Last Jedi has been a classic case of critical acclaim going completely wrong compared to the fans. Fascinating stuff, really. When agendas and money are involved, critics too will bend. 

Novelty is just a taste, and it always was. "I enjoy innovation" is as normative of an opinion as "I enjoy lush harmonies." Making music that appeals to a specific taste will have its ups and downs, just like any other fashion. Seems today that novelty is lip-speak, and that the modern standard of quality has moved elsewhere. A new taste is on the move, mainly music that gives really strong emotional vibes in a language the audience already knows (a kind of conservatism). Novelty is more important to help a composer gain recognition and a voice, but _moodscaping_and _depth _seem to be what will help a composer be performed more than once.


----------



## janxharris

The debate is crystallizing into whether or not appeal may be made to a higher authority.


----------



## janxharris

Eva Yojimbo said:


> My views on subjectivity/objectivity are informed by philosophy; my views on why people get the issue so utterly wrong are indeed influenced by evolutionary psychology.
> 
> Sure. What I mean is that when discussing objective truth there are a few different categories it can fall under. In the case of mere existence--take, e.g., the sun--the truth of its existence is easily established via direct sensory perception: we can see it, so we assume it exists objectively, independent of our minds. However, we can ask other questions about objective reality that we may not be able to directly sense: why does the Earth and planets orbit the sun the way they do? For cases like that, we construct hypotheses, test them, and form theories when the tests are confirmed. So to know the answers requires understanding the theory. Other objective issues may require a large amount of reason: "Who murdered John Doe?" may require piecing together a lot of disparate information in order to arrive at a conclusion that any given suspect is the most likely answer. Yet for other objective issues, we have no ways to answer them at all: What did Julius Caesar eat for dinner 10 days before his death? We know there's SOME objective answer to that, but have no way of answering.
> 
> One thing all of those issues have in common, though, is that the answer is completely independent of our minds: the sun's existence, why the planets orbit the sun, who killed John Doe, what Caesar ate for dinner... the answer doesn't depend on what we think about them. For some issues, this isn't the case. For issues about how we feel, there can be no objective truth by definition because the feeling is dependent on our mind. If we had no mind, we wouldn't feel any way about something.
> 
> So the question is: what issues are dependent on our minds (subjective) and which are independent of our minds (objective)? I mentioned Hume as he gave us one reliable way of distinguishing such things: the Is-Ought Problem. Hume commented that one could not move from describing how things are ("Is"es) to how things ought to be; there was always some hidden/unspoken connection between the is and the ought. EG, "There IS a road here, we OUGHT to cross it." How did we go from from the is to the ought there? The answer is that oughts depend upon subjective goals and desires. Only once you include the subjective goal/desire can you derive an ought from an is: "We want to get to the restaurant across the road, there is a road here, we ought to cross it." THAT sentence makes logical sense, as the "ought" is now fulfilling the goal of getting to the restaurant across the street. An important point to understand about the Is-Ought problem is that you can't derive an Ought from purely objective statements. It's impossible to do.
> 
> Now, there are other ways of distinguishing between the subjective and objective, but the Is-Ought problem is one reliable way to do so.


Very clearly put, thank you.


----------



## KenOC

janxharris said:


> The debate is crystallizing into whether or not appeal may be made to a higher authority.


I don't think any claim of a true "morality" can be asserted without an appeal to higher authority. Otherwise it is simply utilitarianism.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> There's a lot of of argument by assertion here, each one of which could be disputed, making this post the length of a small novel. However, despite all your statements, none of them answered my question: you admitted the desire not to murder/be murdered was a desire; how can a desire exist independently of minds?
> 
> However, you rather supported my original post with your: "The very idea of bringing up murder as a mere "subjective preference" is pretty repugnant." Your feeling the idea is "repugnant" is a tell that you're rejecting the idea not based on reason/facts/truth, but based on an emotional reaction. It's basically "Argument by 'Ewwww!'"


The statement by me to which your post is a response was:

_"You're assuming that perceptions of non-physical phenomena are inherently doubtful by definition. The terms "objective" and "subjective" are taken as synonymous with "knowable" and "unknowable." That is scientistic bias. Not all truths are empirically provable. Some must be apprehended "subjectively," which most of us know when we aren't seduced by the ideology of science._ This is not to say that there's no experiential or rational support for such truths, however. That killing other people unnecessarily is wrong is one such apprehension, a nearly universal one requiring no great depth of thought to understand."

I don't think you've answered me so much as simply offered a different view of what constitutes knowledge. If I understand you correctly, you believe that no statement made about the contents of consciousness which is not a description of objects existing outside of consciousness, open to observation and confirmation by everyone, can be known to be true. This does of course imply that no statement of value, whether about art, morality, or anything else, can represent anything but the feelings of a particular individual in a particular moment, or have permanent or universal validity for human beings qua human beings.

If I asked you to support this view of the nature of knowledge, would you be able to offer any statement in support of it which wasn't simply a restatement of your basic premise: that no statement made about the contents of consciousness which is not a description of objects existing outside of consciousness, open to observation and confirmation by everyone, can be known to be true? If you can "prove objectively" that this premise is valid, I will happily abandon my own view, which is that some facts and values - namely those pertaining to and arising from the nature of human consciousness and the conditions of life itself - can be known to be true and valid by direct apprehension in what might be called an "empiricism of the soul."

One more question: has it ever occurred to you that the "ewwwww" factor you deride as a meaningless, "subjective" emotional response may represent a necessary, foundational aspect of morality and ethics, and that your neglect of it, or contempt for it, may be just another expression of your unproven basic premise?


----------



## Guest

I see I've missed some excitement while I've been away, and forgive me if the debate has moved on, but



Strange Magic said:


> You bring up the Golden Ratio. The Wikipedia entry on the Golden Ratio is well worth reading in full, because both the properties and the history of the ratio are fascinating. But that history reflects exactly the issues we discuss here: whether there is something about the ratio itself that triggers specific, universal, reproducible responses in the human mind, or whether it just registers with or pleases some, not all, and whether that register is the result of some outside influence or authority figure telling someone that the ratio exists and is (ought to be) important. While a fascinating ratio (and number), it is no more important than _pi_ or _e_, and perhaps less so. The Wikipedia article makes clear that some artists and architects doted upon the ratio while others ignored it. Another case of _de gustibus......._
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio


I think the article in Wiki was probably written by Mario Livio!

I offered this example as the easiest illustration of the idea that there are long established "rules" (please note the scare quotes) by which many artists have organised their work. Whether this is because artists are rule followers ("if it was good enough for Da Vinci, it's good enough for me") or because there is an actual innate human attraction to certain forms is less easy to tell.



Woodduck said:


> I wondered when someone would get around to making the analogy to ethics. I was considering doing so myself, just to see how many moral relativists we had here. I know it's best not to conclude that all the people who "liked" this post regard the desire not to murder or be murdered as "just a really strong subjective preference."


I think Eva was being playful in her REALLY strong subjective preference and explained perfectly well what I'd already hinted at in my last post: that over hundreds of thousands of years, we have evolved certain social norms that have become so embedded in our cultures that they have taken on the appearance of both the objective and the absolute. Alongside the more important norms that control our basic behaviours (such as not killing people) are the lesser norms that influence our thinking (such as aesthetics). There are legitimate debates to be had about both sets of norms because our thinking and behaviours are divergent and the walls between what is and is not acceptable are permeable. I don't think labelling anyone as a 'moral relativist' (usually a term of scorn, but itself undefined) would help the discussion, any more than labelling those who enjoy art the "wrong" side of the normative boundary as inferior beings with inferior taste.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> I don't think any claim of a true "morality" can be asserted without an appeal to higher authority. Otherwise it is simply utilitarianism.


Only if the definition of 'morality' contains an explicit reference to a higher authority. Try here:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/morality

It doesn't, so we can safely talk about morality without the compulsion to refer to a higher authority. (That doesn't mean of course that our historical habit of connecting morality to a higher authority should be dismissed).


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> Only if the definition of 'morality' contains an explicit reference to a higher authority. Try here:
> 
> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/morality


"Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." Indeed. Both sides of this definition require an appeal to authority -- a higher authority. I would prefer:

"Morality: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior that promote the survival of a species or the social groupings typical of a species."


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." Indeed. Both sides of this definition require an appeal to authority -- a higher authority. I would prefer:


If the higher authority is "the public good" or "society" (or something similar), then yes, I'd agree that is essential. The reason this argument appeared at all is because of the apparent insistence of a few members who belive the "authority" to be something less earthly and more supernaural: to be plain, that beauty and the rules that surround it are god-given.


----------



## janxharris

MacLeod said:


> If the higher authority is "the public good" or "society" (or something similar), then yes, I'd agree that is *essential*. The reason this argument appeared at all is because of the apparent insistence of a few members who belive the "authority" to be something less earthly and more supernaural: to be plain, that beauty and the rules that surround it are god-given.


Essential?
........................


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> Essential?
> ........................


Yes. Unless, where morality is concerned, the rules of good and bad behaviour are entirely up to the individual?


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> If you can "prove objectively" that this premise is valid


Has anyone succeeded in this?


----------



## Gallus

Introducing an analogy to morality into the argument over aesthetic standards seems to me to do nothing but confuse things, not only because "where does morality come from?" is if anything an even more difficult question to resolve, but also because the nature of the link between ethics and aesthetics is an incredibly complex and controversial topic in its own right. 

Anyway, I subjectively believe in objective standards for art and I am comfortable with that. Nothing will ever convince me that William Shakespeare is not objectively a better poet than Richard Stanyhurst and I am okay with knowing that I will never be able to prove it.


----------



## janxharris

Gallus said:


> Introducing an analogy to morality into the argument over aesthetic standards seems to me to do nothing but confuse things, not only because "where does morality come from?" is if anything an even more difficult question to resolve, but also because the nature of the link between ethics and aesthetics is an incredibly complex and controversial topic in its own right.
> 
> Anyway, I subjectively believe in objective standards for art and I am comfortable with that. Nothing will ever convince me that William Shakespeare is not objectively a better poet than Richard Stanyhurst and I am okay with knowing that I will never be able to prove it.


Perhaps we do need to define 'great' or 'better'. Greater or better at what exactly? Perhaps there might be an assumption here (ie amongst classical music lovers) that great music needs to speak deeply about some philosophical truth which is ineffable. I know that I am looking for this in music - yet this isn't necessarily what others are looking for.

Beethoven's 9th symphony may be great in the above objective, but it's not great party music.


----------



## Gallus

janxharris said:


> Greater or better at what exactly?


To me it's most simply a question of which one 'values' more. "If you could only save the works of Composer A or Composer B from oblivion, which one would you choose?" That's my test for ranking artists.


----------



## janxharris

Gallus said:


> To me it's most simply a question of which one 'values' more. "If you could only save the works of Composer A or Composer B from oblivion, which one would you choose?" That's my test for ranking artists.


But Composer A might never have attempted anything I am interested in. Any claim of objectivity in aesthetics would need to account for this.


----------



## Nereffid

janxharris said:


> But Composer A might never have attempted anything I am interested in. Any claim of objectivity in aesthetics would need to account for this.


Wouldn't it be the case that under an objective regime, you might be considered to be interested in the wrong things?


----------



## janxharris

Nereffid said:


> Wouldn't it be the case that under an objective regime, you might be considered to be interested in the wrong things?


I guess any objectivity would cover every and all possible subjects of interest. If we look at the previously posted assertion that Jupiter was > the Mendelssohn Violin Concerto then perhaps it needs to be established if we are comparing like with like. Since both are 'classical' sounding (though obviously the later leans somewhat to Romanticism), then both are quite abstract - so it is difficult to establish exact subject matter. Complicating things further, for all we know, more people might like the sound world of the orchestra as opposed to that of a violin dominated one. Perhaps more people are drawn to the jollity of the Mozart?

If it's just about harmonic language then I'd probably go with the Jupiter. So too - counterpoint. But, of course, efficacy of orchestration might be important.


----------



## Gallus

janxharris said:


> But Composer A might never have attempted anything I am interested in.


I don't understand this objection? If you believe that's important then that can be one of your criteria for determining the value of the composer's works.


----------



## janxharris

Gallus said:


> I don't understand this objection? If you believe that's important then that can be one of your criteria for determining the value of the composer's works.


I'm not even sure I understand my own objection. 

Let me have a think...


----------



## janxharris

Gallus said:


> I don't understand this objection? If you believe that's important then that can be one of your criteria for determining the value of the composer's works.


#326


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> One more question: has it ever occurred to you that the "ewwwww" factor you deride as a meaningless, "subjective" emotional response may represent a necessary, foundational aspect of morality and ethics, and that your neglect of it, or contempt for it, may be just another expression of your unproven basic premise?


In this sentence, it appears that you're equating "meaningless" with "subjective" and, in your use of scare quotes, suggesting that emotions are not "subjective."

I'm sure emotions like that are "a necessary, foundational aspect of morality and ethics" and calling them "subjective" is not contempt but plain old factual accuracy. I'd certainly hate to try to argue that my emotions are objective.


----------



## Nereffid

Gallus said:


> I don't understand this objection? If you believe that's important then that can be one of your criteria for determining the value of the composer's works.


If you believe in objective standards in art - which apparently you do, because that's what you said - then why would you allow everyone to pick their own criteria for judging art? That's the very definition of "subjective".


----------



## Gallus

Nereffid said:


> If you believe in objective standards in art - which apparently you do, because that's what you said - then why would you allow everyone to pick their own criteria for judging art?


I believe I was answering a general question about whether objective criteria for art are _possible_, not what exactly those criteria should be. janxharris claimed that no-one can objectively rate a work of art because "I might not be interested in a certain composer". I replied that can be part of an objective measurement without contradiction. But this is a tangent anyway.


----------



## janxharris

Gallus said:


> I believe I was answering a general question about whether objective criteria for art are _possible_, not what exactly those criteria should be. janxharris claimed that no-one can objectively rate a work of art because "I might not be interested in a certain composer". I replied that can be part of an objective measurement without contradiction. But this is a tangent anyway.


But I remain unclear how.


----------



## janxharris

Perhaps a concrete example would help?

Some deem Tchaikovsky's music mawkish to the point of being embarrassing while others would put his 'Pathetique' high on their list of best symphonies (see The BBC Music Magazine top 10 voted by 151 conductors). How can any objective reckoning make a sound judgement as to who is 'right' here?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

"Greatness" today seems to be determined by a voluntary relinquishment of our personal tastes for a collective consensus of what the crowd will value (according to us). The consensus may even be 90% of our individual taste, but it will never be 100%, since no one is quite like each other. This voluntary relinquishment of a crowd then produces an "absolute truth" that actually applies to no individual 100%, and thus might even be called useless. And what good is a useless truth but to deceive others with it, to say that their individuality must be defined by the crowd? _The crowd's truth is the reduction, simplification and casting of doubt on 100% of all its individuals' individuality._

Read Kirkegaard's short essay called "The Crowd is Untruth" to understand how this works. https://oregonstate.edu/instruct/ph...kegaard/kierkegaard_the_crowd_is_untruth.html

When recommending music to a newcomer to classical music, I don't give them top 10's. I ask them first what kinds of music or styles they already like and want, and then make some recommendations off of that. Or else, they become a crowd, rather than an individual who likes classical music. I give them a piece of myself, my own knowledge of works. Isn't that so much more valuable in the long run that a newcomer to classical music meets another listener who is true to themselves? But I also don't make them conform to _me_ 100% because I as an individual can be free to love another without domination, if I decide not to put my identity in a domineering crowd. If I choose to be completely identified with the crowd, I have every right to bash people over the head for not agreeing with my top-10 tastes, because I represent _everyone _(theoretically), and those who reject it are fools for resisting something smarter and louder-mouthed than them.


----------



## janxharris

For example: 




Kitsch or expressive genius?


----------



## Euler

janxharris said:


> Perhaps a concrete example would help?
> 
> Some deem Tchaikovsky's music mawkish to the point of being embarrassing while others would put his 'Pathetique' high on their list of best symphonies (see The BBC Music Magazine top 10 voted by 151 conductors). How can any objective reckoning make a sound judgement as to who is 'right' here?


It can't IMO. Mawkishness is neither intrinsic to the score, nor a pure whim of the listener, but rather an interaction between the two. This interaction is objectively real, yet differs for all 8 billion of us. However, I believe that some objective qualities do exist in the score.

Perhaps a lot of the heat here stems from different uses of language rather than metaphysical disagreement.

If somebody says "Symphony X is the greatest, but Symphony Y is my favourite," I'm inclined to claim the distinction meaningless. But my claim is perhaps dishonest, since I can guess roughly what is meant. It's drawing a distinction between what one admires in a work--the fecundity of mind and originality and effort evident within its structure--and on the other hand the visceral pleasure and joy and emotional punch we receive from it.

Although objective qualities are hard to measure, I believe they are coherent concepts. There is objectively more evidence of imagination, problem-solving skill and technical knowledge in the Grosse Fuge than in Barbie Girl.

Two questions arise: 1, who cares--isn't music primarily "about" emotion and empathy? And 2, who gets to choose which characteristics define objective merit, and how do we construct a balanced metric?

The 2nd question, I believe, has nothing to do with supernatural spirits or stone tablets. Words being our slaves not our masters, we're free to define what "objective merit" means. It's just a phrase, like any other, used to convey meaning when we converse; not a pre-existing concept in some idealised mystical universe. Nonetheless, our definition must be restricted to qualities which are evident within the score. We can then consider the relative objective quality of 2 works.

Whether objective qualities matter is pure personal taste. I happen to love both Vivaldi and Elliott Carter, and the fact that one is far more complex than the other has little relevance to me. But if you're more of an intellectual, complexity might seduce you more. Surely there's no "right" way to enjoy music.


----------



## Phil loves classical

My view is that there had been no meaningful advances in music since the 1950's. So you can base a review of any work by existing concepts. The subjective content of a work, like what it is about, or inspired by, is not as important as the actual musical content. People misinterpret the context and meaning all the time, and their views don't become invalid if their responses are unintended. If I thought Beethoven's 9th is about the story of a guy gets stuck in a cave but makes it out in the end, why not? It goes with the triumphant themes in the end, and takes nothing away from the music itself (maybe some might see this view as heretical). But if someone writes a piece of crap, based on little musical meaning or content, that is a bigger problem.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> Coming at it from a slightly different angle - how can any objective reckoning make a judgement on whether the folk who dislike Tchaikovsky for his (in their opinion) mawkishness are right or wrong? Many, however, have no issue with this (alleged) sentimentality:
> 
> The BBC Music Magazine top 10
> 1. Beethoven Symphony No 3 (1803)
> 2. Beethoven Symphony No 9 (1824)
> 3. Mozart Symphony No 41 (1788)
> 4. Mahler Symphony No 9 (1909)
> 5. Mahler Symphony No 2 (1894 rev 1903)
> 6. Brahms Symphony No 4 (1885)
> 7. Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique (1830)
> 8. Brahms Symphony No 1 (1876)
> 9. *Tchaikovsky Symphony No 6* (1893)
> 10. Mahler Symphony No 3 (1896)
> 
> How can one objectively decide on this?


What does right or wrong mean in this context?

Whether one enjoys Tchaikovsky or finds his music sentimental or mawkish is a matter of how its emotional content is perceived, and many factors besides the music itself influence that. In a similar, personal example, I find much of Stravinsky's music cerebral and dry, and don't care for it. Others have a different reaction to it: they might not find it dry, or they might find it dry and enjoy it for that very reason. None of us are right or wrong. Sentimental, mawkish, cerebral, dry - do those words have any fixed meaning, and specifically in relation to music?

It may be that liking or disliking a certain composer's music could in some cases indicate a certain psychological makeup in a listener, but even if we could make precise personal diagnoses based on musical taste - which we can't - it wouldn't make the question of the rightness or wrongness of those tastes more meaningful, and it certainly wouldn't tell us whether the Tchaikovsky 6th "deserves" to be rated between the Brahms 1st and the Mahler 3rd. If there's a real thing called artistic excellence, citing our emotional responses to music, or polling listeners for theirs, isn't the way to to find it. That approach can only suggest places to look.


----------



## Woodduck

Huilunsoittaja said:


> "Greatness" today seems to be determined by a voluntary relinquishment of our personal tastes for a collective consensus of what the crowd will value (according to us). The consensus may even be 90% of our individual taste, but it will never be 100%, since no one is quite like each other. This voluntary relinquishment of a crowd then produces an "absolute truth" that actually applies to no individual 100%, and thus might even be called useless. And what good is a useless truth but to deceive others with it, to say that their individuality must be defined by the crowd? _The crowd's truth is the reduction, simplification and casting of doubt on 100% of all its individuals' individuality._
> 
> Read Kirkegaard's short essay called "The Crowd is Untruth" to understand how this works. https://oregonstate.edu/instruct/ph...kegaard/kierkegaard_the_crowd_is_untruth.html


What you describe is the daymare of mass culture, in which millions of people like the same thing because they can hardly escape it without renouncing the world (like me). Whenever I hear something in contemporary culture touted as "great" (or "awesome." or "iconic," etc., etc.) something in me hopes that I'll never have to see or hear it. Needless to say I'm chronically behind the times. The only reason I know who Kanye West is is that he said something inane about a certain president. Does he do music or something?

The perception of real greatness has nothing to do with the crowd, but only with engaging one's faculties fully with the object of interest, and perhaps seeking insight, _but not sanction_, from knowledgeable and thoughtful fellow observers.


----------



## Larkenfield

janxharris said:


> For example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kitsch or expressive genius?


He's a genius based upon his expressive power within _his entire body of works_... One might not like what he's saying but he 's courageously saying what he means, masterfully, and it's not his problem if others will sometimes feel uncomfortable or embarrassed by his open show of emotions or don't subjectively agree with him; he's using all the objective tools of composition as a master.

What a mess this thread has become in assessing music of great quality, as if a Corvette is viewed as having the same value in the marketplace as a Yugo just because both are cars, though it's certainly possible to enjoy both cars for different reasons. But there's obviously more of a demand for something of obvious quality on the objective world stage, out in the open, apparent to all who are interested, that keeps attracting listeners for generations. It helps to listen to the music from the composer's point of view and not just one's own. No one sets out to fail or be misunderstood.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

janxharris said:


> Very clearly put, thank you.


Thank you, and you're welcome.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> The statement by me to which your post is a response was:
> 
> _"You're assuming that perceptions of non-physical phenomena are inherently doubtful by definition. The terms "objective" and "subjective" are taken as synonymous with "knowable" and "unknowable." That is scientistic bias. Not all truths are empirically provable. Some must be apprehended "subjectively," which most of us know when we aren't seduced by the ideology of science._ This is not to say that there's no experiential or rational support for such truths, however. That killing other people unnecessarily is wrong is one such apprehension, a nearly universal one requiring no great depth of thought to understand."
> 
> I don't think you've answered me so much as simply offered a different view of what constitutes knowledge. If I understand you correctly, you believe that no statement made about the contents of consciousness which is not a description of objects existing outside of consciousness, open to observation and confirmation by everyone, can be known to be true. This does of course imply that no statement of value, whether about art, morality, or anything else, can represent anything but the feelings of a particular individual in a particular moment, or have permanent or universal validity for human beings qua human beings.
> 
> If I asked you to support this view of the nature of knowledge, would you be able to offer any statement in support of it which wasn't simply a restatement of your basic premise: that no statement made about the contents of consciousness which is not a description of objects existing outside of consciousness, open to observation and confirmation by everyone, can be known to be true? If you can "prove objectively" that this premise is valid, I will happily abandon my own view, which is that some facts and values - namely those pertaining to and arising from the nature of human consciousness and the conditions of life itself - can be known to be true and valid by direct apprehension in what might be called an "empiricism of the soul."
> 
> One more question: has it ever occurred to you that the "ewwwww" factor you deride as a meaningless, "subjective" emotional response may represent a necessary, foundational aspect of morality and ethics, and that your neglect of it, or contempt for it, may be just another expression of your unproven basic premise?


I know what your statement was, but you were responding to a post by me that asked, in part: "You say yourself here that (the desire not to murder/be murdered) is a desire. How can a desire exist independently of human minds?" That question was rather crucial to the point I was making. It's rather difficult to answer your post because you make several claims that could individually be disputed, each point creating its own tangent to be debated and thus swelling this discussion to unwieldy proportions. I don't know about you, but I'd rather avoid that.

To clarify my position: the issue of subjectivity/objectivity is an issue of locus; specifically, the locus of the target of our inquiry. By definition, subjectivity puts the locus in our minds, while objectivity puts the locus outside our minds. If the target of our inquiry exists outside our minds, it's objective; if the target of our inquiry exists inside our minds, it's subjective. To try to claim that subjective claims/feelings have objective truth would be fallacious as it incorrectly states where the locus of such claims/feelings are. A subjective feeling can no more be found in objective reality than any object in reality can be found in a subjective mind (objects as they appear in the mind are phenomenal; not the object itself).

One can just as easily illustrate this locus principle by only appealing to objective reality. If the target of our inquiry is a tree--let's say the question is "is this tree evergreen or deciduous?"--then it would do no good to stare at a wall hoping to find our answer in the wall. We'd be trying to find an answer in the wrong location. So just as you can't answer a question about a tree by looking in the wrong location, you can't answer a question about subjective feelings by searching objective reality and vice versa. You're searching in the wrong location. Also, the tree example illustrates another principle: that any truth statement about that target of inquiry can only be true for that target of inquiry (for the sake of simplicity/brevity I'll ignore the issue of inferences from categories). If we were to ask the same question of a different tree, then the answer might be different. The same is true of subjective feelings in that they can only be true in relation to the mind(s) that hold(s) them. They may not be true for other minds.

As for distinguishing between what exists outside/inside minds, I think I covered that with my first post in this thread and other subsequent ones.

Hopefully this clarification is considered a substantial response to your challenge for me to support my position. I do not believe I can "prove" this position, because proof requires agreeing on premises that are, themselves, unprovable. All logic and reason works this way. At some point you have to assume the truth of a premise that you cannot prove.

For your last question, I do not believe the "ewww" factor is meaningless, but I do believe it is subjective; and as science said above, that's not contemptuous but factual. Yes, I do think our "ewww" response is often a foundational aspect of ethics, as are all other emotions including the classic "hurrah/boo" of Emotivism. However, one quick look at history will show how many different things have been "ewww"ed, "hurrah"ed, or "boo"ed at some point, and how is one to settle which ones were right/wrong without regard to their subjective feelings?


----------



## Strange Magic

> Eva Yojimbo: "For your last question, I do not believe the "ewww" factor is meaningless, but I do believe it is subjective; and as science said above, that's not contemptuous but factual. Yes, I do think our "ewww" response is often a foundational aspect of ethics, as are all other emotions including the classic "hurrah/boo" of Emotivism. However, one quick look at history will show how many different things have been "ewww"ed, "hurrah"ed, or "boo"ed at some point, and how is one to settle which ones were right/wrong without regard to their subjective feelings?"


Regarding the "ewww" factor and its variants, a partial basis for them can be found in certain biological traits in human behavior (seen in other animals also) that are induced and moderated by hormones and that are the result of evolutionary pressure. The maternal bond is one example; the broad general term "empathy" is another. There is a certain resistance to actually killing other humans that was much more successfully expressed before we acquired the use of weapons other than our bare, empty hands, but even so simple a thing as picking up a rock and striking another in the heat of one's rage began the short-circuiting of that evolutionary stricture so necessary up until then for our survival as a species--as a general rule, there is little mortality from intraspecific strife among animals. The point of this is that a morality can be crafted from these "innate" biological/hormonally-induced predispositions augmented by rationally-derived analyses of what's best for the long-term well-being of both individuals and societies. One example is the notion of full female equality, and the many benefits that would flow from such a state, such as a small, stable population enjoying a high standard of living in a sustainable world.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Strange Magic said:


> Regarding the "ewww" factor and its variants, a partial basis for them can be found in certain biological traits in human behavior (seen in other animals also) that are induced and moderated by hormones and that are the result of evolutionary pressure. The maternal bond is one example; the broad general term "empathy" is another. There is a certain resistance to actually killing other humans that was much more successfully expressed before we acquired the use of weapons other than our bare, empty hands, but even so simple a thing as picking up a rock and striking another in the heat of one's rage began the short-circuiting of that evolutionary stricture so necessary up until then for our survival as a species--as a general rule, there is little mortality from intraspecific strife among animals. The point of this is that a morality can be crafted from these "innate" biological/hormonally-induced predispositions augmented by rationally-derived analyses of what's best for the long-term well-being of both individuals and societies. One example is the notion of full female equality, and the many benefits that would flow from such a state, such as a small, stable population enjoying a high standard of living in a sustainable world.


I absolutely agree that such feelings are rooted in evolutionary/biological traits and that we can craft morality from them. However, a few important points about this are:

1. Keeping in mind that evolutionary is a slow, rough, sloppy process, we have to realize that some innate reactions are either inapplicable in our modern world/societies, or are only applicable in certain circumstances. Take, eg, the "ewww" reaction many have to the idea of homosexuality/same-sex marriage. Aversion to that makes sense in societies with small populations where breeding is necessary for the society's and even individuals' survival, but less so in large populations where less breeding may be preferable and in which the acts don't harm anyone (and may even be beneficial by promoting the adoption of children who'd otherwise lack consistent parents). So one must emphasize, as you mentioned, rationally-derived analysis as well.

2. Such feelings shouldn't bias our answers regarding factual questions. E.G., whether or not morality is subjective/objective is, in itself, a factual question and shouldn't be dictated by how one feels about the issue. "I don't want X to be true, so X isn't true" is a blatant fallacy known as wishful thinking, and it's easy for subjective emotions to cloud our views on such matters. Too often, people's feelings of "ewww" induce incorrect beliefs about the way the world is, and that wouldn't happen if one was being rational as well.

3. Finally, even given that such feelings have a basis in evolutionary psychology/biology as a means of helping us survive and reproduce, it's still important to recognize their subjectivity, meaning they only exist within the human mind. We're still capable of accepting/rejecting such emotions, and recognizing that different people have different emotional reactions to the same phenomena. It's also even possible to override evolutionary paradigms so that survival and reproduction don't become an agreed-upon goal at all. One such view is antinatalism that holds that birth is a net-negative and it would be better if humans stopped breeding and the species died out; and depending on what (subjective) values one starts with and values most, it's entirely possible to rationally argue that position.


----------



## janxharris

Five writers who disliked Shakespeare:

Leo Tolstoy
George Bernard Shaw
Voltaire
J.R.R. Tolkien
Robert Greene

In the introduction to 'On Shakespeare', a then-75-year-old Tolstoy admitted to rereading Shakespeare's complete works to see whether his tastes or opinions had changed over time. Never one to pull any punches, he concluded:

_"I have felt, with even greater force, the same feelings-this time, however, not of bewilderment, but of firm, indubitable conviction that the unquestionable glory of a great genius, which Shakespeare enjoys and which compels writers of our time to imitate him and readers and spectators to discover in him non-existent merits (thereby distorting their aesthetic and ethical understanding)-is a great evil, as is every untruth." _​


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> What does right or wrong mean in this context?
> 
> Whether one enjoys Tchaikovsky or finds his music sentimental or mawkish is a matter of how its emotional content is perceived, and many factors besides the music itself influence that. In a similar, personal example, I find much of Stravinsky's music cerebral and dry, and don't care for it. Others have a different reaction to it: they might not find it dry, or they might find it dry and enjoy it for that very reason. None of us are right or wrong. Sentimental, mawkish, cerebral, dry - do those words have any fixed meaning, and specifically in relation to music?
> 
> It may be that liking or disliking a certain composer's music could in some cases indicate a certain psychological makeup in a listener, but even if we could make precise personal diagnoses based on musical taste - which we can't - it wouldn't make the question of the rightness or wrongness of those tastes more meaningful, and it certainly wouldn't tell us whether the Tchaikovsky 6th "deserves" to be rated between the Brahms 1st and the Mahler 3rd. *If there's a real thing called artistic excellence*, citing our emotional responses to music, or polling listeners for theirs, isn't the way to to find it. That approach can only suggest places to look.


Do you mean: If there's a real thing called _*objective*_ artistic excellence?


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> Five writers who disliked Shakespeare:
> 
> Leo Tolstoy
> George Bernard Shaw
> Voltaire
> J.R.R. Tolkien
> Robert Greene
> In the introduction to 'On Shakespeare', a then-75-year-old Tolstoy admitted to rereading Shakespeare's complete works to see whether his tastes or opinions had changed over time. Never one to pull any punches, he concluded:
> 
> _"I have felt, with even greater force, the same *feelings*-this time, however, not of bewilderment, but of firm, indubitable conviction that the unquestionable glory of a great genius, which Shakespeare enjoys and which compels writers of our time to imitate him and readers and spectators to discover in him non-existent merits (thereby distorting their aesthetic and ethical understanding)-is a great evil, as is every untruth." _​


I'm not sure of your point in posting this, but note that Tolstoy refers to his _feelings _about Shakespeare. He doesn't make reference here to any evidence in his works that explains his dislike. Tantalisingly, he refers to what I think was in the OP's question: that the notion of his being a genius is a distorting influence on our appreciation of his works.


----------



## janxharris

Larkenfield said:


> He's a genius based upon his expressive power within _his entire body of works_... One might not like what he's saying but he 's courageously saying what he means, masterfully, and it's not his problem if others will sometimes feel uncomfortable or embarrassed by his open show of emotions or don't subjectively agree with him; he's using all the objective tools of composition as a master.
> 
> What a mess this thread has become in assessing music of great quality, as if a Corvette is viewed as having the same value in the marketplace as a Yugo just because both are cars, though it's certainly possible to enjoy both cars for different reasons. But there's obviously more of a demand for something of obvious quality on the objective world stage, out in the open, apparent to all who are interested, that keeps attracting listeners for generations. It helps to listen to the music from the composer's point of view and not just one's own. No one sets out to fail or be misunderstood.


Just to be clear - you are suggesting that detractors are at fault because his works remain popular?

Finding a composer's work overly sentimental isn't mere nitpicking, it's a serious challenge that goes to the very essence of a work. Nevertheless, I would never try to make any objective assertions about Tchaikovsky's music.


----------



## janxharris

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure of your point in posting this, but note that Tolstoy refers to his _feelings _about Shakespeare. He doesn't make reference here to any evidence in his works that explains his dislike. Tantalisingly, he refers to what I think was in the OP's question: that the notion of his being a genius is a distorting influence on our appreciation of his works.


I think I was just highlighting how surprising it is that such views are to be found among such eminent authors. But perhaps your observation - the distorting influence - is of greater import.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> Do you mean: If there's a real thing called _*objective*_ artistic excellence?


Heh heh. No, For one thing, that's redundant. Tchaikovsky's 6th is a brilliant piece of work, excellent in a great many ways - powerful form, interesting harmony (prominent interval of a fourth), great melodies, unique orchestral color... Definitely another creative leap for the composer. I wouldn't want to rub its evident quality in the faces of the aesthetic subjectivists, who can jolly well open their ears and hear it for themselves. I also think "objective' and "subjective" are epistenologically simplistic and deceptive, especially when applied to art - but that needs a longer essay than I'm prepared to write just now. I don't get paid for working hard around here!


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Heh heh. No, For one thing, that's redundant. *Tchaikovsky's 6th is a brilliant piece of work*, excellent in a great many ways. I wouldn't want to rub that in the faces of the aesthetic subjectivists, who can jolly well open their ears and hear it for themselves. I also think "objective' and "subjective" are epistenologically simplistic and deceptive, especially when applied to art - but that needs a longer essay than I'm prepared to write just now. I don't get paid for working hard around here!


Er...no, your Aesthetic-Perception-Apparatus tells you its a brilliant piece of work, but others will, inevitably, report differently using their own APA.

I think I didn't quite conclude (from my perspective at any rate) our earlier discussion about the APA, which was to observe that even if we agree that possession of APA is near-universal, it still doesn't get us to agreement on _what _we have perceived and how to weight one factor against another so we end up with a set of agreed criteria that tells us "this is brilliant" and "this is pants".


----------



## PlaySalieri

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure of your point in posting this, but note that Tolstoy refers to his _feelings _about Shakespeare. He doesn't make reference here to any evidence in his works that explains his dislike. Tantalisingly, he refers to what I think was in the OP's question: that the notion of his being a genius is a distorting influence on our appreciation of his works.


I have read all tolstoys comments on Shakespeare - and this is just a snippet. Bear in mind Tolstoy may have spoken some English but I am not certain he had the command of the language to appreciate Shakespeare's utter mastery of figurative language, allusion and his many other skills. he may have relied upon translation which at that time may not have been good. Russian speakers on the whole dont get jane Austen - many think it's cheap romantic fiction. So I wouldn't put too much value on the ramblings of an aged Tolstoy. In any case his successors in Russia largely disagaree with him - Pasternak translated Shakespeare and his principal plays were all turned into highly regarded Soviet films.


----------



## janxharris

Strange Magic said:


> Regarding the "ewww" factor and its variants, a partial basis for them can be found in certain biological traits in human behavior (seen in other animals also) that are induced and moderated by hormones and that are the result of evolutionary pressure. The maternal bond is one example; the broad general term "empathy" is another. There is a certain resistance to actually killing other humans that was much more successfully expressed before we acquired the use of weapons other than our bare, empty hands, but even so simple a thing as picking up a rock and striking another in the heat of one's rage began the short-circuiting of that evolutionary stricture so necessary up until then for our survival as a species--as a general rule, there is little mortality from intraspecific strife among animals. The point of this is that a morality can be crafted from these "innate" biological/hormonally-induced predispositions augmented by rationally-derived analyses of what's best for the long-term well-being of both individuals and societies. One example is the notion of full female equality, and the many benefits that would flow from such a state, such as a small, stable population enjoying a high standard of living in a sustainable world.


How do you relate this to the OP?


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> Er...no, your Aesthetic-Perception-Apparatus tells you its a brilliant piece of work, but others will, inevitably, report differently using their own APA.


I hesitate to advertise, once again, my patented Great-o-Meter. I played the Pathetique for it, and how many milli-Ludwigs did it register? No, sorry, you'll just have to buy it to find out. Otherwise, these arguments will go on forever.

As always, available on eBay, PayPal accepted, three easy payments, first annual recalibration is free. New model with expanded scales!


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> Er...no, your Aesthetic-Perception-Apparatus tells you its a brilliant piece of work, but others will, inevitably, report differently using their own APA.
> 
> I think I didn't quite conclude (from my perspective at any rate) our earlier discussion about the APA, which was to observe that even if we agree that possession of APA is near-universal, it still doesn't get us to agreement on _what _we have perceived and how to weight one factor against another so we end up with a set of agreed criteria that tells us "this is brilliant" and "this is pants".


Er...no, I know its a brilliant piece of work. There's nothing about it that isn't that. It's one of the greatest symphonies of the Romantic era. Besides, I have no reason to be impressed by Kanye West's APA. He can keep his pants too.


----------



## Woodduck

stomanek said:


> I have read all tolstoys comments on Shakespeare - and this is just a snippet. Bear in mind Tolstoy may have spoken some English but I am not certain he had the command of the language to appreciate Shakespeare's utter mastery of figurative language, allusion and his many other skills. he may have relied upon translation which at that time may not have been good. Russian speakers on the whole dont get jane Austen - many think it's cheap romantic fiction. So *I wouldn't put too much value on the ramblings of an aged Tolstoy.* In any case his successors in Russia largely disagaree with him - Pasternak translated Shakespeare and his principal plays were all turned into highly regarded Soviet films.


Neither would I. Tolstoy thought music was evil. Who listens to Tolstoy?


----------



## Jacck

*Shakespeare Sucks! by Leo Tolstoy*
https://www.everywritersresource.com/shakespeare-sucks-by-leo-tolstoy/
*Why It's OK To Hate Shakespeare*
https://thoughtcatalog.com/michael-malice/2014/08/why-its-ok-to-hate-shakespeare/

to me, Shakespeare is kind of like Mozart - the producer of ingenious kitch


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> *Shakespeare Sucks! by Leo Tolstoy*
> https://www.everywritersresource.com/shakespeare-sucks-by-leo-tolstoy/


Well it makes interesting reading, but I do wonder why, given his feelings of "irresistible repulsion and tedium", he nevertheless reports that he "Several times [...] read the dramas and the comedies and historical plays,". That's quite some determination to dislike something!

Just taking his first complaint, that Lear's actions do not flow from his character, I think his criticisms are flawed. It is in his desire to abdicate the throne and in the rejection of Cordelia's truth-speaking that we perceive his character. Prior to that, we don't have much to go on.


----------



## Jacck

MacLeod said:


> Well it makes interesting reading, but I do wonder why, given his feelings of "irresistible repulsion and tedium", he nevertheless reports that he "Several times [...] read the dramas and the comedies and historical plays,". That's quite some determination to dislike something!.


I can relate to that. I keep on trying listening to Mozart despite that I just plain dislike most of his music. I think that it is the pressure of the crowd. Everyone says that Mozart is great, so I doubt my own judgement and listen to Mozart again and again in the hope to finally see his greatnest too.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> I can relate to that. I keep on trying listening to Mozart despite that I just plain dislike most of his music. I think that it is the pressure of the crowd. Everyone says that Mozart is great, so I doubt my own judgement and listen to Mozart again and again in the hope to finally see his greatnest too.


Why not start with mere enjoyment, never mind greatness?


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> Why not start with mere enjoyment, never mind greatness?


Another alternative: Simply don't listen to Mozart. We even have some people around here who dislike Beethoven's music (not many, but a few). So far, they have avoided involuntary commitment.


----------



## janxharris

MacLeod said:


> Well it makes interesting reading, but I do wonder why, given his feelings of "irresistible repulsion and tedium", he nevertheless reports that he "Several times [...] read the dramas and the comedies and historical plays,". That's quite some determination to dislike something!


I believe he was checking whether or not his youthful criticism would still hold in his old age.


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> I can relate to that. I keep on trying listening to Mozart despite that I just plain dislike most of his music. I think that it is the pressure of the crowd. Everyone says that Mozart is great, so I doubt my own judgement and listen to Mozart again and again in the hope to finally see his greatnest too.


Don't forget my experience with Webern's Symphony - over 30 tries before I liked it.


----------



## DavidA

Jacck said:


> I can relate to that. I keep on trying listening to Mozart despite that I just plain dislike most of his music. I think that it is the pressure of the crowd. Everyone says that Mozart is great, so I doubt my own judgement and listen to Mozart again and again in the hope to finally see his greatnest too.


Mozart is great. Just not for you. Maybe come to it later


----------



## Haydn70

janxharris said:


> I guess any objectivity would cover every and all possible subjects of interest. If we look at the previously posted assertion that Jupiter was > the Mendelssohn Violin Concerto then perhaps it needs to be established if we are comparing like with like. Since both are 'classical' sounding (though obviously the later leans somewhat to Romanticism), then both are quite abstract - so it is difficult to establish exact subject matter. Complicating things further, for all we know, more people might like the sound world of the orchestra as opposed to that of a violin dominated one. Perhaps more people are drawn to the jollity of the Mozart?
> 
> If it's just about harmonic language then I'd probably go with the Jupiter. So too - counterpoint. But, of course, efficacy of orchestration might be important.


Sorry to go bit off course here but I saw 'Mendelssohn' and 'counterpoint'. True, there are not many examples of counterpoint that can compare to the coda of the last movement of the Jupiter but Mendelssohn could compose great (yes, great...I am making an absolutist statement!) counterpoint himself...and at the age of 16 no less!






Once again apologies...we now return to our regularly scheduled programming...


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> Er...no, I know its a brilliant piece of work. There's nothing about it that isn't that. It's one of the greatest symphonies of the Romantic era.


Imho it isn't as you describe, but I respect your subjective view.


----------



## janxharris

If composers did not write their works expressly for some hypothetical objective authority to judge their merits by, but wrote them for humanity to experience, then need anyone attempt to do otherwise?


----------



## Jacck

janxharris said:


> Don't forget my experience with Webern's Symphony - over 30 tries before I liked it.


yes, but with Schoenberg or Webern their music intrigued me, so although I did not enjoy at first, I was intrigued, interested and kept on listening, because I felt there is some depth beyond the initial ugliness (and I was right). On the other hand Mozart's music sounds like it has no depth, like it is a superficial kitsch and there is nothing to be gained by repeated listening. All his music sounds very similar, almost the same, the same harmonies, the same ornaments, the same "happy, playful, cheery kitsch"


----------



## DavidA

Jacck said:


> yes, but with Schoenberg or Webern their music intrigued me, so although I did not enjoy at first, I was intrigued, interested and kept on listening, because I felt there is some depth beyond the initial ugliness (and I was right). On the other hand Mozart's music sounds like it has no depth, like it is a superficial kitsch and there is nothing to be gained by repeated listening. All his music sounds very similar, almost the same, the same harmonies, the same ornaments, the same "happy, playful, cheery kitsch"


Schoenberg and Webern intrigued me with their music. And after listening a few times I decided I never wanted to hear it again! If you think Mozart's music has no depth then maybe the fault might be in your perception.


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> yes, but with Schoenberg or Webern their music intrigued me, so although I did not enjoy at first, I was intrigued, interested and kept on listening, because I felt there is some depth beyond the initial ugliness (and I was right). On the other hand Mozart's music sounds like it has no depth, like it is a superficial kitsch and there is nothing to be gained by repeated listening. All his music sounds very similar, almost the same, the same harmonies, the same ornaments, the same "happy, playful, cheery kitsch"


Okay 

By the way - am liking the Shostakovich Quintet now - thanks for the suggestion.


----------



## Nereffid

DavidA said:


> Schoenberg and Webern intrigued me with their music. And after listening a few times I decided I never wanted to hear it again! If you think Mozart's music has no depth then maybe the fault might be in your perception.


Or one might not use the word "fault". A telescope has trouble seeing bacteria, but that doesn't mean the telescope is faulty.


----------



## Strange Magic

janxharris said:


> How do you relate this to the OP?


I can't, really. I wandered off the OP by commenting on what are several others' wanderings from the OP--couldn't help myself! 

To KenOC: I hold the patents on the original Greatness Meter. My lawyers, led by Michael Avenatti and Rudy Giuliani, are even now preparing a lawsuit against you for infringement .


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> yes, but with Schoenberg or Webern their music intrigued me, so although I did not enjoy at first, I was intrigued, interested and kept on listening,


Exactly so. Something attracts you and keeps you listening. That's not the same as Tolstoy persisting in spite of disliking! (Of course, if he only read the texts and didn't watch a production, he'd have been missing out big time.)


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> I hold the patents on the original Greatness Meter. .


Why faff about with a Greatness Meter? One can simply flip The One Objective Absolute Eternal Truth Coin and see if it comes up Yes It Is or No It Isn't.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Whenever I hear something in contemporary culture touted as "great" (or "awesome." or "iconic," etc., etc.) something in me hopes that I'll never have to see or hear it.......


So true. For me the word is "incredible", as uttered in praise by Donald Trump, Mike Pence, or Sarah Huckabee Sanders. My reaction is always to say in my head: "Incredible means Not Credible". Then it makes remarkable sense.



Woodduck said:


> The perception of real greatness has nothing to do with the crowd, but only with engaging one's faculties fully with the object of interest, and perhaps seeking insight, _but not sanction_, from knowledgeable and thoughtful fellow observers.


An excellent evocation and expression of the essentially personal, uniquely subjective nature of the appreciation of music and the other arts. We seek fellowship and comfort from the fact that we can find others sharing (some of) our particular enthusiasms.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> I can relate to that. I keep on trying listening to Mozart despite that I just plain dislike most of his music. I think that it is the pressure of the crowd. Everyone says that Mozart is great, so I doubt my own judgement and listen to Mozart again and again in the hope to finally see his greatnest too.


When I first began listening to classical music I bought CDs by all the usual suspects (well, most), guided by my Jan Swafford book. Thus, I have quite a few CDs by Mozart, Beethoven, Bach etc. Since I own them I have listened to them quite a lot. Some I love, some I enjoy a little, one or two I could well live without. So, between you and me Jacck, don't sweat it, _I_ don't think Mozart is great either.


----------



## Strange Magic

dogen said:


> When I first began listening to classical music I bought CDs by all the usual suspects (well, most), guided by my Jan Swafford book. Thus, I have quite a few CDs by Mozart, Beethoven, Bach etc. Since I own them I have listened to them quite a lot. Some I love, some I enjoy a little, one or two I could well live without. So, between you and me Jacck, don't sweat it, _I_ don't think Mozart is great either.


While I am at variance with your assessment of Mozart--strong variance to be sure!--I concur with your general thesis that everyone's taste is unique, personal, and valid.


----------



## DavidA

Nereffid said:


> Or one might not use the word "fault". A telescope has trouble seeing bacteria, but that doesn't mean the telescope is faulty.


Limitation perhaps is a better word?


----------



## janxharris

Maybe there is a link between one's preferences and one's life experiences / psychological make-up.

It might be worth investigating...


----------



## DavidA

'Greatness' is surely something reached by general consensus. Einstein and Newton are reckoned to be great scientists. Why? Because the majority of people - including scientists - say they are. Similar composers like Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are reckoned to be great by general consensus of musicians. That some people don't like them is neither here nor there. It is the general consensus that counts.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Jacck said:


> *Shakespeare Sucks! by Leo Tolstoy*
> https://www.everywritersresource.com/shakespeare-sucks-by-leo-tolstoy/
> *Why It's OK To Hate Shakespeare*
> https://thoughtcatalog.com/michael-malice/2014/08/why-its-ok-to-hate-shakespeare/
> 
> to me, Shakespeare is kind of like Mozart - the producer of ingenious kitch





Jacck said:


> yes, but with Schoenberg or Webern their music intrigued me, so although I did not enjoy at first, I was intrigued, interested and kept on listening, because I felt there is some depth beyond the initial ugliness (and I was right). On the other hand Mozart's music sounds like it has no depth, like it is a superficial kitsch and there is nothing to be gained by repeated listening. All his music sounds very similar, almost the same, the same harmonies, the same ornaments, the same "happy, playful, cheery kitsch"


I think in both cases you'd have difficulty making the case for them being kitsch. Both wrote/composed works that were highly challenging to the audiences of their day. Hamlet was a pretty ingenious subversion of the revenge tragedy genre, that basically used its tropes of external conflict as a means to reflect on an internal one. Beyond that, Shakespeare was hugely responsible for expanding the form of drama, as before his time the classic unities were held as the ideal form of drama. Shakespeare openly flouted that, even being so bold to leap over years. He was instrumental in shifting focus from action-motivated to character-motivated. It's quite enlightening if you read the early Henry VI trilogy, which was almost certainly co-written with other playwrights, and compare it to Henry IV/V, and note how radically Shakespeare has reduced action and plot and how much time he spends on developing characters and examining thematic material. There's a reason that Harold Bloom titled one of his studies on Shakespeare The Invention of the Human, because Shakespeare was more responsible than anyone in English literature for emphasizing the importance of characters as 3-dimensional human beings rather than 1-dimensional archetypes. This is all, of course, completely ignoring his genius-level facility with language and meter, his never-ending imagination when it came to metaphor, simile, and rhetorical devices. The only way Shakespeare is "kitsch" is in the simple fact that his plays are enjoyable because of their drama or humor; but there's far more to them than just that.

Similarly, there are numerous writings from Mozart's times from people being rather baffled by his works--not all of them, but some of them for sure. There's little doubting that of that era, Haydn was the composer that was more apt to readily please by appealing to the tastes of the day. Mozart's later works, especially, are already showing hints of what was to become romanticism, and certainly the operas were on the cutting edge of the art, IMO far in advance even of what Gluck was doing at the time. For every Eine Kleine Nachtmusik Mozart wrote--meaning superficially pleasing works with sparkling melodies and not a lot of musical/emotional substance--he also wrote a Jupiter Symphony with its complex counterpoint, or a Piano Concerto no. 20 with its advanced dramatic dialogue between solo instrument and orchestra, or a Figaro which incorporated various classical structures in the context of opera, etc. That's not to say that there aren't also superficial pleasures to be found in both Mozart or Shakespeare, but to suggest that's all there is flat-out false. You may not care about the "other things" there--that's the subjective aspect of aesthetic values--but they are no absent or lacking.

Also, if you think Mozart is always "happy, playful and cheery," then I question how much Mozart you could've heard:






















I remember a friend of mine once said that the second movement of Mozart's 23rd Piano Concerto should come with a trigger warning. Now, I'd grant that these works are in the minority in Mozart's oeuvre, but he was a composer of the classical era; the vast majority of music from that period IS happy, playful, and cheery. Still, Mozart finds these perfect little pockets of profundity that I think hit all the harder precisely because they are rarer, and often because they exist in the context of otherwise happy, playful, and cheery works. Figaro and Don Giovanni are pretty light-hearted fair until the end, and then you have these moments of heartbreaking reconciliation and of heroic (or foolish, depending on your perspective) defiance of damnation. If you ask me, that's much closer to resembling life as it is; meaning the majority of our lives are spent in frivolity, with only brief moments where we experience or reflect on something deeper and more meaningful. We don't spend every moment of our lives fighting heroic battles, after all. So I think that approach makes Mozart among the most humanistic of all composers; much like how Shakespeare's emphasis on character over action makes him among the most humanistic of all writers.


----------



## janxharris

DavidA said:


> 'Greatness' is surely something reached by general consensus. Einstein and Newton are reckoned to be great scientists. Why? Because the majority of people - including scientists - say they are. Similar composers like Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are reckoned to be great by general consensus of musicians. That some people don't like them is neither here nor there. It is the general consensus that counts.


...but equations / theories are verifiable on paper...


----------



## DavidA

janxharris said:


> ...but equations / theories are verifiable on paper...


We're talking about generally conceived opinions not mathematical formulae


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> We're talking about generally conceived opinions not mathematical formulae


The point being made is that scientific advancement is objective. Art, not.


----------



## Blancrocher

dogen said:


> The point being made is that scientific advancement is objective. Art, not.


Yeah right ... you might want to take a look at the Audiophile Subforum.


----------



## Nereffid

DavidA said:


> Limitation perhaps is a better word?


Not really, no. "This instrument that was built to see things that are very far away is _limited_ by the fact that it can't see things that are nearby and very small". Nope, doesn't sound right.


----------



## janxharris

The Mozart 23rd pf concerto 2nd movement has come up before - and is indeed stunning.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Blancrocher said:


> Yeah right ... you might want to take a look at the Audiophile Subforum.


The audiophile world is a good example of what happens when people reject science in favor of their own subjectivity. A fool and their money are quickly parted and all that.


----------



## janxharris

Blancrocher said:


> Yeah right ... you might want to take a look at the Audiophile Subforum.


?
......................................


----------



## Strange Magic

> DavidA: "'Greatness' is surely something reached by general consensus. Einstein and Newton are reckoned to be great scientists. Why? Because the majority of people - including scientists - say they are. Similar composers like Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are reckoned to be great by general consensus of musicians. That some people don't like them is neither here nor there. It is the general consensus that counts."





> janxharris: "...but equations / theories are verifiable on paper..."


The point is that the theories of Einstein and Newton are verifiable in the real, physical world.


----------



## Blancrocher

Strange Magic said:


> The point is that the theories of Einstein and Newton are verifiable in the real, physical world.


The theories of Alfred Einstein about Mozart, otoh, are verifiable in a better place, perhaps.


----------



## Strange Magic

Blancrocher said:


> The theories of Alfred Einstein about Mozart, otoh, are verifiable in a better place, perhaps.


I remember that Einstein: the "other Einstein". Just like that "other Schonberg"; the one who lost his _Umlaut_, perhaps in a restaurant.....


----------



## Jacck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I think in both cases you'd have difficulty making the case for them being kitsch. Both wrote/composed works that were highly challenging to the audiences of their day. Hamlet was a pretty ingenious subversion of the revenge tragedy genre, that basically used its tropes of external conflict as a means to reflect on an internal one. Beyond that, Shakespeare was hugely responsible for expanding the form of drama, as before his time the classic unities were held as the ideal form of drama. Shakespeare openly flouted that, even being so bold to leap over years. He was instrumental in shifting focus from action-motivated to character-motivated. It's quite enlightening if you read the early Henry VI trilogy, which was almost certainly co-written with other playwrights, and compare it to Henry IV/V, and note how radically Shakespeare has reduced action and plot and how much time he spends on developing characters and examining thematic material. There's a reason that Harold Bloom titled one of his studies on Shakespeare The Invention of the Human, because Shakespeare was more responsible than anyone in English literature for emphasizing the importance of characters as 3-dimensional human beings rather than 1-dimensional archetypes. This is all, of course, completely ignoring his genius-level facility with language and meter, his never-ending imagination when it came to metaphor, simile, and rhetorical devices. The only way Shakespeare is "kitsch" is in the simple fact that his plays are enjoyable because of their drama or humor; but there's far more to them than just that.


I can't argue about Shakespeare with you because your knowledge of him is much higher than mine. I guess I read only 1 work of his (probably Hamlet, or King Lear) long time ago and in translation. It struck me as a little melodramatic with the characters behaving irrationally, but there were snippets of wisdom here and there. So I respect Shakespeare, although he seems to be too idealized in the English speaking world. You describe what everything he invented, but the same can be found already in the Greek tragedies. Lawrence Sterne (whom I read not long ago) seems more inovative.

Concerning Mozart, I can see that he was genius and most his music is of very high craftsmanship, but much of his music somehow does not work aesthetically for me. I know most of the pieces that you linked to and I am certainly not as enthusiastic as yourself. His Requiem is nice, but would not place even in my top 10 of requiems, I prefer Faure, Liszt, Saint-Saëns, Brahms, Verdi, Dvořák or even Hindemith and Ligeti. But to be fair, there is some music of his that I like - his string quartets and quintets and I am slowly starting to like some of his piano sonatas or even piano concerti (there are some passages which are almost banal and passages which are beautiful, so I am ambivalent). I find it strange that I react to Mozart in this manner, because he is almost the only composer with whom I have these problems. Haydn's music is much more accessible for me. I have no problem with Haydn. So I am constantly trying to find out what disturbs or irritates me about Mozart so much. Is it that his music has been so heavily abused (played in malls and elevators) that I became subconsciously alergic to it? Or is it his overuse of musical clichés? Is it too much perfection? Is is lack of emotions? I do not know. Maybe I will start liking him in the future (I certainly would like to)


----------



## Woodduck

Jacck said:


> Concerning Mozart, *I can see that he was genius and most his music is of very high craftsmanship, but much of his music somehow does not work aesthetically for me.* I know most of the pieces that you linked to and I am certainly not as enthusiastic as yourself. His Requiem is nice, but would not place even in my top 10 of requiems, I prefer Faure, Liszt, Saint-Saëns, Brahms, Verdi, Dvořák or even Hindemith and Ligeti. But to be fair, there is some music of his that I like - his string quartets and quintets and I am slowly starting to like some of his piano sonatas or even piano concerti (there are some passages which are almost banal and passages which are beautiful, so I am ambivalent). I find it strange that I react to Mozart in this manner, because he is almost the only composer with whom I have these problems. Haydn's music is much more accessible for me. I have no problem with Haydn. So I am constantly trying to find out what disturbs or irritates me about Mozart so much. Is it that his music has been so heavily abused (played in malls and elevators) that I became subconsciously alergic to it? Or is it his overuse of musical clichés? Is it too much perfection? Is is lack of emotions? I do not know. Maybe I will start liking him in the future (I certainly would like to)


"Aesthetically" is precisely how Mozart's music does work, whether one cares for it or not. Music of "very high craftsmanship" is music that's beautifully made. "Aesthetics" is concerned with the nature of beauty and the artistic principles by which beauty is achieved. It's the extraordinary and consistent aesthetic beauty of his work that has won Mozart the admiration of virtually all musicians, who know a well-made thing when they hear it. It seems that you can hear it too - at least to a substantial extent - even if the music doesn't speak to you personally. Of course there's a lot more to Mozart than beauty, which may become clear to you eventually.

I make this point solely in order to introduce a note of clarity into a discussion in which things that are different easily become conflated, often because words are vaguely defined nor misused. In this case it's the difference between aesthetic perception and personal taste, which often affect one another but are still different. It is not only possible but common to recognize the excellence of music one dislikes, or to enjoy the inferior or the commonplace.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> 'Greatness' is surely something reached by general consensus. Einstein and Newton are reckoned to be great scientists. Why? Because the majority of people - including scientists - say they are. Similar composers like Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are reckoned to be great by general consensus of musicians. That some people don't like them is neither here nor there. It is the general consensus that counts.


The problem with this is when "general consensus" makes a case for the greatness of things that one doesn't like (Kendrick Lamar for instance) especially in the field of popular music. I have no trouble with the idea that 'Mozart is _regarded _as great, because a lot of people tell me so', but general consensus only tells us that a lot of people think he is - not that he definitively is, regardless of the numbers involved.

As for the idea that Newton is great because there is a consensus that tells us he is, don't you think his science might have had something to do with it?


----------



## Enthusiast

MacLeod said:


> As for the idea that Newton is great because there is a consensus that tells us he is, don't you think his science might have had something to do with it?


I must admit I have lost track of this thread but ... so I hope I am offering something relevant here.

When it comes to the idea that Bach is great because there is a consensus that tells us so, that also has something to do with his achievement (music in his case) in just the same way as Newton's greatness. In fact an artist's claim to objective and true greatness may be more secure than is the case for many great scientists. Certainly, there are many scientists who are remembered as the inventors or discoverers of this or that but who should really share that claim with many others who we now forget. And when it comes to theory, is it not the case that a theory leads until it is replaced by a better one (one that explains even more)? Newton's theories were eaten by Einstein's.

To move on to science and art (from scientists and artists), is there really a claim that science is more objectively true and great than a work of art? Both contain great achievements. The only difference I can see is that what we know in science may go on to be just as true after we have been wiped from the face of the Earth but art may just become junk without us being there to appreciate and be stirred by it.


----------



## Guillet81

Kieran said:


> But the likes of "Mozart, or whomever" are called "great" because their music has withstood every musical fad, every shifting scene, every new discovery and psychological examination, every change in historical reality, to be seen to portray humanity - regardless of whether empires exist, or fall, and regardless of whether we're atheist, or devout, and regardless of whether their own world of powdered wigs has long since ceased to exist...


^^ This. Mozart, Bach, Handel, Beethoven, and the other very few elite composers have withstood the test of time. Nobody is being hoodwinked into liking their works simply because of the name.


----------



## mmsbls

MacLeod said:


> The problem with this is when "general consensus" makes a case for the greatness of things that one doesn't like (Kendrick Lamar for instance) especially in the field of popular music. I have no trouble with the idea that 'Mozart is _regarded _as great, because a lot of people tell me so', but general consensus only tells us that a lot of people think he is - not that he definitively is, regardless of the numbers involved.
> 
> As for the idea that Newton is great because there is a consensus that tells us he is, don't you think his science might have had something to do with it?


Greatness is clearly a very tough concept to define and accurately identify. In the case of Newton, I don't think his science has much to do with most people identifying him as great. As a physicist, I recognize his scientific achievements as exceptional to the point where "great" may be an understatement, but probably at least 90-95% of people don't understand his work or may not even know his work. Those people certainly can't point to his work as reasons why he is great. They can only say that experts view Newton as an exceptional physicist.

Expert is not so easy to define, and people can disagree on who is an expert, but maybe we can view an expert as someone who:
- has studied a field extensively
- has interacted with others who have studied the field extensively
- is viewed by those others as exceptionally knowledgeable about the field.

For those not very knowledgeable about a field (e.g. rap music), they really can only point to people they view as especially knowledgeable to give them guidance on greatness or on something along the lines of those who produce exceptional work.

Of course there is the problem that someone may be viewed as an expert in a particular field while experts in another field may view them as quacks (e.g. UFOs, alternative medicine, ESP, etc.).


----------



## PlaySalieri

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I think in both cases you'd have difficulty making the case for them being kitsch. Both wrote/composed works that were highly challenging to the audiences of their day. Hamlet was a pretty ingenious subversion of the revenge tragedy genre, that basically used its tropes of external conflict as a means to reflect on an internal one. Beyond that, Shakespeare was hugely responsible for expanding the form of drama, as before his time the classic unities were held as the ideal form of drama. Shakespeare openly flouted that, even being so bold to leap over years. He was instrumental in shifting focus from action-motivated to character-motivated. It's quite enlightening if you read the early Henry VI trilogy, which was almost certainly co-written with other playwrights, and compare it to Henry IV/V, and note how radically Shakespeare has reduced action and plot and how much time he spends on developing characters and examining thematic material. There's a reason that Harold Bloom titled one of his studies on Shakespeare The Invention of the Human, because Shakespeare was more responsible than anyone in English literature for emphasizing the importance of characters as 3-dimensional human beings rather than 1-dimensional archetypes. This is all, of course, completely ignoring his genius-level facility with language and meter, his never-ending imagination when it came to metaphor, simile, and rhetorical devices. The only way Shakespeare is "kitsch" is in the simple fact that his plays are enjoyable because of their drama or humor; but there's far more to them than just that.
> 
> Similarly, there are numerous writings from Mozart's times from people being rather baffled by his works--not all of them, but some of them for sure. There's little doubting that of that era, Haydn was the composer that was more apt to readily please by appealing to the tastes of the day. Mozart's later works, especially, are already showing hints of what was to become romanticism, and certainly the operas were on the cutting edge of the art, IMO far in advance even of what Gluck was doing at the time. For every Eine Kleine Nachtmusik Mozart wrote--meaning superficially pleasing works with sparkling melodies and not a lot of musical/emotional substance--he also wrote a Jupiter Symphony with its complex counterpoint, or a Piano Concerto no. 20 with its advanced dramatic dialogue between solo instrument and orchestra, or a Figaro which incorporated various classical structures in the context of opera, etc. That's not to say that there aren't also superficial pleasures to be found in both Mozart or Shakespeare, but to suggest that's all there is flat-out false. You may not care about the "other things" there--that's the subjective aspect of aesthetic values--but they are no absent or lacking.
> 
> Also, if you think Mozart is always "happy, playful and cheery," then I question how much Mozart you could've heard:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember a friend of mine once said that the second movement of Mozart's 23rd Piano Concerto should come with a trigger warning. Now, I'd grant that these works are in the minority in Mozart's oeuvre, but he was a composer of the classical era; the vast majority of music from that period IS happy, playful, and cheery. Still, Mozart finds these perfect little pockets of profundity that I think hit all the harder precisely because they are rarer, and often because they exist in the context of otherwise happy, playful, and cheery works. Figaro and Don Giovanni are pretty light-hearted fair until the end, and then you have these moments of heartbreaking reconciliation and of heroic (or foolish, depending on your perspective) defiance of damnation. If you ask me, that's much closer to resembling life as it is; meaning the majority of our lives are spent in frivolity, with only brief moments where we experience or reflect on something deeper and more meaningful. We don't spend every moment of our lives fighting heroic battles, after all. So I think that approach makes Mozart among the most humanistic of all composers; much like how Shakespeare's emphasis on character over action makes him among the most humanistic of all writers.


I agree with absolutely every word - wish I had your eloquence and ability to express complexities with such efficient style.


----------



## mmsbls

Enthusiast said:


> ...
> To move on to science and art (from scientists and artists), is there really a claim that science is more objectively true and great than a work of art? Both contain great achievements. The only difference I can see is that what we know in science may go on to be just as true after we have been wiped from the face of the Earth but art may just become junk without us being there to appreciate and be stirred by it.


Science's objective statements are claims about reality that can be empirically tested. Scientists believe that all people who have understood a field along with the equipment used to test hypotheses will be able to test scientific claims and eventually agree on their accuracy. Actually scientists believe this is true not only of people but all sentient beings in reality.

Composers (along with performers) create music that affects our brains. The affect on people's brains varies from person to person and also with time. I don't think anyone believes that observers would find the same affect (e.g. "this is wonderful music" or "this composer is great") in all people.


----------



## Jacck

Woodduck said:


> "Aesthetically" is precisely how Mozart's music does work, whether one cares for it or not. Music of "very high craftsmanship" is music that's beautifully made. "Aesthetics" is concerned with the nature of beauty and the artistic principles by which beauty is achieved. It's the extraordinary and consistent aesthetic beauty of his work that has won Mozart the admiration of virtually all musicians, who know a well-made thing when they hear it. It seems that you can hear it too - at least to a substantial extent - even if the music doesn't speak to you personally. Of course there's a lot more to Mozart than beauty, which may become clear to you eventually. I make this point solely in order to introduce a note of clarity into a discussion in which things that are different easily become conflated, often because words are vaguely defined nor misused. In this case it's the difference between aesthetic perception and personal taste, which often affect one another but are still different. It is not only possible but common to recognize the excellence of music one dislikes, or to enjoy the inferior or the commonplace.


I know that you are trying to defend beauty as something existing out there objectively, but in my opinon you are defending the indefensible. Take smells. Humans find some smells pleasant and other unpleasant, and dogs find totally different smells pleasant and unpleasant. There is no objective pleasantness or unpleasantness in smells. The only objective things are the molecules that diffuse in the air. The same with music and everything else. The only objective thing about music are the patterns in air vibrations. Beauty and the whole aestethics is in the eye of the beholder.
To define beauty objectively, we would need to be able to quantify it with a number. Theoretically, we could develop some algoritm to derive such quantity from the notes, but the algoritm would still be designed by human observers and would not show anything objective. Aesthetics is a purely subjectivist discipline and the best best to study it objectively is psychology and neuroscience, which can study why the human brain finds certain patterns pleasing
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-neuroscience-of-beauty/
https://www.amazon.com/Aesthetic-Brain-Evolved-Desire-Beauty/dp/019026201X


----------



## PlaySalieri

Jacck said:


> *I know that you are trying to defend beauty as something existing out there objectively,* but in my opinon you are defending the indefensible. Take smells. Humans find some smells pleasant and other unpleasant, and dogs find totally different smells pleasant and unpleasant. There is no objective pleasantness or unpleasantness in smells. The only objective things are the molecules that diffuse in the air. The same with music and everything else. The only objective thing about music are the patterns in air vibrations. Beauty and the whole aestethics is in the eye of the beholder.
> To define beauty objectively, we would need to be able to quantify it with a number. Theoretically, we could develop some algoritm to derive such quantity from the notes, but the algoritm would still be designed by human observers and would not show anything objective. Aesthetics is a purely subjectivist discipline and the best best to study it objectively is psychology and neuroscience, which can study why the human brain finds certain patterns pleasing
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-neuroscience-of-beauty/
> https://www.amazon.com/Aesthetic-Brain-Evolved-Desire-Beauty/dp/019026201X


* I can see that he was genius and most his music is of very high craftsmanship, but much of his music somehow does not work aesthetically for me.
*

what exactly do you mean you can "see he was a genius"? If you can see that then you can also enjoy his music. You have said that there is very high craftsmanship - but how can you accept this if you dont like the music. If there is nothing in Mozart that you can enjoy - then his genius for you must be empty.

As for me - I don't particularly like the music of Bartok. People have told me he a genius - I can't hear that - I have no opinion one way or another as the music does not interest me. Perhaps it is music composed to a high level of craftsmanship - i dont know - again - I cant hear much merit in it at all. I would have to sit on the fence.

You dislike Mozart - yet claim he is a genius who composes to a very high level.

That makes little, if any, sense.


----------



## Enthusiast

mmsbls said:


> Science's objective statements are claims about reality that can be empirically tested. Scientists believe that all people who have understood a field along with the equipment used to test hypotheses will be able to test scientific claims and eventually agree on their accuracy. Actually scientists believe this is true not only of people but all sentient beings in reality.
> 
> Composers (along with performers) create music that affects our brains. The affect on people's brains varies from person to person and also with time. I don't think anyone believes that observers would find the same affect (e.g. "this is wonderful music" or "this composer is great") in all people.


Most of what you say about science is, of course, true and it more or less agrees with the paragraph of mine that you quote. But science doesn't arrive at the truth. The theories it chooses after testing them empirically are truer than other theories but there are always findings that don't fit, that can't be explained by currently accepted theories. So there is an understanding that a better theory - one that explains everything so far explained and the bits that don't fit, as well - must be possible. I guess what I am saying in this is something like Karl Popper's view of what science does.

But my main point - the one you may disagree with - was that art can probably only be great for our own species. And, yes, I accept that there is probably only a certain proportion of people in a population of us who are wired to really enjoy music. I believe, though, that the proportion of people who are wired in this way will be similar in any population. But only some of them ever get the opportunity to develop this facility.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> Greatness is clearly a very tough concept to define and accurately identify. In the case of Newton, I don't think his science has much to do with most people identifying him as great.


My point was only that _if _Newton is to be genuinely regarded as 'great', then it is not consensus alone that confers greatness, but consensus about what his achievements were in comparison to others working in the same field. Substitute any scientist of your choice, the same applies.



Enthusiast said:


> To move on to science and art (from scientists and artists), is there really a claim that science is more objectively true and great than a work of art? Both contain great achievements.


See mmsbls #392. If you can empirically test the greatness of the works of artists, I'd be interested to know your method!


----------



## DavidA

dogen said:


> The point being made is that scientific advancement is objective. Art, not.


Yes but the assessment of that achievement is far more subjective as the assessment of musical achievement.


----------



## Jacck

stomanek said:


> * I can see that he was genius and most his music is of very high craftsmanship, but much of his music somehow does not work aesthetically for me.*. what exactly do you mean you can "see he was a genius"? If you can see that then you can also enjoy his music. You have said that there is very high craftsmanship - but how can you accept this if you dont like the music. If there is nothing in Mozart that you can enjoy - then his genius for you must be empty. .


I can see how his music is crafted, ie how he uses various instruments, how he intertwines the various melodic threads, how he uses counterpoint, how complex the music is, and in this sense, I can see that he was a great master composer, and he did it with litle effort, because he was a prodigy and a genius. But somehow the complete product fails to elicit the same pleasant asthetic response in my brain that other form of music produce. I do not know why, but it is so.


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> The point is that the theories of Einstein and Newton are verifiable in the real, physical world.


Nothing is completely verifiable outside the world of mathematics. The application of Newton's equations of course are limited to bodies moving relatively slowly. But you appear not to understand that while an achievement might be verifiable and objective the assessment of the greatness of that achievement is subjective. In fact, we apply the same principles of assessing scientific greatness - - i.e. general consensus - as we do to musical greatness


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> The problem with this is when "general consensus" makes a case for the greatness of things that one doesn't like (Kendrick Lamar for instance) especially in the field of popular music. I have no trouble with the idea that 'Mozart is _regarded _as great, because a lot of people tell me so', but general consensus only tells us that a lot of people think he is - not that he definitively is, regardless of the numbers involved.
> 
> As for the idea that Newton is great because there is a consensus that tells us he is, *don't you think his science might have had something to do with it?*


Yes and don't you think Mozart's music might have something to do with him being regarded as great?


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Yes and don't you think Mozart's music might have something to do with him being regarded as great?


Er...yes...of course...(?)


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> My point was only that _if _Newton is to be genuinely regarded as 'great', then it is not consensus alone that confers greatness, but consensus about what his achievements were in comparison to others working in the same field. Substitute any scientist of your choice, the same applies.
> 
> See mmsbls #392. If you can empirically test the greatness of the works of artists, I'd be interested to know your method!


Yes but the assessment of greatness is still subjective. For example, who deserved the Nobel Prize? Crick and Watson or the woman , Rosalind Franklin, whose meticulous research made their own unveiling of DNA possible? Many now think she should have been awarded the prize - i.e. the recognition of greatness - along with them. So even in science these things are subjective.


----------



## Jacck

MacLeod said:


> My point was only that _if _Newton is to be genuinely regarded as 'great', then it is not consensus alone that confers greatness, but consensus about what his achievements were in comparison to others working in the same field. Substitute any scientist of your choice, the same applies.


I also have a degree in physics and know the culture among physicists a little. The main difference between classical music and physics is that there is much less emphasis on individual physicists and more emphasis on the grand temple of the physical theories. The theories themselves are much more important than any individuals. The current physical theories (relativity, quantum mechanics, particle physics etc) are a product of centuries of intense research by many geniuses, and are thoroughly tested and agree with experiments. Feynman famously stated "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.". So countless physicists, great and small, have labored for centuries to distill this amazing knowledge out of nature and have produced this magnificent symphony. This magnificent sympohony can be written as simply as this
https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-deconstructed-standard-model-equation
it is called the Lagrangian of the Standard Model and you can derive from it almost everything except for quantum gravity.
So the real difference between classical music and physics is that the classical composers work individually on their respective symphonies, while the physicist work all togher on one grand symphony and hope to find the Theory of Everything one day. These are the deepest laws of nature and they are beautiful. And the beauty hidden in them is objective and is synonymous with the mind of god for some. 
But if you want to know the pantheon of physicists, it would go Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Feynman and then the second tier like Boltzmann, Heisenberg, Bohr, Dirac, Schrodinger etc. But ultimately they are not important, important is the symphony and the symphony is a common work.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> So even in science these things are subjective.


Yes, of course - the arrival at consensus, the assessment process, the criteria to be used to judge etc etc - all subjective. But the science itself has a greater claim to being empirically verifiable.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Yes, of course - the arrival at consensus, the assessment process, the criteria to be used to judge etc etc - all subjective. B*ut the science itself has a greater claim to being empirically verifiable. :*rolleyes:


Of course, I don't think anyone has said otherwise, have they?Just another example: the late Roger Bannister was the first man to run a four minute mile. Empirically verifiable by stopwatch. Just what position Bannister holds in the pantheon of great runner in history is subjective, however. Was his achievement in breaking four minutes for the first time greater than runners who came after him who ran faster times? That is a matter for assessment by those with knownledge of athletics.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Of course, I don't think anyone has said otherwise, have they?


I'm not sure what point I have made that you are trying to contest...am I missing something?


----------



## Strange Magic

DavidA said:


> Nothing is completely verifiable outside the world of mathematics. The application of Newton's equations of course are limited to bodies moving relatively slowly. But you appear not to understand that while an achievement might be verifiable and objective the assessment of the greatness of that achievement is subjective. In fact, we apply the same principles of assessing scientific greatness - - i.e. general consensus - as we do to musical greatness


Completely true, and trivially so.


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> Completely true, and trivially so.


If it's so trivial, why is everyone discussing it? :lol:


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure what point I have made that you are trying to contest...am I missing something?


As I said, no-one has said anything else. So no-one is contesting it


----------



## PlaySalieri

Jacck said:


> I can see how his music is crafted, ie how he uses various instruments, how he intertwines the various melodic threads, how he uses counterpoint, how complex the music is, and in this sense, I can see that he was a great master composer, and he did it with litle effort, because he was a prodigy and a genius. But somehow the complete product fails to elicit the same pleasant asthetic response in my brain that other form of music produce. I do not know why, but it is so.


It surprised me that you have a degree in physics and yet make statements you have no way of knowing are true or not.

*I can see that he was a great master composer, and he did it with litle effort, because he was a prodigy and a genius.*

How do you know he did it with little effort, for example? Being a prodigy and genius does not equal - he composes with little effort. You really cant claim a composer is a genius and at the same time declare that you are deaf to his music - that is absurd.

I like the music of Haydn - can hear the quality of his craftsmanship - yet for me - he is no genius.


----------



## Larkenfield

"To define beauty objectively, we would need to be able to quantify it with a number."

Then, by the same token, it's up to you to provide a number why it _isn't_ beautiful. You've also narrowed the focus to beauty when there are many other aesthetic choices and possibilities for any composer. In any case, the goal of science, to determine a hypothesis and reach a conclusion, and art, to create an experience for the listener, are not the same, and yet they are being equated as having the same measure, presumably without one being either a scientist or a composer.

There are objective principles that govern music and how sounds are combined: the duration of notes, the choice of the key, the understanding of scales and harmonic development, articulation markings, choice of tempo, the blending of the instruments in orchestration, the understanding of the colors of the instruments, what goes into writing for voices, the form of concertos, sonata form and other solo works, that have a technical side that only another musician or composer is fully equipped to understand the level of genius in using such elements and the lay person is not. So there is an objective side to composition that can be demonstrated in the competitive marketplace of creative and aesthetic ideas.

But numbers can come into the picture with the great number of composers who have studied someone like Mozart's works and who can be objectively quantified, such as somebody like Beethoven, Chopin, Tchaikovsky, and many others who can be named, which places one in the position of measuring the appreciation and understanding of the listener, though no composer is universally appreciated or admired like one's personal favorites. But there is an objective technical side that goes into creating the subjective experience for others, or every work would be considered the same in quality.


----------



## DavidA

stomanek said:


> It surprised me that you have a degree in physics and yet make statements you have no way of knowing are true or not.
> 
> *I can see that he was a great master composer, and he did it with litle effort, because he was a prodigy and a genius.*
> 
> How do you know he did it with little effort, for example? Being a prodigy and genius does not equal - he composes with little effort. You really cant claim a composer is a genius and at the same time declare that you are deaf to his music - that is absurd.
> 
> I like the music of Haydn - can hear the quality of his craftsmanship - yet for me - he is no genius.


As his work load was one of the things that probably killed Mozart I can't see 'little effort' was required!

I'd disagree about Haydn. A genius but a lesser genius than Mozart imo


----------



## Enthusiast

MacLeod said:


> If you can empirically test the greatness of the works of artists, I'd be interested to know your method!


And if you can't test it that means it isn't true or merely that we cannot know if it is true? The latter, surely.

And, anyway, the general consensus that, say, the B minor mass is great may not be an empirical test but it is not so very far from being one. It means that among people who like Western art music there has been a common consent that it is a great work. The extent to which there is an agreement within that population can be thought of as being very similar to an instrument for measuring greatness in music. This kind of test is applied in the less hard sciences as well.


----------



## Strange Magic

DavidA said:


> If it's so trivial, why is everyone discussing it? :lol:


I believe you misapprehend the discussion. While there is no way to quantify the "greatness" or "goodness" of art, there are ways to determine the degree to which scientific theories asymptotically approach the data--the "aptness", if you will, of the theories. The issue of the ranking of the reputations of either artists or scientists is another matter entirely, and is subjective. You have grasped perhaps this end of the discussion only.


----------



## PlaySalieri

DavidA said:


> Of course, I don't think anyone has said otherwise, have they?Just another example:* the late Roger Bannister was the first man to run a four minute mile. Empirically verifiable by stopwatch.* Just what position Bannister holds in the pantheon of great runner in history is subjective, however. Was his achievement in breaking four minutes for the first time greater than runners who came after him who ran faster times? That is a matter for assessment by those with knownledge of athletics.


A poor example. There are, surprisingly - reports of sub 4 minute miles from the days when professional athletes in england of the 19thC accepted wagers. There is no way of confirming these times - but there are some good reasons to believe that a sub 4 minute mile was run before Bannister did it.


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> I believe you misapprehend the discussion. While there is no way to quantify the "greatness" or "goodness" of art, there are ways to determine the degree to which scientific theories asymptotically approach the data--the "aptness", if you will, of the theories. The issue of the ranking of the reputations of either artists or scientists is another matter entirely, and is subjective. You have grasped perhaps this end of the discussion only.


Not at all. That is the point I was making all along if you bother to read my posts properly.


----------



## Strange Magic

DavidA said:


> Not at all. That is the point I was making all along if you bother to read my posts properly.


Great! We are in full agreement....


----------



## DavidA

stomanek said:


> A poor example. There are, surprisingly - reports of sub 4 minute miles from the days when professional athletes in england of the 19thC accepted wagers. There is no way of confirming these times - but there are some good reasons to believe that a sub 4 minute mile was run before Bannister did it.


Not at all a poor example if you take it in the spirit of how it is meant. At the time (and I remember it) it was considered an enormous achievement as it was considered by many (even medics) to be impossible for a man to run a sub 4 minute mile. Spurious reports of 19th century 'wagers' in no way invalidates Bannister's achievement. Yes and I know that certain others (like Ken Wood) claim to have run a sub four-minute mile but there's no way of verifying that. Banisters was the first official sub four-minute mile. There may have been, of course, mathematicians who worked on gravity before Newton, but Newton was the first man to publish.


----------



## PlaySalieri

DavidA said:


> Not at all a poor example if you take it in the spirit of how it is meant. At the time (and I remember it) it was considered an enormous achievement as it was considered by many (even medics) to be impossible for a man to run a sub 4 minute mile. Spurious reports of 19th century 'wagers' in no way invalidates Bannister's achievement. Yes and I know that certain others (like Ken Wood) claim to have run a sub four-minute mile but there's no way of verifying that. Banisters was the first official sub four-minute mile. There may have been, of course, mathematicians who worked on gravity before Newton, but Newton was the first man to publish.


I thought they were spurious too - as I am a big admirer of Bannister and continue to be. Until I read through the evidence - there's no way of knowing for sure - but it is possible and even likely.


----------



## science

I think I'll take the opportunity to chip in while my brain is in an objectively compromised state, as it is saturated in makgeolli, a Korean alcoholic beverage notorious for its deleterious affect on internet post quality. Tonight a friend of mind and I shared something like six bottles of it - don't blame me if I'm off by a bottle one way or the other, but I'd be surprised if the number was seven. 

All of the bottles had a different flavor. Two were chestnut flavored, but even they were differently chestnut flavored. I'd love to tell you what the other flavors were but for some reason I can't remember. Regardless, my friend and I weren't able to agree about which bottles tasted best. Either our tastes were simply different or one of us is an idiot. As he is not a fan of classical music, I trust the good people of this site to be on my side, and the bad people should seriously consider it as well, though they might be morally degenerate enough to say that different people simply have different tastes. Bollox. I'm right. Heavy metal dude is wrong, no matter how British middle class he is. Until he sees things my way, he deserves any amount of disadvantage and oppression. Shame! Scorn! You know, really, he's very nearly a witch. Anyone who doesn't agree with me about which makgeolli tastes best is basically saying it's ok to murder people. Which is the kind of thing a witch would say. 

Perhaps the makgeolli has affected the logical consistency this post in a not altogether positive way, but I trust that (a) the aspartame rather than the alcohol is to blame; (b) someone, assisted by whatever chemicals necessary, will find a relevant point buried within these profound words of mine; and (c) anyway I'm right and people who disagree with me are wrong. It really all comes down to the fact that - actually I doubt I can finish this sentence within the bounds of the terms of service. 

Wouldn't it be nice if we were married? 

Sorry. A song popped into my head there. Some trashy thing highly respected by people who don't realize that the only legitimately good music is classical music. I mean there's something to be said for it, but not nice things, unless you don't realize that sonata form, counterpoint, and a violin are the sine qua non of intelligent music. 

What I meant is, wouldn't it be nice if we could all just enjoy the stuff we enjoy without looking down on people who enjoy something else? 

No, that wouldn't be nice at all, because then we'd have to admit that other people's tastes are as legitimate as ours, and that is very nearly tantamount to acknowledging their full humanity. Horrors! Fears! Shocks! Outrages! Almost like saying murder is ok. Which would perhaps be ok if it weren't so outrageous - outrage in this case indicating that an opinion is objective. 

I'm sure it's possible to argue that all people everywhere are fully human, but that for some reason everyone's art sucks - except ours. 

Not yours so much, I mean ours. Humph. To think I would've included you in my art appreciation clique. (Dear mods, please understand that I'm not insulting anyone in these sentences. Just excluding them from the community of objectively valid tastes - a community to which I and people who agree with me belong exclusively. I hope the distinction is clear because I don't want to receive any more correctional measures than are really useful to my own moral development.) 

Ah, well, my friends, sadly it's already 4 am here and I hope to be up and about in less than 8 hours, and makgeolli is rumored to cause hangovers. All this means I will not be able to tie together the points I've made here in any coherent fashion. Nevertheless, it has been my great pleasure to - I'm not actually sure what I've been doing here actually. But I did enjoy it. 

Listen to your favorite music, friends, and try to persuade the rest of us that it is good, just in case it helps us enjoy it. Beyond that, whatever, man, whatever. We don't all have to like or dislike the same things. Anyone who shames you for the music you like or dislike ... well, that turns out to be another sentence the terms of service don't allow me to complete. So imagine the most delightful vicious conclusion you can. Not so vicious that we can't go on sharing music with each other, though. What would be the point of that? Nothing. No point at all. Which is to say that the bigger point of the whole thing is to be nice enough to each other to enjoy sharing music with each other. I mean, look, if you're here to win arguments rather than share music, consider how pwned (not a typo) everyone has been in this thread. One side pwned one side, the other side pwned the other side. The internet will absolutely have to archive this thread for the rhetorical brilliance on both sides. 

But why are we really here? For this? Surely not. 

Haydn. Babbitt. Mozart. Schoenberg. Cage. Beethoven. Dufay. Stockhausen. Bach. Zelenka. Perotin. Ferneyhough. Chin. Brahms. Joaquin. Weber. Enescu. Palestrina. J Strauss II. Off. Schubert. Schobert. Schumann. Webern. Godowski. Dvorak. Takemitsu. Crumb. Glass. Nono. Shostakovich. Lots of other folks. 

Too much good stuff for a single lifetime. 

Good night.


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> And if you can't test it that means it isn't true or merely that we cannot know if it is true? The latter, surely.
> 
> And, anyway, the general consensus that, say, the B minor mass is great may not be an empirical test but it is not so very far from being one. It means that among people who like Western art music there has been a common consent that it is a great work. The extent to which there is an agreement within that population can be thought of as being very similar to an instrument for measuring greatness in music. This kind of test is applied in the less hard sciences as well.


So never mind the criteria or the quality...feel the consensus? I can't accept your position.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> "Aesthetically" is precisely how Mozart's music does work, whether one cares for it or not. Music of "very high craftsmanship" is music that's beautifully made. "Aesthetics" is concerned with the nature of beauty and the artistic principles by which beauty is achieved. It's the extraordinary and consistent aesthetic beauty of his work that has won Mozart the admiration of virtually all musicians, who know a well-made thing when they hear it. It seems that you can hear it too - at least to a substantial extent - even if the music doesn't speak to you personally. Of course there's a lot more to Mozart than beauty, which may become clear to you eventually.
> 
> I make this point solely in order to introduce a note of clarity into a discussion in which things that are different easily become conflated, often because words are vaguely defined nor misused. In this case it's the difference between aesthetic perception and personal taste, which often affect one another but are still different. It is not only possible but common to recognize the excellence of music one dislikes, or to enjoy the inferior or the commonplace.


Criticism has been levelled at Mozart's (and many other classical era composer's) repeated use of clichéd cadences (often some variation of sub-dominant, dominant, tonic) which seem predictable and rather tiresome. Generally, too, the harmony is rooted in the tonic and dominant. I, for one, don't consider this aspect as aesthetically pleasing or well crafted. I'm not aware of anyone actually refuting this; rather, it's dismissed as carping.

I don't, however, think this about all of Mozart's works - he wrote enough masterpieces for me to consider him a genius.


----------



## KenOC

DavidA said:


> Nothing is completely verifiable outside the world of mathematics.


This statement made me think of the brilliant Kurt Gödel, who proved "that for any self-consistent recursive axiomatic system powerful enough to describe the arithmetic of the natural numbers, there are true propositions about the naturals that cannot be proved from the axioms." Which may (or may not) cast doubt on whether mathematics is truly verifiable.

Anyway, after a fine career he had an unfortunate end. "Later in his life, Gödel suffered periods of mental instability and illness. He had an obsessive fear of being poisoned; he would eat only food that his wife, Adele, prepared for him. Late in 1977, she was hospitalized for six months and could no longer prepare her husband's food. In her absence, he refused to eat, eventually starving to death. He weighed 29 kilograms (65 lb) when he died."


----------



## Enthusiast

MacLeod said:


> So never mind the criteria or the quality...feel the consensus? I can't accept your position.


I was obviously not clear enough: the consensus within the population is the "measuring machine". How that consensus is arrived at involves the members of the population applying their criteria and "quality" (and other subjective things). So I don't think my position (for what it is worth) is so easy to reject!

If we are concerned with the value of art to humans this data about how humans are affected by the art can be treated rigorously and scientifically to give results that are just as scientific as most science. Most science is not really so much more precise - much is based on probabilities, for example. And when you get to the social sciences (I know some people won't want to follow me there!) the numbers manipulated are very often numbers assigned by people to their subjective experience or the _experiences _they report are analysed so as to be treated as probabilities.

Obviously art can't be treated in the same way as the phenomena studied in physics but that doesn't mean that it can't be rigorously treated scientifically. Each science is different and uses different empirical methods. It is probably not that often that doing so to "measure" the value of a piece of art is useful or meaningful but it can be done.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> Criticism has been levelled at Mozart's (and many other classical era composer's) repeated use of clichéd cadences (often some variation of sub-dominant, dominant, tonic) which seem predictable and rather tiresome. Generally, too, the harmony is rooted in the tonic and dominant. I, for one, don't consider this aspect as aesthetically pleasing or well crafted. I'm not aware of anyone actually refuting this; rather, it's dismissed as carping.
> 
> I don't, however, think this about all of Mozart's works - he wrote enough masterpieces for me to consider him a genius.


Criticism "has been leveled" at everything and everyone by someone. Obviously that can't be the basis for any sort of judgment, or for questioning any judgment. It's useful to ask just who is leveling the criticism. I can't think of any distinguished classical musician past or present who complains about Mozart's "cliched" cadences or the prevalence of tonic and dominant in 18th-century music (both features which were, as you observe, usual in that era, but also throughout preceding centuries; try the early Italian Baroque if you want cadences and phrase structures to go mad by). How these stylistic features compromise Mozart's craftsmanship I can't conceive; in fact, they have nothing to do with craftsmanship. That doesn't mean you have to enjoy them, of course. I'm not a big Mozart fan myself, but I'm too musically experienced and sober about anyone's capacity to embrace the whole of art to blame him for it.

When I was young and grandiose I thought Wolfie something of a periwigged pansy alongside the bigwig Bach and the bigbeard Brahms (not to mention the bigberet Wagner). But as I gained perspective I found that an artist's work must be, and with practice can be, heard and judged against the prevailing style of his time. When I acquired the ability to do that I realized that what Mozart was able to do, and did routinely, was not merely craftsmanlike (which I had always known) but inspired and often profound. There are still only a handful of his works that I rate among my favorite pieces of music, but with any luck I'll add a few more of his many masterpieces to that list before I die. Maybe you will too.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Jacck said:


> I can't argue about Shakespeare with you because your knowledge of him is much higher than mine. I guess I read only 1 work of his (probably Hamlet, or King Lear) long time ago and in translation. It struck me as a little melodramatic with the characters behaving irrationally, but there were snippets of wisdom here and there. So I respect Shakespeare, although he seems to be too idealized in the English speaking world. You describe what everything he invented, but the same can be found already in the Greek tragedies. Lawrence Sterne (whom I read not long ago) seems more inovative.
> 
> Concerning Mozart, I can see that he was genius and most his music is of very high craftsmanship, but much of his music somehow does not work aesthetically for me. I know most of the pieces that you linked to and I am certainly not as enthusiastic as yourself. His Requiem is nice, but would not place even in my top 10 of requiems, I prefer Faure, Liszt, Saint-Saëns, Brahms, Verdi, Dvořák or even Hindemith and Ligeti. But to be fair, there is some music of his that I like - his string quartets and quintets and I am slowly starting to like some of his piano sonatas or even piano concerti (there are some passages which are almost banal and passages which are beautiful, so I am ambivalent). I find it strange that I react to Mozart in this manner, because he is almost the only composer with whom I have these problems. Haydn's music is much more accessible for me. I have no problem with Haydn. So I am constantly trying to find out what disturbs or irritates me about Mozart so much. Is it that his music has been so heavily abused (played in malls and elevators) that I became subconsciously alergic to it? Or is it his overuse of musical clichés? Is it too much perfection? Is is lack of emotions? I do not know. Maybe I will start liking him in the future (I certainly would like to)


Reading poetry, verse drama, or poetic prose in translation makes judgment of the original a dubious prospect. So much of what's considered great in literature comes down to how things are rendered in the nuances of its native language, and it's certainly true that without Shakespeare's linguistic artistry his reputation would be greatly diminished. This is also why I'm not too harsh on Tolstoy's judgment of him because I have no idea of the quality of the translations he was reading.

That said, some of Shakespeare is melodramatic, and some of his characters do behave irrationally. As for the former, I think compared to the standards of his time, Shakespeare was rather subdued. If you read his Titus Andronicus you can see Shakespeare lampooning the kind of over-the-top revenge dramas that were popular at the time; it's miles away from the world of Hamlet, Othello, Lear, and Macbeth. As for characters behaving irrationally, I'd say that's just being pretty accurate in regards to how humans behave! As for his Greek predecessors, again I find it difficult to completely judge via translation, but I do see a lot of archetypes in their work (indeed, it could be said they GAVE us those archetypes!). I've read all the plays of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, as well as Homer's The Odyssey and Iliad, and I can't think of a character like Falstaff, or Hamlet, or Richard III, or Lady Macbeth. In English, one could argue that Chaucer was a major predecessor, but I think even he lacked Shakespeare's breadth.

As for Mozart, I don't have a problem with you saying his music is of high craftsmanship but it doesn't appeal to you aesthetically. That's down to individual subjective tastes. However, what I found objectionable about your original post was the claim of Mozart and Shakespeare being kitsch. Kitsch implies that both were merely superficially appealing to the tastes of their time without regard for craftsmanship or any deeper artistry. I think this is clearly wrong. I also thought your claim that Mozart was always happy, cheery, etc. was false in light of certain darker pieces, some of which I posted. As for why you react to Mozart in such a way, I wouldn't fret over it too much. I think for most of us there are canonical composers whom we struggle with. For me it's Bach. Much of what you say about Mozart I could say about Bach: I hear the craft of his music, I understand why people find him a genius, but much of his output (not all of it) leaves me cold. Much like you with Mozart, I wish I could love Bach in the way many seem to, but the best I can usually manage is a kind of detached appreciation for what he's doing.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Enthusiast said:


> I must admit I have lost track of this thread but ... so I hope I am offering something relevant here.
> 
> When it comes to the idea that Bach is great because there is a consensus that tells us so, that also has something to do with his achievement (music in his case) in just the same way as Newton's greatness. In fact an artist's claim to objective and true greatness may be more secure than is the case for many great scientists. Certainly, there are many scientists who are remembered as the inventors or discoverers of this or that but who should really share that claim with many others who we now forget. And when it comes to theory, is it not the case that a theory leads until it is replaced by a better one (one that explains even more)? Newton's theories were eaten by Einstein's.
> 
> To move on to science and art (from scientists and artists), is there really a claim that science is more objectively true and great than a work of art? Both contain great achievements. The only difference I can see is that what we know in science may go on to be just as true after we have been wiped from the face of the Earth but art may just become junk without us being there to appreciate and be stirred by it.


The key difference between science and art is that science progresses in objectively measurable, verifiable ways. Newtonian gravity yielded more accurate predictions than anything before it, and Einstein's General Relativity yielded more accurate predictions still, and quantum mechanics scary-accurate predictions. We don't have this kind of progress in music and art, rather what we have is change that some prefer and some do not.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

stomanek said:


> I agree with absolutely every word - wish I had your eloquence and ability to express complexities with such efficient style.


Thanks for the kind words! :tiphat:


----------



## Strange Magic

Enthusiast said:


> I was obviously not clear enough: the consensus within the population is the "measuring machine". How that consensus is arrived at involves the members of the population applying their criteria and "quality" (and other subjective things). So I don't think my position (for what it is worth) is so easy to reject!
> 
> If we are concerned with the value of art to humans this data about how humans are affected by the art can be treated rigorously and scientifically to give results that are just as scientific as most science. Most science is not really so much more precise - much is based on probabilities, for example. And when you get to the social sciences (I know some people won't want to follow me there!) the numbers manipulated are very often numbers assigned by people to their subjective experience or the _experiences _they report are analysed so as to be treated as probabilities.
> 
> Obviously art can't be treated in the same way as the phenomena studied in physics but that doesn't mean that it can't be rigorously treated scientifically. Each science is different and uses different empirical methods. It is probably not that often that doing so to "measure" the value of a piece of art is useful or meaningful but it can be done.


What you are so very elegantly saying is that we can measure the relative and probably the absolute popularity of the various flavors of ice cream with enormous accuracy and precision--we can treat the phenomena of who likes what rigorously and scientifically. I agree with this completely, just as I agreed with DavidA's statement of the same truth. However, like DavidA's formulation it is true but trivial. As I recall, the question was and is whether there is an actual "objective" measure, universal and demonstrable, of goodness or greatness in music and the arts. Measuring popularity among general or specific audiences is not the same thing, and it in no sense gets to the substance of the question or answers it (because we cannot actually measure the greatness of art).

On a very mundane level, there are instances in my experience of music, art, literature wherein I am emotionally transported to wonderful places and often get chills and gooseflesh--all measurable, and these phenomena are also written about with some regularity. Yet I defy anyone to extrapolate from the sensory/emotional data recorded from my testimony, galvanic skin response, brainwaves, MRI scans or whatever whether what moves me is good, bad, or indifferent.


----------



## Haydn70

Strange Magic said:


> (because we cannot actually measure the greatness of art).


Yes we can...not empirically, but musically knowledgeable listeners (in particular those with formal training) can hear the qualitative difference between works (or genres for that matter). There are fortunate ones who recognize greatness, rejoice in it and have our lives greatly enriched by it...whether the art was created by Bach , Ingres, Haydn, Shakespeare, Bruckner, Caravaggio, Beethoven...

(Edited after KenOC quoted me...sorry about that Ken!)


----------



## KenOC

ArsMusica said:


> It can't be measured but some of us can recognize it, rejoice in it and have our lives greatly enriched by it...whether the art was created by Ingres, Haydn, Shakespeare, Bruckner, Caravaggio, Beethoven...


This discussion reminds me a lot of the perennial question, "Is greatness an inherent quality of music?" And so, it reminds me of Joachim Raff.

Raff was popular and much admired in his day. I remember reading a contemporary review of Brahms's first symphony, comparing it (unfavorably) with a Raff symphony.

But Raff's fortunes changed pretty suddenly, and his music was no longer heard. I suspect, though, that we here would have included him among the "greats" in those days when his music was appreciated. Was he "great" then, and did his "greatness" go away? Did it ever objectively exist, or was it all in our heads?

And for that matter, how about Bach?


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> *Criticism has been levelled at Mozart's (and many other classical era composer's) repeated use of clichéd cadences *(often some variation of sub-dominant, dominant, tonic) which seem predictable and rather tiresome. Generally, too, the harmony is rooted in the tonic and dominant. I, for one, don't consider this aspect as aesthetically pleasing or well crafted. I'm not aware of anyone actually refuting this; rather, it's dismissed as carping.
> 
> I don't, however, think this about all of Mozart's works - he wrote enough masterpieces for me to consider him a genius.


Yes, and absurdly and incomprehensibly by you and you alone. Certainly not by anyone of any serious training in music and I have been mixing with music professionals and reading forums etc for 10+ years.

I really dont think you understand art at all. Every artist in every domain, has a toolkit - it's part of his craft - I know exactly what you refer to in not only Mozart's music but in fact the whole of the baroque, classical and romantic periods. Why you single out Mozart I cant imagine. All composers draw on what has come before - very little in fact, is what you would call original at all - and composers often pull out of their toolkit a phrase or cadence fit for the purpose - Beethoven did it and so did many others besides Mozart. But the essence of what makes the music great - the melodic line, rythm, direction, development, arrangement of material, use of harmony, orchestration and texture etc etc plus indeed the whole result - is what should concern you - not the tools used to bind the whole together.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> This discussion reminds me a lot of the perennial question, "Is greatness an inherent quality of music?" And so, it reminds me of Joachim Raff.
> 
> Raff was popular and much admired in his day. I remember reading a contemporary review of Brahms's first symphony, comparing it (unfavorably) with a Raff symphony.
> 
> But Raff's fortunes changed pretty suddenly, and his music was no longer heard. I suspect, though, that we here would have included him among the "greats" in those days when his music was appreciated. *Was he "great" then, and did his "greatness" go away? Did it ever objectively exist, or was it all in our heads?*
> 
> And for that matter, how about Bach?


Raff was admired and popular because he wrote a lot of very good music which appealed to the taste of his time, but also because his style was relatively "safe" and non-controversial. That Wagner was hotly debated goes without saying, but at this distance we're apt to forget that Brahms too was heard as highly original and a bit difficult. Contemporary music in any era can be hard to evaluate with any objectivity, either because it's too familiar or too innovative, and its prospects for long-term appeal are unpredictable.

Raff's relatively generic style didn't transcend contemporary taste as well as that of Brahms. But that doesn't mean his music isn't excellent. Listening to Raff now, I and many others do absolutely believe that he should get more attention than he does, and that we are far enough from him in time to recognize him as a very distinguished "second-rater" from an era we can view in the larger perspective of musical history. There are reasons for the neglect of certain composers which have nothing to do with the merits of their music. Often it has to do with their lack of importance for the "evolution" of music and their consequent consignment by scholars and historians to the status of footnotes. This may be a great injustice given the intrinsic qualities of their music, as anyone who's done much exploring of the now enormous recorded repertoire of forgotten or little-played composers knows.

I'm listening right now to two of Raff's piano trios. They are superb - not stunningly original, deeply personal, and sharp as a samurai sword like those of Brahms, but still excellent in every way, clearly by a composer who knows his business. It isn't a matter of Raff's excellence being "all in our heads" or having "gone away." What went away was our appreciation of him.


----------



## Woodduck

stomanek said:


> Yes, and absurdly and incomprehensibly by you and you alone. Certainly not by anyone of any serious training in music and I have been mixing with music professionals and reading forums etc for 10+ years.
> 
> I really dont think you understand art at all. Every artist in every domain, has a toolkit - it's part of his craft - I know exactly what you refer to in not only Mozart's music but in fact the whole of the baroque, classical and romantic periods. Why you single out Mozart I cant imagine. All composers draw on what has come before - very little in fact, is what you would call original at all - and composers often pull out of their toolkit a phrase or cadence fit for the purpose - Beethoven did it and so did many others besides Mozart. But the essence of what makes the music great - the melodic line, rythm, direction, development, arrangement of material, use of harmony, orchestration and texture etc etc plus indeed the whole result - is what should concern you - not the tools used to bind the whole together.


Wow, stomanek! You were even tougher on janxharris than I was in post #426. I hope he's OK.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> ...What went away was our appreciation of him.


Yes. And so, his music is no longer "great" although it once was. Which is, of course, my point. Greatness lies in our collective appreciation, not in the music itself.​


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> Criticism "has been leveled" at everything and everyone by someone. Obviously that can't be the basis for any sort of judgment, or for questioning any judgment. It's useful to ask just who is leveling the criticism. I can't think of any distinguished classical musician past or present who complains about Mozart's "cliched" cadences or the prevalence of tonic and dominant in 18th-century music (both features which were, as you observe, usual in that era, but also throughout preceding centuries; try the early Italian Baroque if you want cadences and phrase structures to go mad by). How these stylistic features compromise Mozart's craftsmanship I can't conceive; in fact, they have nothing to do with craftsmanship. That doesn't mean you have to enjoy them, of course. I'm not a big Mozart fan myself, but I'm too musically experienced and sober about anyone's capacity to embrace the whole of art to blame him for it.
> 
> When I was young and grandiose I thought Wolfie something of a periwigged pansy alongside the bigwig Bach and the bigbeard Brahms (not to mention the bigberet Wagner). But as I gained perspective I found that an artist's work must be, and with practice can be, heard and judged against the prevailing style of his time. When I acquired the ability to do that I realized that what Mozart was able to do, and did routinely, was not merely craftsmanlike (which I had always known) but inspired and often profound. There are still only a handful of his works that I rate among my favorite pieces of music, but with any luck I'll add a few more of his many masterpieces to that list before I die. Maybe you will too.


I believe we are saying the same thing in slightly different ways.



> I can't think of any distinguished classical musician past or present who complains about Mozart's "cliched" cadences or the prevalence of tonic and dominant in 18th-century music


_"What he was really doing as he scribbled those first 200 Ks was acquiring a sovereign command over all the standard genres, compositional procedures, even musical clichés of his day that would in due course enable him to fabricate, with a minimum of time and trouble, an adequate response to any musical demand made upon him. As a result, even the catalogue of his last dozen years, although teeming with masterpieces, is also interspersed with a great deal of pleasantly workaday stuff - hastily scribbled sets of ballroom dances and whatnot - which might scarcely attract attention by now were they not signed by Mozart."_

Bayan Northcott (composer and critic) writing for The Independent - Mozart Uncovered in 2003.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Yes. And so, his music is no longer "great" although it once was. Which is, of course, my point. Greatness lies in our collective appreciation, not in the music itself.


Your point is that popularity equals greatness. _My_ point is that it doesn't. Things actually can be over- or under-appreciated. People don't know how good Raff is because, for various reasons (which I suggested above), he hasn't been played much. He may get more attention in the future. Meanwhile he's as good a composer today as he was yesterday or will be tomorrow,


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> Yes, and absurdly and incomprehensibly by you and you alone. Certainly not by anyone of any serious training in music and I have been mixing with music professionals and reading forums etc for 10+ years.


#437



> I really dont think you understand art at all. Every artist in every domain, has a toolkit - it's part of his craft - I know exactly what you refer to in not only Mozart's music but in fact the whole of the baroque, classical and romantic periods. Why you single out Mozart I cant imagine.


I said:
"Mozart's (and many other classical era composer's)"



> All composers draw on what has come before - very little in fact, is what you would call original at all - and composers often pull out of their toolkit a phrase or cadence fit for the purpose - Beethoven did it and so did many others besides Mozart. But the essence of what makes the music great - the melodic line, rythm, direction, development, arrangement of material, use of harmony, orchestration and texture etc etc plus indeed the whole result - is what should concern you - not the tools used to bind the whole together.


As I said:
"I don't, however, think this about all of Mozart's works - he wrote enough masterpieces for me to consider him a genius."


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> I believe we are saying the same thing in slightly different ways.
> 
> _"What he was really doing as he scribbled those first 200 Ks was acquiring a sovereign command over all the standard genres, compositional procedures, even musical clichés of his day that would in due course enable him to fabricate, with a minimum of time and trouble, an adequate response to any musical demand made upon him. As a result, even the catalogue of his last dozen years, although teeming with masterpieces, is also interspersed with a great deal of pleasantly workaday stuff - hastily scribbled sets of ballroom dances and whatnot - which might scarcely attract attention by now were they not signed by Mozart."_
> 
> Bayan Northcott (composer and critic) writing for The Independent - Mozart Uncovered in 2003.


If you were saying what I said I wouldn't have responded to you. 

I suppose you intend the quote from Bayan Northcott as a disproof of my claim. Well, what do you know about Bayan Northcott?

Mozart made a living writing music. That "pleasant workaday stuff" was bread and bacon. He wrote masterpieces when he could afford to - and sometimes when he couldn't.

What was your point again?


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> Your point is that popularity equals greatness. _My_ point is that it doesn't. Things actually can be over- or under-appreciated. People don't know how good Raff is because, for various reasons (which I suggested above), he hasn't been played much. he may get more attention in the future. Meanwhile he's as good a composer today as he was yesterday or will be tomorrow,


_Your _point seems to be that "greatness" lies entirely in your perceptions, with nothing to do with collective judgments. Perhaps you're right, but I'm not putting big money on it.


----------



## Guest

ArsMusica said:


> [quoting strange magic: "we cannot actually measure the greatness of art"] Yes we can...not empirically, but musically knowledgeable listeners (in particular those with formal training) can hear the qualitative difference between works (or genres for that matter).


No, we can't. The knowledgeable can tell us all kinds of factual things about the form of a work, and they might themselves wish to add their view that something has "greatness", and even show quantitatively that many people agree with the application of such a term (a consensus, say some here, is enough - you don't even need to show the factual things about a work).

But _measure _"greatness"? You sound like Ken with his patented machine.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> If you were said what I said I wouldn't have responded to you.


Essentially I would also say as you did:

"I'm not a big Mozart fan myself
There are still only a handful of his works that I rate among my favourite pieces of music"



> I suppose you intend the quote from Bayan Northcott as a disproof of my claim. Well, what do you know about Bayan Northcott?


I included a link.



> Mozart made a living writing music. That "pleasant workaday stuff" was bread and bacon. He wrote masterpieces when he could afford to - and sometimes when he couldn't.


Agreed.



> What was your point again?


I think I just react when there's any suggestion that a composer is beyond criticism.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> _Your _point seems to be that "greatness" lies entirely in your perceptions, with nothing to do with collective judgments. Perhaps you're right, but I'm not putting big money on it.


No. It isn't about MY perceptions. I don't claim that my perceptions are infallible. The judgments of the collective are not irrelevant, merely not determinative of how good Raff's music is, or even how good the collective would think it was if the collective could hear it as readily as it hears the music of Brahms.

If present opinion determined the actual quality of neglected composers, we could all safely assume they weren't any good and never discover them.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> I think I just react when there's any suggestion that a composer is beyond criticism.


http://www.spiritsound.com/music/mozartquotes.html

We don't necessarily have to agree with all these people, but it should make us humble and make us think and keep an open mind.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> http://www.spiritsound.com/music/mozartquotes.html
> 
> We don't necessarily have to agree with all these people, but it should make us humble and make us think and keep an open mind.


Indeed - and I agree with many of them regarding those works of his I love.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> No. It isn't about MY perceptions. I don't claim that my perceptions are infallible. The judgments of the collective are not irrelevant, merely not determinative of how good Raff's music is, or even how good the collective would think it was if the collective could hear it as readily as it hears the music of Brahms.


Sorry, but it seems your position is unchanged. Raff's music is "great" because you say it is great. "It's just not played enough..." Really?

I'll repeat my view: People in this forum would have considered Raff's music great when it was generally thought to be great. Afterwards, they would not. All a matter of opinion, not any objective attribute of the music.


----------



## janxharris

KenOC said:


> Sorry, but it seems your position is unchanged. Raff's music is "great" because you say it is great. "It's just not played enough..." Really?
> 
> I'll repeat my view: People in this forum would have considered Raff's music great when it was generally thought to be great. Afterwards, they would not. All a matter of opinion, not any objective attribute of the music.


Which work is considered his best?


----------



## KenOC

janxharris said:


> Which work is considered his best?


A good place to start is with Raff's Symphony No. 5, "Lenore." It's on YouTube.


----------



## Jacck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> As for Mozart, I don't have a problem with you saying his music is of high craftsmanship but it doesn't appeal to you aesthetically. That's down to individual subjective tastes. However, what I found objectionable about your original post was the claim of Mozart and Shakespeare being kitsch. Kitsch implies that both were merely superficially appealing to the tastes of their time without regard for craftsmanship or any deeper artistry. I think this is clearly wrong. I also thought your claim that Mozart was always happy, cheery, etc. was false in light of certain darker pieces, some of which I posted. As for why you react to Mozart in such a way, I wouldn't fret over it too much. I think for most of us there are canonical composers whom we struggle with. For me it's Bach. Much of what you say about Mozart I could say about Bach: I hear the craft of his music, I understand why people find him a genius, but much of his output (not all of it) leaves me cold. Much like you with Mozart, I wish I could love Bach in the way many seem to, but the best I can usually manage is a kind of detached appreciation for what he's doing.


I did not present it as an objective truth, but I used the claims to describe how he subjectively affects me, ie the music sounds cheery and superficial, as kitch to be played to entertain the nobles at their parties, and in elevators nowadays. He sounds much less serious then Beethoven to me. But this is not necessarily an objective truth about his music, this is my subjective response to his music, or rather an attempt to rationalize the feelings that his music evokes in me. 
This is happy, cheery music




and Mozart composed a lot of music like this


----------



## Guest

I read the Bayan Northcott article too. If one is looking for unequivocal criticism of Mozart, it isn't there.


----------



## KenOC

Beethoven did a lot of this early on, even a "ritterballet" to be performed for knights on horseback. Got to pay the bills!


----------



## Enthusiast

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The key difference between science and art is that science progresses in objectively measurable, verifiable ways. Newtonian gravity yielded more accurate predictions than anything before it, and Einstein's General Relativity yielded more accurate predictions still, and quantum mechanics scary-accurate predictions. We don't have this kind of progress in music and art, rather what we have is change that some prefer and some do not.


Yes. It is hard to see the development of art music as progress rather than mere change. Some do argue that modern and contemporary music is superior because it is more complex but, much as I love a lot of newer music, I do not think that is true. It is just change: new things to say; new ways of saying them. Science does get closer and closer to describing how things actually are.


----------



## Enthusiast

Strange Magic said:


> What you are so very elegantly saying is that we can measure the relative and probably the absolute popularity of the various flavors of ice cream with enormous accuracy and precision--we can treat the phenomena of who likes what rigorously and scientifically. I agree with this completely, just as I agreed with DavidA's statement of the same truth. However, like DavidA's formulation it is true but trivial. As I recall, the question was and is whether there is an actual "objective" measure, universal and demonstrable, of goodness or greatness in music and the arts. Measuring popularity among general or specific audiences is not the same thing, and it in no sense gets to the substance of the question or answers it (because we cannot actually measure the greatness of art).
> 
> On a very mundane level, there are instances in my experience of music, art, literature wherein I am emotionally transported to wonderful places and often get chills and gooseflesh--all measurable, and these phenomena are also written about with some regularity. Yet I defy anyone to extrapolate from the sensory/emotional data recorded from my testimony, galvanic skin response, brainwaves, MRI scans or whatever whether what moves me is good, bad, or indifferent.


Yes, possible but trivial was my point too! We _can _analyse the greatness of music using scientific methods but why would we want to? It doesn't arrive anywhere new. It doesn't tell us anything we don't already "know". It doesn't even tell us that we are wrong when we disagree with it - that would be a kind of aesthetic fascism. Trivial or not, though, this thread is generating a lot of heated debate!

But I do think I was talking about something a little different to basing our judgements on popularity. A consensus is not a majority: it is an agreement. Many must willingly let go of their own tastes and prejudices to arrive at a consensus (they must be willing to live with a result that doesn't match their own subjective tastes) so that what remains is not a _majority _but an _agreement_. Because of this there cannot be a consensus about things like whether Bach is greater than Mozart or vice versa (only that both are giants) but there probably can be that both of them are greater than, say, JC Bach. But, again, _*I do not think this is terribly important *_. It just is. And it doesn't mean that we won't find things we love in JC Bach or even that some of us won't actually prefer his music to that of his father. And to us punters it is our taste that matters.

But, personally, I do find the consensus on music before, say, 1930 to be a good guide about where to spend my listening bucks (as far as that period is concerned). I don't trust it at all for more recent music (it hasn't worked for me). But that is just me. I find myself doing the same with books - something I know much less about - and can sometimes end up reading something challenging in the (informed hope) that it will be worth it. It seems to work for me.


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> What you are so very elegantly saying is that we can measure the relative and probably the absolute popularity of the various flavors of ice cream with enormous accuracy and precision--we can treat the phenomena of who likes what rigorously and scientifically. * I agree with this completely, just as I agreed with DavidA's statement of the same truth. However, like DavidA's formulation it is true but trivial. * As I recall, the question was and is whether there is an actual "objective" measure, universal and demonstrable, of goodness or greatness in music and the arts. Measuring popularity among general or specific audiences is not the same thing, and it in no sense gets to the substance of the question or answers it (because we cannot actually measure the greatness of art).
> 
> On a very mundane level, there are instances in my experience of music, art, literature wherein I am emotionally transported to wonderful places and often get chills and gooseflesh--all measurable, and these phenomena are also written about with some regularity. Yet I defy anyone to extrapolate from the sensory/emotional data recorded from my testimony, galvanic skin response, brainwaves, MRI scans or whatever whether what moves me is good, bad, or indifferent.


It amuses me the way people like you call other people's valid points trivial. Does it give your ego a buzz? :lol:


----------



## Strange Magic

DavidA said:


> It amuses me the way people like you call other people's valid points trivial. Does it give your ego a buzz? :lol:


I am then happy to provide you with amusement!


----------



## janxharris

Bayan Northcott:


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> I believe we are saying the same thing in slightly different ways.
> 
> _"What he was really doing as he scribbled those first 200 Ks was acquiring a sovereign command over all the standard genres, compositional procedures, even musical clichés of his day that would in due course enable him to fabricate, with a minimum of time and trouble, an adequate response to any musical demand made upon him. As a result, even the catalogue of his last dozen years, although teeming with masterpieces, is also interspersed with a great deal of pleasantly workaday stuff - hastily scribbled sets of ballroom dances and whatnot - which might scarcely attract attention by now were they not signed by Mozart."_
> 
> Bayan Northcott (composer and critic) writing for The Independent - Mozart Uncovered in 2003.


I agree with virtually all of Northcott's points to the extent that what he says is not really worth saying. There are dozens of Mozart works, even some late works - that dont bear his hallmark, as it were - could have been composed by lesser composers of the time. Mozart did not always have the time and/or reason to compose at the highest level - not all projects interested him equally. This can easily be demonstrated by his first two great operas - way ahead of anything else he composed at the time. His german dances composed near the end of his life are pleasant - but not particularly inspired. He was aware of this too - writing that he was paid too much for too little - when for a similar sum he could have produced so much more.

I am afraid that your example only proves how good Mozart was.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> I agree with virtually all of Northcott's points to the extent that what he says is not really worth saying. There are dozens of Mozart works, even some late works - that dont bear his hallmark, as it were - could have been composed by lesser composers of the time. Mozart did not always have the time and/or reason to compose at the highest level - not all projects interested him equally. This can easily be demonstrated by his first two great operas - way ahead of anything else he composed at the time. His german dances composed near the end of his life are pleasant - but not particularly inspired. He was aware of this too - writing that he was paid too much for too little - when for a similar sum he could have produced so much more.
> 
> I am afraid that your example only proves how good Mozart was.


And we both think he was good - just with different emphasis.


----------



## DavidA

stomanek said:


> I agree with virtually all of Northcott's points to the extent that what he says is not really worth saying. There are dozens of Mozart works, even some late works - that dont bear his hallmark, as it were - could have been composed by lesser composers of the time. Mozart did not always have the time and/or reason to compose at the highest level - not all projects interested him equally. This can easily be demonstrated by his first two great operas - way ahead of anything else he composed at the time. His german dances composed near the end of his life are pleasant - but not particularly inspired. He was aware of this too - writing that he was paid too much for too little - when for a similar sum he could have produced so much more.
> 
> I am afraid that your example only proves how good Mozart was.


This is absolutely true. We know that he undertook the commission for La Clemenza da Tito for the money and his mind was probably only half on the job. It is still well worth hearing and performing but the secco recits are by someone else. Proof that even a half engaged Mozart could write a better opera than most of his contemporaries. But our friend janxharris appears to have this thing that not all the works are masterpieces. This is true of most composers, particularly those of the baroque and classical era who were working to commission. Not all of Bach's cantatas are equally inspired masterpieces. These men were composing because they were employed to do so and they were not always equally engaged. Similarly Mozart was not equally inspired by what he had to do. Of course as a genius of composition second-rate Mozart is usually better than most peoples first-rate offerings.


----------



## Jacck

The Bayan Northcott article for The Independent (Mozart Uncovered) is quite good. I was in Salzburg several times (for skiing etc) and the Mozart kitsch fills the whole city (by kitsch I mean the Mozartkugeln etc). When I was a student in Prague in the 1990's, I had a job of selling tickets for classical music concerts to tourists and was dressed up in the Mozart costume, something like this
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a...n-period-costume-vienna-austria-80965323.html
I quite the job pretty fast, not only was I not interested in any classical at that time, but I am not a good salesman either  But these experiences might be one of the reasons why I subconsciously associate Mozart with kitch. 
But the article is quite reasonable, in that it admits that Mozart wrote both some masterpieces and quite a lot of crap too. This making of a sacred cow out of Mozart, a kind of superhuman demigod who wrote nothing but perfection, is just plain wrong.


----------



## Haydn70

Jacck said:


> The Bayan Northcott article for The Independent (Mozart Uncovered) is quite good. I was in Salzburg several times (for skiing etc) and the Mozart kitsch fills the whole city (by kitsch I mean the Mozartkugeln etc). When I was a student in Prague in the 1990's, I had a job of selling tickets for classical music concerts to tourists and was dressed up in the Mozart costume, something like this
> https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a...n-period-costume-vienna-austria-80965323.html
> I quite the job pretty fast, not only was I not interested in any classical at that time, but I am not a good salesman either  But these experiences might be one of the reasons why I subconsciously associate Mozart with kitch.
> But the article is quite reasonable, in that it admits that Mozart wrote both some masterpieces and quite a lot of crap too. This making of a sacred cow out of Mozart, a kind of superhuman demigod who wrote nothing but perfection, is just plain wrong.


Nowhere in the article did Northcott imply that Mozart's lesser pieces were crap. *Mozart did not write one note of crap.* He wrote, like every other great composer, what are called 'occasional' or functional or utilitarian pieces: dance music, etc…as Northcott put it: "pleasantly workaday stuff".

I disagree with the author in marking the 29th symphony as the first mature one. That honor goes to the 25th.

And Mozart was not the greatest compositional prodigy. That honor goes to Mendelssohn. Nothing Mozart or any other composer in history wrote at the age of 16 can match Mendelssohn's Octet. And for that matter no 17-year old composer can match Mendelssohn's Midsummer Night's Dream overture. And then there are his string symphonies he composed at ages 12-14….

And as for Mozart, if you don't some of his music, fine, but that does not make it crap...try a bit of objectivity.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Sorry, but it seems your position is unchanged. Raff's music is "great" because you say it is great. "It's just not played enough..." Really?
> 
> I'll repeat my view: People in this forum would have considered Raff's music great when it was generally thought to be great. Afterwards, they would not. All a matter of opinion, not any objective attribute of the music.


How do you know what anyone on this forum would think of Raff's music at any point in time or under any circumstances? All your supposition affirms is that most people are uneducated about most things, culturally myopic, and prone to herd behavior.

The quality of Raff's music is not caused by my or anyone else's opinion of it. It is not what it is BECAUSE anyone thinks it's that. It isn't "great" - or anything else - BECAUSE I or anyone else says it is (and I didn't call it "great").

Raff composed music of a particular kind, a particular period and style. In music of that kind, particular techniques are employed. Raff studied and acquired those techniques and employed them at a certain level - a high level - of proficiency, a higher level than we find in all but a few other composers working in that style. His music exhibits a well-developed understanding of form, such that his compositions embody principles of unity, variety, harmony, contrast, clarity, balance, inventiveness, and so forth - aesthetic principles that humans in all times and places have valued in art (and in life generally) because those principles are inherently satisfying to the human mind.

Raff's proficiency can be, and is, perceived and appreciated by people capable of doing so, and exists whether or not anyone recognizes it, cares for his work, or hears his music at all. It is there to be discovered, not created, by anyone capable of discovering it. And many, perhaps most, people are capable of making the discovery. People make such discoveries every day, person after person, generation after generation, in age after age.

Apparently some people are so mortified at the thought that their aesthetic perceptiveness might be, or might be thought, inferior to that of others that they have to deny that there is any such thing as aesthetic perceptiveness, and have to propose bizarre epistemologies according to which aesthetic quality is determined by taking surveys.


----------



## Woodduck

Jacck said:


> The Bayan Northcott article for The Independent (Mozart Uncovered) is quite good. I was in Salzburg several times (for skiing etc) and the Mozart kitsch fills the whole city (by kitsch I mean the Mozartkugeln etc). When I was a student in Prague in the 1990's, I had a job of selling tickets for classical music concerts to tourists and was dressed up in the Mozart costume, something like this
> https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a...n-period-costume-vienna-austria-80965323.html
> I quite the job pretty fast, not only was I not interested in any classical at that time, but I am not a good salesman either  But these experiences might be one of the reasons why I subconsciously associate Mozart with kitch.
> But the article is quite reasonable, in that it admits that Mozart wrote both some masterpieces and quite a lot of crap too. This making of a sacred cow out of Mozart, a kind of superhuman demigod who wrote nothing but perfection, is just plain wrong.


It's too bad you had to dress up in a Mozart costume. No one should endure such humiliation. I think it would have given me post-traumatic stress syndrome. Still, "composer of crap or kitsch" and "perfect superhuman demigod" are not the only options. I'll settle for "one of the supreme musical minds in history." That's already something beyond the comprehension of most of us (except the absolute relativists here who think it's all a matter of who you ask).


----------



## PlaySalieri

Jacck said:


> The Bayan Northcott article for The Independent (Mozart Uncovered) is quite good. I was in Salzburg several times (for skiing etc) and the Mozart kitsch fills the whole city (by kitsch I mean the Mozartkugeln etc). When I was a student in Prague in the 1990's, I had a job of selling tickets for classical music concerts to tourists and was dressed up in the Mozart costume, something like this
> https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a...n-period-costume-vienna-austria-80965323.html
> I quite the job pretty fast, not only was I not interested in any classical at that time, but I am not a good salesman either  But these experiences might be one of the reasons why I subconsciously associate Mozart with kitch.
> But the article is quite reasonable,* in that it admits that Mozart wrote both some masterpieces and quite a lot of crap too.* This making of a sacred cow out of Mozart, a kind of superhuman demigod who wrote nothing but perfection, is just plain wrong.


It doesn't say he wrote crap. Even the early works demonstrate considerable craft if not inspiration that came later.


----------



## PlaySalieri

ArsMusica said:


> Nowhere in the article did Northcott imply that Mozart's lesser pieces were crap. *Mozart did not write one note of crap.* He wrote, like every other great composer, what are called 'occasional' or functional or utilitarian pieces: dance music, etc…as Northcott put it: "pleasantly workaday stuff".
> 
> I disagree with the author in marking the 29th symphony as the first mature one. That honor goes to the 25th.
> 
> And Mozart was not the greatest compositional prodigy. That honor goes to Mendelssohn. Nothing Mozart or any other composer in history wrote at the age of 16 can match Mendelssohn's Octet. And for that matter no 17-year old composer can match Mendelssohn's Midsummer Night's Dream overture. And then there are his string symphonies he composed at ages 12-14….
> 
> And as for Mozart, if you don't some of his music, fine, but that does not make it crap...try a bit of objectivity.


I am not so sure - I like the octet - but the young Mozart also composed some astounding pieces - the best early mass, K139 - is bordering on a masterpiece - and the early opera Mitrdate Ri Di Ponto (K87) was a huge success at the time and boasts at least 1 aria that would not sound out of place in a mature Mozart opera. There is also Exsultate Jubilate, performed more frequently than Mendelsohns octet. K175 (pc 5) and sy 25 were also composed not long after Mozart was 16. Plus many other pieces pre K180 not as good as the octet but not that far off.
But let's not quibble too much - Mozart was a superior master to Mendelssohn who did not fulfill his early promise to the extent he probably should have.


----------



## janxharris

DavidA said:


> But our friend janxharris appears to have this thing that not all the works are masterpieces. This is true of most composers...


I agree.

________________


----------



## Bulldog

stomanek said:


> But let's not quibble too much - Mozart was a superior master to Mendelssohn who did not fulfill his early promise to the extent he probably should have.


I strongly prefer Mozart to Mendelssohn, but I'm not aware of any evidence that Mozart was the superior composer.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> How do you know what anyone on this forum would think of Raff's music at any point in time or under any circumstances? All your supposition affirms is that most people are uneducated about most things, culturally myopic, and prone to herd behavior.
> 
> The quality of Raff's music is not caused by my or anyone else's opinion of it. It is not what it is BECAUSE anyone thinks it's that. It isn't "great" - or anything else - BECAUSE I or anyone else says it is (and I didn't call it "great").
> 
> Raff composed music of a particular kind, a particular period and style. In music of that kind, particular techniques are employed. Raff studied and acquired those techniques and employed them at a certain level - a high level - of proficiency, a higher level than we find in all but a few other composers working in that style. His music exhibits a well-developed understanding of form, such that his compositions embody principles of unity, variety, harmony, contrast, clarity, balance, inventiveness, and so forth - aesthetic principles that humans in all times and places have valued in art (and in life generally) because those principles are inherently satisfying to the human mind.
> 
> Raff's proficiency can be, and is, perceived and appreciated by people capable of doing so, and exists whether or not anyone recognizes it, cares for his work, or hears his music at all. It is there to be discovered, not created, by anyone capable of discovering it. And many, perhaps most, people are capable of making the discovery. People make such discoveries every day, person after person, generation after generation, in age after age.
> 
> Apparently some people are so mortified at the thought that their aesthetic perceptiveness might be, or might be thought, inferior to that of others that they have to deny that there is any such thing as aesthetic perceptiveness, and have to propose bizarre epistemologies according to which aesthetic quality is determined by taking surveys.


At the hazard of over-generalizing, I think the greatest performers, and the greatest artists generally, have three fundamental attributes. First, great technical skills, although sometimes at least one or two of their lesser contemporaries often reach an even higher technical level. Second, a great knowledge and understanding, at least on a practical, working level, of the principles and traditions of the genre in which they work. Those two attributes are usually, if not easy, at least possible to evaluate and quantify in a largely objective way. But the greatest artists have a third attribute, an "it" factor, that is much harder to quantify. Their art is in some significant way a clear and unique departure from all who came before them. That is, they break the mold, and crucially, they break the mold in a way that the audience connects with in a profound and lasting way. The tough thing to quantify isn't necessarily what the artist is doing that is unique and innovative in broad terms but rather precisely why those innovations are so successful in forming a lasting bond with with the audience.

IMO this is the reason that all music competitions (whether for performers or composers), however expert the judges and carefully designed the criteria, are limited in what they can achieve. The best competition judges are effective in finding the musicians who most excel in the first two areas I mentioned. But the third area, the "it" factor, can only consistently be determined by the audience itself, whether it's those in the concert hall for the debut or premier or listeners over the next 20 or 100 or 200 years, and only recognized afterwards by judges or critics.

So not only should a music listener not think he or she must conform to the opinions and conclusions of competition judges or critics, or musicologists, or surveys (ugh!), it is actually the other way around, with the caveat that the mere size of an artist's audience is not the measure of greatness, rather the profoundness and permanence of the connection the artist is able to make with that audience.


----------



## trazom

janxharris said:


> "What he was really doing as he scribbled those first 200 Ks was acquiring a sovereign command over all the standard genres, compositional procedures, even musical clichés of his day that would in due course enable him to fabricate, with a minimum of time and trouble, an adequate response to any musical demand made upon him. As a result, even the catalogue of his last dozen years, although teeming with masterpieces, is also interspersed with a great deal of pleasantly workaday stuff - hastily scribbled sets of ballroom dances and whatnot - which might scarcely attract attention by now were they not signed by Mozart."
> 
> Bayan Northcott (composer and critic) writing for The Independent - Mozart Uncovered in 2003.


Here's a scribbling of a chamber work Mozart wrote at the age of 17, before he allegedly found his "voice" as a composer: 



. When I listen to the second movement, it strikes me as a work by a composer who's not only thoroughly mastered the classical style he was immersed in but also found his voice in his fondness for cantabile vocal-like melodies supported by shifting rhythms and supporting textures, and brief outbursts of anguished dissonances like those suspensions in the development of the slow movement. Then there's the 25th symphony and the 5th piano concerto he wrote at the same age which sound more like Mozart than anyone else at the time they were written.

And the Agnus Dei from Mozart's litaniae lauritanae k.195 that he wrote only a year later: 



. Sounds less like a pleasant scribbling and more like a serious work of a composer in his late teens who'd discovered his voice and what he wanted to say.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> At the hazard of over-generalizing, I think the greatest performers, and the greatest artists generally, have three fundamental attributes. First, great technical skills, although sometimes at least one or two of their lesser contemporaries often reach an even higher technical level. Second, a great knowledge and understanding, at least on a practical, working level, of the principles and traditions of the genre in which they work. Those two attributes are usually, if not easy, at least possible to evaluate and quantify in a largely objective way. But the greatest artists have a third attribute, an "it" factor, that is much harder to quantify. Their art is in some significant way a clear and unique departure from all who came before them. That is, they break the mold, and crucially, they break the mold in a way that the audience connects with in a profound and lasting way. *The tough thing to quantify *isn't necessarily what the artist is doing that is unique and innovative in broad terms but rather precisely *why those innovations are so successful in forming a lasting bond with with the audience.
> *
> IMO this is the reason that all music competitions (whether for performers or composers), however expert the judges and carefully designed the criteria, are limited in what they can achieve. The best competition judges are effective in finding the musicians who most excel in the first two areas I mentioned. But the third area, the "it" factor, can only consistently be determined by the audience itself, whether it's those in the concert hall for the debut or premier or listeners over the next 20 or 100 or 200 years, and only recognized afterwards by judges or critics.
> 
> *So not only should a music listener not think he or she must conform to the opinions and conclusions of competition judges or critics, or musicologists, or surveys (ugh!), it is actually the other way around, with the caveat that the mere size of an artist's audience is not the measure of greatness, rather the profoundness and permanence of the connection the artist is able to make with that audience.*


I'm basically in agreement with this, but I wouldn't be concerned about "quantifying" anything. Perhaps you aren't thinking of literal and precise quantities (like inches or quarts), but I fear that many will take the impossibility of applying such measurements to art as confirmation of their view that nothing in art is superior to anything else (which every practicing artist, creator or performer, knows is nonsense).

I don't think it's right, either, to see the appreciation of art as a matter of anyone having to "conform" their judgments to those of anyone else. No such conformity, of anyone to anyone, is a measure of anything except various possible, and often complex, cultural dynamics. The durability of music in the affections of audiences - the "the profoundness and permanence of the connection the artist is able to make" with them - may be a good measure of "greatness" for certain purposes, and it's a pretty reliable indicator of where excellence is to be found. But we still have to confirm the presence of quality with our own ears and minds, and we can still find the ears and minds of artists and experienced thinkers about music valuable in understanding the dimensions of what we're hearing. An audience can't tell us why they're smiling and cheering a Haydn symphony written 200 years ago, but Charles Rosen, pianist and scholar, can tell us a great deal.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> An audience can't tell us why they're smiling and cheering a Haydn symphony written 200 years ago, but Charles Rosen, pianist and scholar, can tell us a great deal.


Yes, and this is actually the point I was trying to make. Charles Rosen, one of the best English language writers about classical music ever, imho, can tell us a lot about Haydn. But Haydn would be unknown at this point (maybe not to Charles Rosen, but Rosen wouldn't be writing books about him) if he didn't have the unique "it" factor I mentioned above. And Haydn had it in spades, he was spectacularly and uniquely innovative and broke the mold of music in his time in many and dramatic ways. Rosen isn't teaching us *that* Haydn is a great composer. Haydn has already accomplished that with his music. Rosen is merely analyzing after the fact *why* Haydn's music is so powerful, exciting, successful, and in a word, great. Although perhaps I shouldn't say "merely" when discussing Rosen's brilliant analysis, I mean no disrespect to him by that, only that his role is not that of a tastemaker or annointer of the crown of greatness. We are, as you put it, "confirming the presence of quality with our own ears and minds", not with Charles Rosen's ears and mind, brilliant though he is.
And I also agree fully with your second point. It perplexes me that people know perfectly well that they need to read up on Irish and British literature, history and culture of the late 19th and early 20th century to even begin to understand a great work like James Joyce's Ulysses. Reading Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man and Dubliners helps, too. Yet people don't see that similarly, with classical music, it helps to become an experienced listener to the music of Haydn's time, which was a very different time from our own, including but not limited to Haydn's music itself. Yes, a good teacher or author can give some useful advice on where to investigate, but the listener must do his or her own listening, the more the better, and at an earlier age the better.
No book that tells you who the greatest composers are and what their greatest works are, and certainly no poll or survey (again, ugh!) is even the least bit a substitute for one's own careful and repeated listening.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Jacck said:


> I did not present it as an objective truth, but I used the claims to describe how he subjectively affects me, ie the music sounds cheery and superficial, as kitch to be played to entertain the nobles at their parties, and in elevators nowadays. He sounds much less serious then Beethoven to me. But this is not necessarily an objective truth about his music, this is my subjective response to his music, or rather an attempt to rationalize the feelings that his music evokes in me.
> This is happy, cheery music
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and Mozart composed a lot of music like this


Ah, well, I'm not sure if kitsch should ever be used as a descriptive of subjective impressions. Although I know subjective/objective distinctions are often tricky in art, kitsch is one criticism I do think is closer to being objective, in that it's describing art with only superficially pleasing qualities but nothing beyond that. There's clearly more to Mozart's music than just the superficially pleasing melodies and cheeriness. Certainly Mozart sounds "less serious" than Beethoven most of the time, but so do most pre-Romantic composers; much of that is just down to different eras. Beethoven was undoubtedly influenced by Mozart's more "serious" works as well. I'm also not sure how much "sounding" serious or cheery is indicative of depth anyway. It strikes me as similar to the strange attitude that comedy can't make for art as great as tragedy, which is a concept I never understood.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> Apparently some people are so mortified at the thought that their aesthetic perceptiveness might be, or might be thought, inferior to that of others that they have to deny that there is any such thing as aesthetic perceptiveness, and have to propose bizarre epistemologies according to which aesthetic quality is determined by taking surveys.


It's much more like that some people are so mortified at the thought that their aesthetic perceptiveness is subjective that they have to propose bizarre epistemologies according to which things that exist only in the mind like the judgement of aesthetic qualities have some kind of reality and validity outside of the mind, despite the fact that it has none of the qualities of other objectively real things.

Also, your principles of "unity, variety, harmony, contrast, clarity, balance, inventiveness, and so forth" are so vague as to be practically meaningless. Here's an image that possesses inarguably at least 4 of those qualities (and perhaps more depending on how we define them): 







Is that great art? The suggestion that the human mind has always valued such principles (save perhaps for inventiveness, which is highly subjective) is both wrong and still avoiding the fact that, even if it were true, these values still wouldn't be objective.


----------



## Haydn70

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It's much more like that some people are so mortified at the thought that their aesthetic perceptiveness is subjective that they have to propose bizarre epistemologies according to which things that exist only in the mind like the judgement of aesthetic qualities have some kind of reality and validity outside of the mind, despite the fact that it has none of the qualities of other objectively real things.
> 
> Also, your principles of "unity, variety, harmony, contrast, clarity, balance, inventiveness, and so forth" are so vague as to be practically meaningless. Here's an image that possesses inarguably at least 4 of those qualities (and perhaps more depending on how we define them):
> View attachment 103931
> 
> Is that great art? The suggestion that the human mind has always valued such principles (save perhaps for inventiveness, which is highly subjective) is both wrong and still avoiding the fact that, even if it were true, these values still wouldn't be objective.


The principles of unity, variety, harmony, contrast, clarity, balance, inventiveness may be vague to you but are not to me. And your example lacks the vital principle of inventiveness.

Nice try, but no dice.


----------



## KenOC

ArsMusica said:


> The principles of unity, variety, harmony, contrast, clarity, balance, inventiveness may be vague to you but are not to me.


Well then, you are fully equipped to separate the wheat from the chaff, to identify those supremely great works of art and discard the run-of-the-mill and mediocre that always seem to surround us. Wonderful! Please keep us informed.

With that, I'll leave off because my "aesthetic relativism" seems to generate some painful heartburn around here. So sorry!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

ArsMusica said:


> The principles of unity, variety, harmony, contrast, clarity, balance, inventiveness may be vague to you but are not to me. And your example lacks the vital principle of inventiveness.
> 
> Nice try, but no dice.


Unless you can get everyone to agree on what constitutes those qualities then the terms are indeed vague; and I suspect that many are, if not vague, then so general that you could make it so that every work of art would exhibit at least some of those qualities. It would be pretty difficult for a work of art to exhibit NO variety whatsoever; or for any music to exhibit NO harmony. I would agree my example lacks great inventiveness, but inventiveness is by far the most subjective of all those principles. Technically, any art humans produce is inventive by its very nature; judging one thing as more inventive than another, however, is completely subjective. There's no way to measure that.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Ah, well, I'm not sure if kitsch should ever be used as a descriptive of subjective impressions. Although I know subjective/objective distinctions are often tricky in art, kitsch is one criticism I do think is closer to being objective, in that it's describing art with only superficially pleasing qualities but nothing beyond that. There's clearly more to Mozart's music than just the superficially pleasing melodies and cheeriness. Certainly Mozart sounds "less serious" than Beethoven most of the time, but so do most pre-Romantic composers; much of that is just down to different eras. Beethoven was undoubtedly influenced by Mozart's more "serious" works as well. *I'm also not sure how much "sounding" serious or cheery is indicative of depth anyway.* It strikes me as similar to the strange attitude that comedy can't make for art as great as tragedy, which is a concept I never understood.


Now that's a good point.

we need to establish why it is that fans of Beethoven and the romantic era in general put so much value on Mozart's minor key works and virtually dismiss everything else. I am near certain that people who favour Mozart's music over 19thC composers put as much value on K467 and K488 as they do K466 and K491.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Bulldog said:


> I strongly prefer Mozart to Mendelssohn, but I'm not aware of any evidence that Mozart was the superior composer.


Just the evidence of my own perception.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> Now that's a good point.
> 
> we need to establish *why it is that fans of Beethoven and the romantic era in general put so much value on Mozart's minor key works and virtually dismiss everything else*. I am near certain that people who favour Mozart's music over 19thC composers put as much value on K467 and K488 as they do K466 and K491.


That describes me.


----------



## science

I'm brainstorming a series of questions that could help us clarify each others' positions.

For now I'm more interested in what the questions should be than what our various answers would be.

Here are the questions I've thought of so far:

Which of these statements do you agree with and which do you disagree with?


Objective" means "true or false regardless of taste or opinion."
Some opinions are "subjective" and others are "objective." 
Beauty exists independently of conscious minds that perceive it. 
There are "objective" values in the arts, such as symmetry, balance, proportion, variety, coherence, novelty, cleverness, and closure.
Aesthetic judgments are correct or incorrect in the same sense as mathematical statements or empirical claims. 
When many knowledgeable people agree that a work of music is "good" or "great," their agreement itself constitutes objective knowledge. 
When many knowledgeable people agree that a work of music is "good" or "great," they agree because they correctly perceive objectively good features of the work. 
It is important to defer to knowledgeable people not only about facts (such as what features of a work of art were novel when it was created) but judgements such as whether the work is good. 
There are some works of art and music that are objectively bad, and people who like them have objectively bad taste. There are also some works of art and music that are objectively good, and people who like them have objectively good taste.
If we were all equally knowledgeable and perceptive, we would all agree about how good a work of art is. 
A work of art can be good even if I don't enjoy it. 
A work of art can be good even if no one enjoys it. 
Most people don't know enough about art or music to have valid opinions about it. 
The canons of western art and music do not reflect any accidents of history; instead, they represent the objectively greatest creations of western culture. 
If taste is subjective, everything must be equally good, so there can be no "better" or "worse" art. 
If moral feelings are subjective, there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong" and everything is permitted. 
A computer could be programed to correctly evaluate the beauty of a work of art. 

What other statements belong on this list?


----------



## janxharris

I love Brahms's second piano concerto - but does it fail on variety / contrast? Four deeply romantic movements with perhaps only the fourth displaying some contrast (as at the beginning with repeat).


----------



## janxharris

Forgive me...but the slow movement from K467 (Piano Concerto No. 21) is the very essence of what does not work for me in Mozart's music. It...apologies again...sounds about as bad as a syrupy pop song...

stomanek did ask...


stomanek said:


> we need to establish why it is that fans of Beethoven and the romantic era in general put so much value on Mozart's minor key works and virtually dismiss everything else


----------



## janxharris

In contrast, the slow mvmt from the 23rd (Eva Yojimbo posted it earlier I believe) is about as beautiful as it gets imho:


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

stomanek said:


> Now that's a good point.
> 
> we need to establish why it is that fans of Beethoven and the romantic era in general put so much value on Mozart's minor key works and virtually dismiss everything else. I am near certain that people who favour Mozart's music over 19thC composers put as much value on K467 and K488 as they do K466 and K491.


I think it goes to what I said about the common bias towards tragedy being a higher form of art than comedy. This isn't a bias I personally share. As for your examples, I value all of those compositions almost equally and would be at great pains to rank them. That said, of them only #21 is wholly cheery, as #23, though in a major key, has perhaps the most tragic of all Mozart's slow movements. I'm also a big fan of K482 and am not sure why it's typically considered a lesser work than the four surrounding it.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

janxharris said:


> Forgive me...but the slow movement from K467 (Piano Concerto No. 21) is the very essence of what does not work for me in Mozart's music. It...apologies again...sounds about as bad as a syrupy pop song...


If all you're listening to is the initial melody in the strings I could understand that comment, but what about all of the tonal modulations? There's a lot of minor-key darkness and even bitterness undercutting the sweetness of that main melody. In fact, that slow movement is highly unpredictable in its handling of the thematic material. I have nothing against syrupy pop songs, but I don't know many such songs that have that much tonal variation.


----------



## Art Rock

janxharris said:


> Forgive me...but the slow movement from K467 (Piano Concerto No. 21) is the very essence of what does not work for me in Mozart's music. It...apologies again...sounds about as bad as a syrupy pop song...
> 
> stomanek did ask...


Your subconscious mind may be at work here, as this movement inspired a well-known Neil Diamond song:


----------



## DavidA

janxharris said:


> Forgive me...but the slow movement from K467 (Piano Concerto No. 21) is the very essence of what does not work for me in Mozart's music. It...apologies again...sounds about as bad as a syrupy pop song...
> 
> stomanek did ask...


Sorrun but this piece is the very essence of what does work in Mozart - not just for me but a whole lot of people normally outside classical music - sublime simplicity!


----------



## janxharris

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I think it goes to what I said about the common bias towards tragedy being a higher form of art than comedy. This isn't a bias I personally share. As for your examples, I value all of those compositions almost equally and would be at great pains to rank them. That said, of them only #21 is wholly cheery, as #23, though in a major key, has perhaps the most tragic of all Mozart's slow movements. I'm also a big fan of K482 and am not sure why it's typically considered a lesser work than the four surrounding it.


Life is tragic. We die.


----------



## janxharris

DavidA said:


> Sorrun but this piece is the very essence of what does work in Mozart - not just for me but a whole lot of people normally outside classical music - sublime simplicity!


And I have nothing but respect for your view.


----------



## janxharris

Art Rock said:


> Your subconscious mind may be at work here, as this movement inspired a well-known Neil Diamond song:


Wow - I never noticed that.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

science said:


> I'm brainstorming a series of questions that could help us clarify each others' positions.
> 
> For now I'm more interested in what the questions should be than what our various answers would be.
> 
> Here are the questions I've thought of so far:
> 
> Which of these statements do you agree with and which do you disagree with?
> 
> 
> Objective" means "true or false regardless of taste or opinion."
> Some opinions are "subjective" and others are "objective."
> Beauty exists independently of conscious minds that perceive it.
> There are "objective" values in the arts, such as symmetry, balance, proportion, variety, coherence, novelty, cleverness, and closure.
> Aesthetic judgments are correct or incorrect in the same sense as mathematical statements or empirical claims.
> When many knowledgeable people agree that a work of music is "good" or "great," their agreement itself constitutes objective knowledge.
> When many knowledgeable people agree that a work of music is "good" or "great," they agree because they correctly perceive objectively good features of the work.
> It is important to defer to knowledgeable people not only about facts (such as what features of a work of art were novel when it was created) but judgements such as whether the work is good.
> There are some works of art and music that are objectively bad, and people who like them have objectively bad taste. There are also some works of art and music that are objectively good, and people who like them have objectively good taste.
> If we were all equally knowledgeable and perceptive, we would all agree about how good a work of art is.
> A work of art can be good even if I don't enjoy it.
> A work of art can be good even if no one enjoys it.
> Most people don't know enough about art or music to have valid opinions about it.
> The canons of western art and music do not reflect any accidents of history; instead, they represent the objectively greatest creations of western culture.
> If taste is subjective, everything must be equally good, so there can be no "better" or "worse" art.
> If moral feelings are subjective, there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong" and everything is permitted.
> A computer could be programed to correctly evaluate the beauty of a work of art.
> 
> What other statements belong on this list?


To answer your current list:

Objective" means "true or false regardless of taste or opinion."
-Objective means "relative to objects external to the mind" as subjective means "relative to thoughts/feelings internal to the mind." As I said in a previous post, the objective/subjective distinction is really one of locus, or where the target of our inquiry resides.

Some opinions are "subjective" and others are "objective." 
-Depends on how we're defining "opinion." All opinions about feelings/emotions are subjective by definition. If you have an opinion about objective matters--like, eg, how doctors have "opinions" regarding a diagnosis--then those are only subjective to the extent that knowledge and reasoning from that knowledge can differ.

Beauty exists independently of conscious minds that perceive it. 
-False.

There are "objective" values in the arts, such as symmetry, balance, proportion, variety, coherence, novelty, cleverness, and closure.
-False. Those qualities may be objective to an extent, but it absolutely requires the subjective mind to value them.

Aesthetic judgments are correct or incorrect in the same sense as mathematical statements or empirical claims. 
-False.

When many knowledgeable people agree that a work of music is "good" or "great," their agreement itself constitutes objective knowledge. 
-False.

When many knowledgeable people agree that a work of music is "good" or "great," they agree because they correctly perceive objectively good features of the work. 
-False.

It is important to defer to knowledgeable people not only about facts (such as what features of a work of art were novel when it was created) but judgements such as whether the work is good. 
-False.

All of the above "false" statements are not only false but ridiculous given that equally knowledgeable people disagree about such things all the time. You don't find such disagreements about, say, General Relativity in physics. There's a reason for that.

There are some works of art and music that are objectively bad, and people who like them have objectively bad taste. There are also some works of art and music that are objectively good, and people who like them have objectively good taste.
-False.

If we were all equally knowledgeable and perceptive, we would all agree about how good a work of art is. 
-False, or the only way this would be true is if we all shared the exact same brains/mind, ie, were identical in every way mentally.

A work of art can be good even if I don't enjoy it. 
A work of art can be good even if no one enjoys it. 
Most people don't know enough about art or music to have valid opinions about it. 
The canons of western art and music do not reflect any accidents of history; instead, they represent the objectively greatest creations of western culture. 
-All false.

If taste is subjective, everything must be equally good, so there can be no "better" or "worse" art. 
-Not entirely true. There can be no OBJECTIVELY "better" or "worse," but there can be better or worse relative to subjective standards. Think about sports by analogy: the rules of basketball are not objective in that they exist independently of minds having conceived of them, but once we created the rules, we do have standards by which to judge achievement in the sport by, so when we say Michael Jordan is one of the greatest players ever we are comparing his objective qualities to the subjective standards of the rules/goals of the game. The rules/goals of the game remain subjectively agreed-upon though. Art is like that, with the exception that there's far more different "games" with far more different sets of "rules/standards" than in sports.

If moral feelings are subjective, there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong" and everything is permitted. 
-See my above comment. It's the same principle.

A computer could be programed to correctly evaluate the beauty of a work of art. 
-False. A computer could be programmed to correctly evaluate properties of art that we typically find beautiful, but that's it.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

janxharris said:


> Life is tragic. We die.


Life is comedic. We live.


----------



## janxharris

Sometimes it is all about arrangement - though not an example from the classical world, this original and cover perhaps highlight how different the same music can sound (I enjoy the second but not the first):


----------



## janxharris

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Life is comedic. We live.


Forever?

...................


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

janxharris said:


> Forever?
> 
> ...................


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It's much more like that some people are so mortified at the thought that their aesthetic perceptiveness is subjective that they have to propose bizarre epistemologies according to which things that exist only in the mind like the judgement of aesthetic qualities have some kind of reality and validity outside of the mind, despite the fact that it has none of the qualities of other objectively real things.
> 
> Also, your principles of "unity, variety, harmony, contrast, clarity, balance, inventiveness, and so forth" are so vague as to be practically meaningless. Here's an image that possesses inarguably at least 4 of those qualities (and perhaps more depending on how we define them):
> View attachment 103931
> 
> Is that great art? The suggestion that the human mind has always valued such principles (save perhaps for inventiveness, which is highly subjective) is both wrong and still avoiding the fact that, even if it were true, these values still wouldn't be objective.


In the attempt to understand aesthetic perception, I find the "subjective/objective" dichotomy simplistic and unhelpful. Harping on it doesn't do much to promote understanding of art; in fact it tends to obstruct any inquiry into what factors are fundamentally important in artistic creation, in the perception of aesthetic qualities, and in judgments of artistic merit.

Showing us a bare geometric shape which necessarily exhibits a few of the formal qualities found in art, trying to prove thereby that those formal qualities are trivial or meaningless, and then asking if the image is great art, is frankly laughable and insulting._ Of course_ the mere presence of unity and contrast in an object proves nothing about its aesthetic merit! Who would suggest otherwise? I was only offering some very basic principles of form as a starting point for considering the sorts of factors that artists consider - mostly subconsciously (i.e., without naming them) - as they compose a work. The ways in which formal principles combine and interact in even simple works of actual art are extraordinarily complex, subtle and variable. I haven't the patience or desire, or probably the skill, to take people by the hand and guide them through that thicket. Many others have attempted it, and anyone really interested can look the matter up in any number of treatises on artistic composition.

Most contributors to this discussion are clearly not artists. I am - in arts musical and visual, in the capacities of both creator and performer. As one who lives and breathes art and has a natural inclination to think about what I'm doing, I can tell you that academic dissertations on what "subjectivity" and "objectivity" mean have nothing useful to say to me about the process of creating art, and not much more about understanding and appreciating it. As a practicing artist, I deal with the _objective structures and dynamic forms of subjective realities_ constantly, and know that they are the basic building blocks of artistic expression, especially in music where there is no literal reference to concrete things to import meaning in an obvious way. If that seems a paradox or a conundrum, I recommend inquiring into the area of psychology known as "cross-domain mapping," in which the perception of patterns abstracted from both "subjective" and "objective" realities enable different perceptual modes to function as "metaphors" of one another and carry expressive meaning and affective power across "domains."

As an artist, I'm constantly confronted with the problem of "significant form," and in art formal significance manifests in two ways: expressiveness and coherence. To take the second of these first, the pursuit of coherence is not a "subjective" crap-shoot: the moment I draw a line on paper I begin the process of setting up a problem for which I must find a solution, and the nature of the problem limits the terms of that solution and directs me toward it. The farther I go in a composition, the stricter those limits become. My goal is to bring the terms of my evolving problem to a conclusion that "works" - artist's vernacular for having things in harmonious, non-contradictory relation to one another. The metaphor of a logical problem is deliberate: there are innumerable points in the process at which the "premises" I've set up require a specific "conclusion" and no other. There may be many revisions and adjustments along the way, and if there's a basic flaw in the premises a satisfactory conclusion may prove impossible. But if I can achieve a "logical" consistency throughout a complex work, where every line and form is where it should and must be, I will have achieved a fine, possibly a great, work of art.

As for the second formal principle, expressiveness, coherence itself goes some way toward ensuring it, since affect must have form and form conveys feeling. But expressiveness is also contingent on an artist's capacity for "cross-domain mapping" - his ability to grasp the underlying, characteristic forms of life - of sensation, feeling, emotion, even of thought, and the gestures to which these give rise - and find visual or audible "metaphors" for them. This is the "subjective" element in art, but there is an "objectivity" to it as well, since the repertoire of meaningful forms is rooted in the common organismic experience of mankind - hence the ability of art to communicate feeling - and since the artist, in manipulating these forms consciously, stands apart from them even while he experiences them inwardly.

Art is thus the product of two processes dancing together in an intimate embrace as they seek to create significant form; and even while the dance originates "subjectively" from within the artist's mind, the basic intellectual materials with which he works are embodied in principles and forms which he draws from the common fund of human experience, of which his work is a metaphor. The more successful he is at finding the archetypal forms of human feeling, and at projecting them into forms which exhibit coherence and comprehensibility to a viewer or auditor, the more likely that people will respond to his work. It's in this way that art, no matter how personal, has "objective" meaning, and it's because of this that "aesthetically intelligent" responses to art, though of course never free from individuality, have a substantial "objective" component. It's perfectly obvious that people vary widely in how they "feel' about works of art. What's a bit less obvious, unless one is paying attention to it, is the degree to which even people with very different feelings about a work will have similar views on what the work is "about," and why there is so much consensus about the stature of works which irresistibly impress us, around the world and through the centuries, as "great."

OK, I've worked my fingers to the bone here, and my brain to the - well, whatever is the squishy gray equivalent of the bone (my cross-domain mapping skills fail me). Good night.


----------



## science

janxharris said:


> Forever?
> 
> ...................


No, thank God!

.......


----------



## Woodduck

stomanek said:


> Now that's a good point.
> 
> we need to establish why it is that fans of Beethoven and the romantic era in general put so much value on Mozart's minor key works and virtually dismiss everything else. I am near certain that people who favour Mozart's music over 19thC composers put as much value on K467 and K488 as they do K466 and K491.


I do love it when Mozart dips into the minor. This is a "subjective" preference, and has nothing to do with thinking that his minor key works are superior. But in the context of the classical style, which tends to linger long over tonic, dominant, and subdominant relationships, minor tonalities open up a realm of darkness and mystery which I find refreshing and relieving. From a music theory standpoint, minor keys are felt as less tonally stable, more inclined to modulation, and ripe for chromaticism. Hence their greater appeal to the Romantics, who embraced Mozart's minor key stuff as their own.


----------



## janxharris

science said:


> No, thank God!
> 
> .......


Interesting - I though God's desire was to make eternal life a possibility  ...but then you didn't mean that...


----------



## science

janxharris said:


> Interesting - I though God's desire was to make eternal life a possibility  ...but then you didn't mean that...


Not really. Although, assuming good health and basic material comfort, I'd like to live a lot longer than I will - to be young much longer than I was, to be not old much longer than I will be, and to be old much longer than I will be - I'm content that we have finite time and a life cycle. Looks to me like younger people might do better than I have done.

What I am not content with is all the injustice and oppression. Given the horrible realities of human cruelty and indifference, death is in some sense a mercy.


----------



## janxharris

science said:


> Not really. Although, assuming good health and basic material comfort, I'd like to live a lot longer than I will - to be young much longer than I was, to be not old much longer than I will be, and to be old much longer than I will be - I'm content that we have finite time and a life cycle. Looks to me like younger people might do better than I have done.
> 
> What I am not content with is all the injustice and oppression. Given the horrible realities of human cruelty and indifference, death is in some sense a mercy.


Perhaps you have encapsulated why tragic music resonates with many of us and why some music sounds unrealistically cheerful - that it seems in discord with reality.


----------



## Guest

Trying to examine your questions, see my responses in blue.



science said:


> I'm brainstorming a series of questions that could help us clarify each others' positions.
> 
> For now I'm more interested in what the questions should be than what our various answers would be.
> 
> Here are the questions I've thought of so far:
> 
> Which of these statements do you agree with and which do you disagree with?
> 
> 
> Objective" means "true or false regardless of taste or opinion."
> Some opinions are "subjective" and others are "objective." _All _"opinions" are subjective. What might ths question be getting at?
> Beauty exists independently of conscious minds that perceive it. This might fail merely because of the absence of the mind, not because of the absence of the perception.
> There are "objective" values in the arts, such as symmetry, balance, proportion, variety, coherence, novelty, cleverness, and closure.I'm not sure all in your list here is correct, but since it includes some things that are - symmetry is mathematically provable (balance isn't, I don't think) - a list could be compiled that might be agreeable.
> Aesthetic judgments are correct or incorrect in the same sense as mathematical statements or empirical claims.
> When many knowledgeable people agree that a work of music is "good" or "great," their agreement itself constitutes objective knowledge.Agreeing works that are "Good" and "great" imply different processes, so these are two different processes, requiring at least two different questions.
> When many knowledgeable people agree that a work of music is "good" or "great," they agree because they correctly perceive objectively good features of the work.
> It is important to defer to knowledgeable people not only about facts (such as what features of a work of art were novel when it was created) but judgements such as whether the work is good.
> There are some works of art and music that are objectively bad, and people who like them have objectively bad taste. There are also some works of art and music that are objectively good, and people who like them have objectively good taste.
> If we were all equally knowledgeable and perceptive, we would all agree about how good a work of art is.
> A work of art can be good even if I don't enjoy it.
> A work of art can be good even if no one enjoys it.
> Most people don't know enough about art or music to have valid opinions about it.
> The canons of western art and music do not reflect any accidents of history; instead, they represent the objectively greatest creations of western culture.
> If taste is subjective, everything must be equally good, so there can be no "better" or "worse" art.
> If moral feelings are subjective, there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong" and everything is permitted.
> A computer could be programed to correctly evaluate the beauty of a work of art.
> 
> What other statements belong on this list?


I think the rest can stand without adjustment. That doesn't mean they will yield any kind of agreement - in fact, more likely, the opposite.

What about "A work of art has no value without the interaction of an audience: true or false?"


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> Trying to examine your questions, see my responses in blue.
> 
> I think the rest can stand without adjustment. That doesn't mean they will yield any kind of agreement - in fact, more likely, the opposite.
> 
> What about "A work of art has no value without the interaction of an audience: true or false?"


Does the artist count as an audience?


----------



## Haydn70

"A work of art can be good even if I don't enjoy it."
Yes! The "I don't like it so it isn't good" line of thinking (if you can call it thinking) is absurd...and it is prevalent, so sad to say.

"Most people don't know enough about art or music to have valid opinions about it."
True...so very true.

"The canons of western art and music do not reflect any accidents of history; instead, they represent the objectively greatest creations of western culture."
True.

"If taste is subjective, everything must be equally good, so there can be no "better" or "worse" art."
Absurd.


----------



## janxharris

I'm not just picking on Mozart - my favourite composer is Sibelius, but imho this section of his second symphony is awful:


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Does the artist count as an audience?


Yes. This allows us to pay attention to what the artist says about their own work alongside what others say.


----------



## science

MacLeod said:


> Trying to examine your questions, see my responses in blue.
> 
> I think the rest can stand without adjustment. That doesn't mean they will yield any kind of agreement - in fact, more likely, the opposite.
> 
> What about "A work of art has no value without the interaction of an audience: true or false?"


The "all opinions are subjective" thing... well, I'm not sure that everyone is going to agree. For me, the fact/value distinction maps on to a fact/opinion distinction, but it doesn't seem to do that for everyone. I'm just trying to figure out what the heck people are talking about. I think there are some semantic problems.

Of course the fundamental underlying issue isn't subjective/objective at all, it's whether and when we should scorn people for their taste. Perhaps we are strategically utilizing semantic problems rather than unintentionally stumbling upon them.



> I'm not sure all in your list here is correct, but since it includes some things that are - symmetry is mathematically provable (balance isn't, I don't think) - a list could be compiled that might be agreeable.


I meant the list to be things can be more-or-less objectively defined. The question is whether they are objectively good.



> Agreeing works that are "Good" and "great" imply different processes, so these are two different processes, requiring at least two different questions.


This is fascinating! I had no idea anyone would think this. I assumed "great" meant something like "extremely good." Can you tell me what you mean by it?


----------



## Guest

science said:


> The "all opinions are subjective" thing... well, I'm not sure that everyone is going to agree. For me, the fact/value distinction maps on to a fact/opinion distinction, but it doesn't seem to do that for everyone. I'm just trying to figure out what the heck people are talking about. I think there are some semantic problems.
> 
> Of course the fundamental underlying issue isn't subjective/objective at all, it's whether and when we should scorn people for their taste. Perhaps we are strategically utilizing semantic problems rather than unintentionally stumbling upon them.


Semantic problems? Undoubtedly. But, IMO, an "opinion" is by definition subjective. I can't think of any opinion that might be genuinely regarded as objective.

Even identifying 'scorn' objectively is problematic, since it depends on one's own 'threshold' for such things.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> I'm not just picking on Mozart - my favourite composer is Sibelius, but imho this section of his second symphony is awful:


They're not playing it very well - a faster tempo would help - but yes, it's the crudest, most obvious and commonplace bit from any of his symphonies, quite unworthy of the first two movements of the work. The sequences remind me of some of Tchaikovsky's weaker moments.


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> Semantic problems? Undoubtedly. But, IMO, an "opinion" is by definition subjective. I can't think of any opinion that might be genuinely regarded as objective.


Ahem. I am forced to mention that my own opinions are quite objective. Unlike those of others.


----------



## science

ArsMusica said:


> "If taste is subjective, everything must be equally good, so there can be no "better" or "worse" art."
> Absurd.


I suspect you mean "everything must be equally good, so there can be no 'better' or 'worse' art" is absurd. Do you mean that, or do you mean that it is absurd to believe that the premise "taste is subjective" leads to that conclusion?


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> They're not playing it very well - a faster tempo would help - but yes, it's the crudest, most obvious and commonplace bit from any of his symphonies, quite unworthy of the first two movements of the work. The sequences remind me of some of Tchaikovsky's weaker moments.


For some reason, it brings to mind an unhelpful image of a tub of a steamship getting under way (that silly fanfare). I barely listen to the 2nd because of it.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Ahem. I am forced to mention that my own opinions are quite objective. Unlike those of others.


If Ken fell over in a wood, but there was no-one there to hear the scream...?


----------



## science

MacLeod said:


> If Ken fell over in a wood, but there was no-one there to hear the scream...?


Obviously he doesn't fall over in the woods; instead, the earth under him abruptly rotates 90 degrees.


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> If Ken fell over in a wood, but there was no-one there to hear the scream...?


Ken does not fall over, except where specifically required and with a rescue team on hand. This is all per contract.

And anyway, what's the matter with Sibelius's 2nd? I like it.


----------



## Larkenfield

> Which of these statements do you agree with and which do you disagree with?
> 
> 
> Objective" means "true or false regardless of taste or opinion."
> -Objective refers to the relationship of the parts within the whole of the work, not necessarily one's subjective reaction to it as a matter of taste.
> Some opinions are "subjective" and others are "objective."
> -Some will consider their subjective opinions as being objective; others will consider all opinions as being subjective and there are no consistent factors within a work of music that can be assessed as being done either poorly or masterfully.
> Beauty exists independently of conscious minds that perceive it.
> -False. It exists as a *potential* within the relationship of the parts within the whole of a composition or work of art. It's there as a potential to be brought out in an actual performance.
> There are "objective" values in the arts, such as symmetry, balance, proportion, variety, coherence, novelty, cleverness, and closure.
> -True. There are objective components of music represented by such elements as the understanding of harmonic principles and whether they're used well, or dynamics, tempo, skillful or imaginative use of form and structure, orchestration, articulation-all objective tools organizing the parts within a whole and part of the composer's creative tools. Such tool are used with various levels of skill or there would be no difference between the value of a Rolls Royce or a VW in the marketplace.
> Aesthetic judgments are correct or incorrect in the same sense as mathematical statements or empirical claims.
> -False. There are completely different aims between science and the arts.
> When many knowledgeable people agree that a work of music is "good" or "great," their agreement itself constitutes objective knowledge.
> -False. It does not represent objective knowledge. It represents the objective measure in numbers of people who hold similar subjective opinions.
> When many knowledgeable people agree that a work of music is "good" or "great," they agree because they correctly perceive objectively good features of the work.
> -Not necessarily. It could be that they hold similar subjective reactions but for different reasons.
> It is important to defer to knowledgeable people not only about facts (such as what features of a work of art were novel when it was created) but judgements such as whether the work is good.
> -One need not defer to anyone with regard to one's subjective reactions. But understanding the organization and composition of a work will not normally be understood by a non-composer or non-musician in the same way that a lay person might not understand the procedure of heart surgery like another heart surgeon. That counts for something, IMO.
> There are some works of art and music that are objectively bad, and people who like them have objectively bad taste.
> -Be careful here. No one wants to be accused of having bad taste! On the other hand, there may be works of art where a collection of subjective opinions show some form of negative consensus that can be objectively measured in numbers-works of art and music that are disliked more than they're liked and perceived as being bad. These could be works of art that might not be successful conceived or carried out, where the effects of the whole are spoiled by some of its parts, but some people still like them anyway, even if as a minority of listeners.
> There are also some works of art and music that are objectively good, and people who like them have objectively good taste.
> -People can perceive something as objectively good but for different subjective reasons that might not agree.
> If we were all equally knowledgeable and perceptive, we would all agree about how good a work of art is.
> -False on ALL agree. There can be no absolute consensus about a composer or work of art. People can be knowledgeable and perceptive but still respond differently emotionally. The emotions do not necessarily respond to reason. One could be knowledgeable and perception and still be unmoved by what's considered a great work of it.
> A work of art can be good even if I don't enjoy it.
> -A great work of art can be perceived of as good by others even if one doesn't enjoy it. A work of art can still command the interest of the world even if one doesn't feel it deserves it.
> A work of art can be good even if no one enjoys it.
> -If no one enjoys it, it would not commander great interest or likely be perceived as a work of art.
> Most people don't know enough about art or music to have valid opinions about it.
> -EVERYONE HAS AN OPINION ON ART because everyone will have a reaction to art whether one is knowledgeable or not-one will undoubtedly still have an opinion unless one is able to suspend an opinion either temporarily or permanently in order to live with the art.
> The canons of western art and music do not reflect any accidents of history; instead, they represent the objectively greatest creations of western culture.
> -They TRY to objectively represent the greatest creations of western culture. But some works have more favor during certain epochs of history than others. It's in a state of flux with some works such as Michelangelo's David still commanding interest, wonder and appreciation of the world, and those works are generally perceived as great art.
> If taste is subjective, everything must be equally good, so there can be no "better" or "worse" art.
> -True within that statement, but works of art do not have the same objective value in the marketplace of creative or competitive ideas, and some listeners feel that matters.
> If moral feelings are subjective, there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong" and everything is permitted.
> -IMO, this does not belong on any arts list.
> A computer could be programed to correctly evaluate the beauty of a work of art.
> -False, because a computer can only have an objective point of view without the subjectivity of creative inspiration.
> ---
> If art is a reflection of life and the complexities of the human condition, its considerations cannot be reduced to the simplifications and absurdities of a True or False, Yes or No answer. -Lark


. . . . . . . .


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Ken does not fall over, except where specifically required and with a rescue team on hand. This is all per contract.
> 
> And anyway, what's the matter with Sibelius's 2nd? I like it.


i like it too - even the crass and vulgar last movement. If I just decide to forgive it for being crass, vulgar, and unworthy of the first two movements, which are inspired and amazing, I can feel quite satisfied.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> They're not playing it very well - a faster tempo would help


I think you are right.



> - but yes, it's the crudest, most obvious and commonplace bit from any of his symphonies, quite unworthy of the first two movements of the work. The sequences remind me of some of Tchaikovsky's weaker moments.


Indeed, though most put the second above all his others. I am glad he shed the Tchaikovsky influence in his latter works.


----------



## janxharris

KenOC said:


> Ken does not fall over, except where specifically required and with a rescue team on hand. This is all per contract.
> 
> And anyway, what's the matter with Sibelius's 2nd? I like it.


I only cited a section of it.


----------



## janxharris

KenOC said:


> And anyway, what's the matter with Sibelius's 2nd? I like it.


I suspect that the fact that Sibelius excluded such moments of high romanticism from his later works (fourth onwards) may imply that even he thought them unappealing.

I could be wrong.


----------



## science

Larkenfield said:


> . . . . . . . .


I'm just reorganizing this to make it easier for me to read:



Larkenfield said:


> Objective" means "true or false regardless of taste or opinion."
> -*Objective refers to the relationship of the parts within the whole of the work*, not necessarily one's subjective reaction to it as a matter of taste.


I don't understand this entirely. Is "the relationship of the parts within the whole of the work" just meant to be an example of the kind of thing that we can observe in an objective, empirical way? For example, noting the chord progressions, or that a work is a fugue, and so on.



Larkenfield said:


> Some opinions are "subjective" and others are "objective."
> -Some will consider their subjective opinions as being objective; others will consider all opinions as being subjective and there are no consistent factors within a work of music that can be assessed as being done either poorly or masterfully.


Here's why this is interesting. I think we can recognize that something has been done "objectively well" without thinking it's particularly good. In my opinion, for example, a lot of McMansions are very ugly, even though many of them (by no means all) are constructed quite skillfully.

Does this make sense? I mean, if a contractor sets out to build a McMansion and he does it exactly the way the blueprint says to do it, he's done it quite well, but it could still strike me as an ugly building.



Larkenfield said:


> Beauty exists independently of conscious minds that perceive it.
> -False. It exists as a *potential* within the relationship of the parts within the whole of a composition or work of art. It's there as a potential to be brought out in an actual performance.


I just don't understand what this means. For example, what about a beautiful tree? Perhaps you mean that we see it as beautiful because of the way its parts fit together.

Or perhaps you mean that the tree is because of the "relationship of the parts" independently of whether anyone notices it.



Larkenfield said:


> There are "objective" values in the arts, such as symmetry, balance, proportion, variety, coherence, novelty, cleverness, and closure.
> -True. There are objective components of music represented by such elements as the understanding of harmonic principles and whether they're used well, or dynamics, tempo, skillful or imaginative use of form and structure, orchestration, articulation-all objective tools organizing the parts within a whole and part of the composer's creative tools. Such tool are used with various levels of skill or there would be no difference between the value of a Rolls Royce or a VW in the marketplace.
> 
> Aesthetic judgments are correct or incorrect in the same sense as mathematical statements or empirical claims.
> -False. There are completely different aims between science and the arts.
> 
> When many knowledgeable people agree that a work of music is "good" or "great," their agreement itself constitutes objective knowledge.
> -False. It does not represent objective knowledge. It represents the objective measure in numbers of people who hold similar subjective opinions.
> 
> When many knowledgeable people agree that a work of music is "good" or "great," they agree because they correctly perceive objectively good features of the work.
> -Not necessarily. It could be that they hold similar subjective reactions but for different reasons.
> 
> It is important to defer to knowledgeable people not only about facts (such as what features of a work of art were novel when it was created) but judgements such as whether the work is good.
> -One need not defer to anyone with regard to one's subjective reactions. But understanding the organization and composition of a work will not normally be understood by a non-composer or non-musician in the same way that a lay person might not understand the procedure of heart surgery like another heart surgeon. That counts for something, IMO.
> 
> There are some works of art and music that are objectively bad, and people who like them have objectively bad taste.
> -Be careful here. No one wants to be accused of having bad taste! On the other hand, there may be works of art where a collection of subjective opinions show some form of negative consensus that can be objectively measured in numbers-works of art and music that are disliked more than they're liked and perceived as being bad. These could be works of art that might not be successful conceived or carried out, where the effects of the whole are spoiled by some of its parts, but some people still like them anyway, even if as a minority of listeners.
> 
> There are also some works of art and music that are objectively good, and people who like them have objectively good taste.
> -People can perceive something as objectively good but for different subjective reasons that might not agree.
> 
> If we were all equally knowledgeable and perceptive, we would all agree about how good a work of art is.
> -False on ALL agree. There can be no absolute consensus about a composer or work of art. People can be knowledgeable and perceptive but still respond differently emotionally. The emotions do not necessarily respond to reason. One could be knowledgeable and perception and still be unmoved by what's considered a great work of it.
> 
> A work of art can be good even if I don't enjoy it.
> -A great work of art can be perceived of as good by others even if one doesn't enjoy it. A work of art can still command the interest of the world even if one doesn't feel it deserves it.
> 
> A work of art can be good even if no one enjoys it.
> -If no one enjoys it, it would not commander great interest or likely be perceived as a work of art.
> 
> Most people don't know enough about art or music to have valid opinions about it.
> -EVERYONE HAS AN OPINION ON ART because everyone will have a reaction to art whether one is knowledgeable or not-one will undoubtedly still have an opinion unless one is able to suspend an opinion either temporarily or permanently in order to live with the art.
> 
> The canons of western art and music do not reflect any accidents of history; instead, they represent the objectively greatest creations of western culture.
> -They TRY to objectively represent the greatest creations of western culture. But some works have more favor during certain epochs of history than others. It's in a state of flux with some works such as Michelangelo's David still commanding interest, wonder and appreciation of the world, and those works are generally perceived as great art.
> 
> If taste is subjective, everything must be equally good, so there can be no "better" or "worse" art.
> -True within that statement, but works of art do not have the same objective value in the marketplace of creative or competitive ideas, and some listeners feel that matters.
> 
> If moral feelings are subjective, there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong" and everything is permitted.
> -IMO, this does not belong on any arts list.
> 
> A computer could be programed to correctly evaluate the beauty of a work of art.
> -False, because a computer can only have an objective point of view without the subjectivity of creative inspiration.
> 
> ---
> 
> If art is a reflection of life and the complexities of the human condition, its considerations cannot be reduced to the simplifications and absurdities of a True or False, Yes or No answer. -Lark


So basically, there are objectively factual things we can say about a work of art: how long it is, the keys, the chords, the material, and so on. Some viewers or listeners are able to notice many more of these things than other people. This is a realm of reason, education, and so on. Your formulation about how the parts relate to the whole seems to be in this category.

And then there is our subjective response to those things. This is taste.

Right? I mean, is there anything basically wrong with that dichotomy?


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> I suspect that the fact that Sibelius excluded such moments of high romanticism from his later works (fourth onwards) may imply that even he thought them unappealing.
> 
> I could be wrong.


The older man wanted to write different music to the music he had written when he was younger. He matured and the world changed but that doesn't negate his younger music. The music from different periods of his life is different and was written in different times. If he really hadn't liked his 2nd symphony he could have withdrawn it, as he did Kullervo (which is also a very worthwhile work). I look back on my own younger days and even if I am wiser today (I said if) I still wonder with regret where some parts of the younger Enthusiast has gone!


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> The older man wanted to write different music to the music he had written when he was younger. He matured and the world changed but that doesn't negate his younger music. The music from different periods of his life is different and was written in different times. If he really hadn't liked his 2nd symphony he could have withdrawn it, as he did Kullervo (which is also a very worthwhile work). I look back on my own younger days and even if I am wiser today (I said if) I still wonder with regret where some parts of the younger Enthusiast has gone!




Maybe the second's popularity discouraged any withdrawal / revision. Certainly, I enjoyed the piece more when I was younger. Like Woodduck, I till like the first two movements.

Perhaps there is something about youthful _enthusiasm_ that is a little unreal which only maturity can discern? All respect, though, to those that hold the 2nd dear.


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> Perhaps there is something about youthful _enthusiasm_ that is a little unreal which only maturity can discern? All respect, though, to those that hold the 2nd dear.


I remain an enthusiast and am still happy to find myself energetic and with staying power! I have just added a little wisdom and knowledge but that makes things easier. I'm in my 60s and am not ready to rest.


----------



## PlaySalieri

DavidA said:


> Sorrun but this piece is the very essence of what does work in Mozart - not just for me but a whole lot of people normally outside classical music - sublime simplicity!


The middle mvt of K467 is anything but syruppy sweet - rather a mysterious, dreamlike aimless journey.

what you really mean by syruppy sweet is something like Charmaine by Mantovani - or the music of countless feel good hollywood film scores.

There's really nothing remotely like this mvt in music.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> I'm basically in agreement with this, but I wouldn't be concerned about "quantifying" anything. Perhaps you aren't thinking of literal and precise quantities (like inches or quarts), but I fear that many will take the impossibility of applying such measurements to art as confirmation of their view that nothing in art is superior to anything else (which every practicing artist, creator or performer, knows is nonsense).
> 
> I don't think it's right, either, to see the appreciation of art as a matter of anyone having to "conform" their judgments to those of anyone else. No such conformity, of anyone to anyone, is a measure of anything except various possible, and often complex, cultural dynamics.


Above are two interesting assertions that some might find a little in conflict.

The first assertion, that many will believe that nothing in art is superior to anything else, is hypothetically true only, and only if one holding such a view is a robot. In practice, among humans, it is false in the sense that everyone--unless they have a brain disease--prefers certain art over other art, subjectively. But it does remain true that there are no objective qualities or essences or attributes inherent in works of art that render them objectively measurably better or worse than other works.

The second assertion reasserts in a backhanded way my critique of the first assertion. It is yet another way of reaffirming popularity among a select audience as a measure/the measure of a work's "greatness", while denying that this is the case. But works of art just "are"; neither good nor bad, yet we are still entirely free to like and dislike them any old way that suits us. We are free!


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Above are two interesting assertions that some might find a little in conflict.
> 
> The first assertion, that many will believe that nothing in art is superior to anything else, is hypothetically true only, and only if one holding such a view is a robot. In practice, among humans, it is false in the sense that everyone--unless they have a brain disease--prefers certain art over other art, subjectively. But it does remain true that there are no objective qualities or essences or attributes inherent in works of art that render them objectively measurably better or worse than other works.
> 
> The second assertion reasserts in a backhanded way my critique of the first assertion. It is yet another way of reaffirming popularity among a select audience as a measure/the measure of a work's "greatness", while denying that this is the case. But works of art just "are"; neither good nor bad, yet we are still entirely free to like and dislike them any old way that suits us. We are free!


That's some spinning, Magic. I think people had better read my remarks themselves and ignore your version of what they mean. But let me help...

The logical foundation of the belief that in art "it's all subjective" must be one of two possible beliefs: either no work of art is superior to any other, or else we're incapable of telling whether it is or not. It appears that you agree with one of these premises, since you state that "there are no objective qualities or essences or attributes inherent in works of art that render them objectively measurably better or worse than other works." This could be read to imply either of the two possibilities I mention. But whichever it is, I reiterate that every practicing artist knows that a work of art can be good or better, bad or worse, to any extent, in any number of ways. And so, I'll add, does everyone whose idea of what is perceivable and knowable is not confined to that which can be "objectively measured" - which means, more or less, _everyone_ (including you ). Quality does not have to be "measurable" - i.e., quantifiable - to be real or to be perceived.

My other quoted statement - "I don't think it's right, either, to see the appreciation of art as a matter of anyone having to 'conform' their judgments to those of anyone else. No such conformity, of anyone to anyone, is a measure of anything except various possible, and often complex, cultural dynamics" - isn't a "reassertion" of anything you've said, and certainly doesn't reaffirm "popularity among a select audience as a measure/the measure of a work's 'greatness', while denying that this is the case." It's a way of pointing out factors other than intrinsic merit which may result in agreement about the quality of a work of art. Whether or not the audience is "select," such agreement can't be taken as a criterion of excellence. It can be, however, a powerful indicator. People who understand what Mozart is doing are naturally best qualified to see how well he's doing it, and it can sharpen our own perception of his excellence to give their informed judgment some credence as we go on exploring the repertoire.

Your statement that "works of art just 'are', neither good nor bad, yet we are still entirely free to like and dislike them any old way that suits us" is a self-contained _non sequitur. _ Yes, we are free to like or dislike _anything,_ whether it has artistic merit or not. A crayon scribble by your two-year-old is about as likable as art can be, isn't it? But whether it has the aesthetic distinction of a painting by Degas is another matter entirely.


----------



## Strange Magic

Alas, I am a Bear of Little Brain--most everyone can agree to that--so I persist in wondering which flavor of ice cream, or of honey, is "the best", though I know what I like. But I generally tend to like whatever I'm eating :lol:.


----------



## Strange Magic

Art:

More complex(define)/less complex
Longer/shorter
Bigger/smaller
If music: greater range of notes/smaller range of notes
If pictorial art: colors, shapes, gradations
When created/by whom created
If liked, by whom
Found object, labeled and placed on a plinth or pedestal
Bird call, toad, flower, nebula

Good, bad, great, not-so-great


----------



## Nereffid

science said:


> I'm brainstorming a series of questions that could help us clarify each others' positions.
> 
> For now I'm more interested in what the questions should be than what our various answers would be.


For the record, here's my answers, trying to give succinct yet coherent answers... also trying to avoid my tendency towards "yes, but..."

- Objective" means "true or false regardless of taste or opinion." _Agree; we could probably go down a long road thrashing out a different definiion, but this will do._
- Some opinions are "subjective" and others are "objective." _Disagree; opinions are subjective._
- Beauty exists independently of conscious minds that perceive it. _Disagree._
- There are "objective" values in the arts, such as symmetry, balance, proportion, variety, coherence, novelty, cleverness, and closure. _Disagree. Things like symmetry and proportion can be considered objectively in some ways, but they have values in a quantitative rather than qualitative sense. _
- Aesthetic judgments are correct or incorrect in the same sense as mathematical statements or empirical claims. _Disagree._
- When many knowledgeable people agree that a work of music is "good" or "great," their agreement itself constitutes objective knowledge. _Disagree, because it's subjective still, but I think their agreement could constitute what I'm going to call "effectively objective knowledge". While all our brains are different, they're also similar. Widespread subjective agreement among knowledgeable people offers a pointer: if most experts and non-experts love Mozart, chances are I'll love him too. But on the other hand, see my point about Darwinian survival below._
- When many knowledgeable people agree that a work of music is "good" or "great," they agree because they correctly perceive objectively good features of the work. _Nope. But again if there's widespread agreement over what the important features of a work should be, and over how a specific work's compliance with those features can be rated, then it's "effectively objective", as per my gymnastics example._
- It is important to defer to knowledgeable people not only about facts (such as what features of a work of art were novel when it was created) but judgements such as whether the work is good. _No, but see above. _
- There are some works of art and music that are objectively bad, and people who like them have objectively bad taste. There are also some works of art and music that are objectively good, and people who like them have objectively good taste. _No... and I'll concede that there's "objectively good music" long before I concede that there's "objectively good taste"._
- If we were all equally knowledgeable and perceptive, we would all agree about how good a work of art is. _No._
- A work of art can be good even if I don't enjoy it. _Others can perceive it to be good, for their given value of "good"._
- A work of art can be good even if no one enjoys it. _No, this makes no sense._
- Most people don't know enough about art or music to have valid opinions about it. _Simply experiencing the work is sufficient grounds for having a valid opinion. But whether that opinion will be of interest to others is a whole other matter._
- The canons of western art and music do not reflect any accidents of history; instead, they represent the objectively greatest creations of western culture. _The canons, such as they are, reflect a Darwinian selection process - the ones that best fit their environment survive, but the environment keeps changing, hence the decline of Meyerbeer and the revival of Hildegard. As I indicated above, the presence of a work in the canon (i.e., it's highly regarded by many people) might be a good pointer as to whether I'll enjoy that work. But there are too many variables to account for a work not being in the canon, so the opposite doesn't hold. _
- If taste is subjective, everything must be equally good, so there can be no "better" or "worse" art. _If taste is subjective, then why even bring "good" into it?_
- If moral feelings are subjective, there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong" and everything is permitted. _Which is where "effective objectivity", or "collective subjectivity" comes into it. The group benefits from shared notions of right and wrong._
- A computer could be programed to correctly evaluate the beauty of a work of art. _No, because of the word "correctly". But certainly a computer could be trained to evaluate whether a work of art is likely to be regarded as beautiful by a given audience. _

One other idea I floated recently:
- There should exist works of art that are widely praised by knowledgeable people for their objective aesthetic qualities while simultaneously being personally disliked by all those people.

Or how about:
- A computer could be programmed to create a beautiful work of art.


----------



## JeffD

You know, there are forums (on different subjects alas) where folks take individual preferences as a given, and don't try to prove that what they don't like is undeserving. They just encourage each other to explore, and offer "if you like that, try this" type advice. 

Nobody is right or wrong in personal taste, and no need to justify it, to me or to anyone else. Like what you like, share your enthusiasm and be positive. Nobody ever made friends being "right".


----------



## PlaySalieri

JeffD;1452377[B said:


> ]You know, there are forums (on different subjects alas) where folks take individual preferences as a given, and don't try to prove that what they don't like is undeserving. They just encourage each other to explore, and offer "if you like that, try this" type advice. [/B]
> 
> Nobody is right or wrong in personal taste, and no need to justify it, to me or to anyone else. Like what you like, share your enthusiasm and be positive. Nobody ever made friends being "right".


I've been to such forums - and left them after a short visit.

But I am still here on TC after all these years correcting false assumptions and pouring measured scorn on disagreeable comments.

If TC was just Mozart fans expressing their homage to Mozart - it's unlikely it would be of much interest to me.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden

Perhaps it's worth exploring in a little greater detail some of the ideas that some great philosophers and thinkers have had on aesthetics to deepen this conversation a little and perhaps offer perspective on why there are such a variety of opinions on this very complex issue.

Let's start with David Hume, a moral subjectivist as well as a aesthetic one. Hume noticed how there was a kind of tension to our attitudes on art; there are times where we act as if our ideas are based on something more concrete than just our opinions, and other times we are satisfied declaring these are just matters of taste. So how do we explain or resolve this tension? David Hume's philosophy treated beauty as a subjective quality, and yet he still insisted that some evaluations of artworks were objectively superior to others. Hume was quick to point out that everyone has their own tastes, and when others differ from ours we have a tendency to think their tastes are crap, and we notice that others have just as much confidence in their assertions as we do, and that should humble us and serve as a reality check. Hume says that when disputes over tastes arise its natural for us to want to resolve them and to seek a standard by which to resolve them but common sense seems to indicate to us that there will be no standard of taste we can appeal to. Beauty is not an objective quality and exists in the mind of the beholder. However Hume suggests that there is another kind of common sense that contradicts this line of thinking, or at least serves to restrain or modify it. If someone were to insist that a daytime soap opera was the equal to Shakespeare's Hamlet, or that Thomas Kinkade will go down in history as a greater painter than Picasso, or that a television jingle for laundry detergent had as much value as Beethoven's Eroica Symphony, there's something that would strike most of us as absurd about those assertions. So Hume makes the disproportionate pairs argument; when two aesthetic objects have a similar value we are happy to write it off as one person's preference versus another's, but when they are of greatly different value the idea is rather shocking. Tell someone you prefer Mahler to Beethoven and "meh, we just have different preferences", but tell someone that an 8 year old ineptly fiddling at the piano is better than Mozart's Rondo for piano in A Minor because you don't care for Mozart and find the child's playing charming and they will most likely think you're crazy. And we can assume that most people familiar with Mozart's catalogue would agree. To Hume this is evidence that beneath the diversity of tastes and opinions there are other forces at work. Hume proposes a psychology of aesthetic experience that there is a natural, lawful relationship between the formal qualities of a work (specific properties like line, shape, color, etc.) and the feelings that arise within us when apprehending them. You might respond, well then if you give two similar brains the same stimulus they should respond the same way, but obviously this doesn't happen. How does Hume explain this?

It might be helpful to take a look at Hume's ethics to see where he's coming from. Pretend you are out on a city street and you see a young child enjoying a lollipop when along comes a man who rips the lollipop out of the child's hand and throws it in the trash and the child starts crying. So you walk up to the guy and confront him and tell him what he did was horrible. Now to Hume, there's nothing objectively good or bad that just happened there. When you say that was bad or wrong all you are really doing is expressing your personal feelings about the situation. "I don't like that. That made me feel uncomfortable." Well what if the guy turned to you and explained the child is his son, and his son knows he is not supposed to have sweets because of a medical condition that he has. Now that the facts of the matter have changed for you, look at how your perception and feelings change right away as well. Your feelings are subjective, the facts are not, and a moral judgement arising from a clear understanding of objective facts is going to be superior to a feeling triggered by distorted or false understanding of the situation. So Hume can maintain some moral judgments are actually superior to others even if they are subjective, and for him the same goes for art. The only difference is that in art judgments are superior when they are based on a clear perception of the aesthetic object. The real practical force of Hume's argument turns on the analogy that he draws between physical sensitivity of our organs of perception and the inner sensitivity of our mental lives or what Hume calls delicacy in imagination. Just as someone with 20/20 eyesight might see a painting better than with impaired vision, some of us have a better idea of what to _look for_ in that painting, and people who are equipped with a knowledge of specific conventions or styles might catch details others overlook. Some might have a better appreciation of the challenges of working in a particular medium and hence a better understanding of the skill or lack of skill of the artist. Even our prejudices play a significant role, some of us may be quick to reject a work we don't readily understand whereas others are better able to put aside their biases when evaluating a work. Those who possess this inner sensitivity can claim a superior perception of the work as well. For Hume, the keys to developing this inner sensitivity to art are practice and familiarity, and a frequent contemplation of a particular species of beauty. For Hume the only true and universal principles of taste arise from that relationship nature has created between form and sentiment. Differences in taste, for Hume, result from a breakdown in that process, either due to a defect in one's senses or a lack of mental sensitivity or the influence of prejudice. When this breakdown occurs, our feelings about a piece of art arise from a distorted perception of that artwork. Feelings from undistorted perceptions are better, but seeing clearly requires good eyes and a whole lot of experience.

There are quite a few points Hume makes that strike me a correct. If you have two people who are critical of an opera, but the first did not like it because to them "all opera singing sounds like a bunch of screaming", and the second critic who is familiar with the nuances of the art form and offers a thoughtful critique of the work based on the inability of the composer to delineate various characters through music, we can recognize that the second is a superior aesthetic judgment to the first which is based on inexperience and prejudice even though neither "liked" the work. I think it's also correct that greater familiarity with a medium leads to greater understanding and this doesn't necessarily even have anything to do with "liking" or "disliking". Myself, I spend a lot of time listening to orchestral works from different composers of different periods, while my wife has little to no experience listening to classical music and most of her interaction with orchestral music has come through the Disney films she's loved since she was a child. When I took her to see Tchaikovsky's Nutrcracker ballet, afterwards she remarked how she loved it and how the music reminded her of a Disney movie. Sometime later I was watching Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet and my wife joined me, and after it was done she remarked that she enjoyed it but somewhat to my surprise also mentioned that this reminded her of the music to a Disney soundtrack. Myself being attuned to the differences in the music of Tchaikovsky and Prokofiev, I mentioned some of the ways I perceived the music of their ballets as being quite different, but it meant nothing to her I'm sure. Either way, she enjoyed both. But it speaks to a phenomenon I've notice quite a bit: a lack of familiarity of an art form often leads one to cling to the similarities rather than to discriminate between the differences, and in turn leads to generalizations about how "all this sounds the same". Or in the case of my dad when I was 12 years old and playing Nirvana in the car, "this is just a bunch of noise!"

Now of course there are also plenty of problems with Hume's argument. It's obvious at the very least that the relationship between form and sentiment is not nearly as straight forward as Hume puts forward. Also there's a problem with what philosopher's call the naturalistic fallacy, in short even if biology has programmed us with a certain set of preferences it doesn't follow that those preferences form a standard to which all art should aspire. Biology has programmed a lot of men to feel pleasure at the sight of a naked woman but that hardly makes nude photography the highest art form. But what I like about Hume's argument is it's approach. By distinguishing perceptual differences and tastes from merely personal ones, Hume is recognizing that our emotional responses to art are actually underpinned by both objective matters and subjective ones. Furthermore disputes over taste are only fruitful when they focus on the objective matters.

Hume focused on perception, but there are other objective grounds Hume didn't even consider. Hume is what you might call an aesthetic Hedonist. He believed that beauty was just a species of pleasure and so our aesthetic judgments are necessarily judgments about pleasure. As such he regarded the value of art to be wrapped up in the enjoyment of the experience of particular art works. He didn't even consider that art might be important for other reasons. Today the extreme version of this view is called formalism, and it was the intellectual underpinning for the rise of modern art in the 20th century. The formalists didn't care much about what an artwork might be trying to represent, they didn't care about the message of an artwork, they didn't care about any social or ethical commentary the artwork might be making. Not all artwork has representational content or expressive content in them, so the formalists claim that representational content can't be essential to art. According to them the only things that are important aesthetically are the formal elements of a work: line, shape, color and how their arrangements please us. Everything else is at best just detail and at worst a distraction.

If formalism lost some of it's clout in the latter part of the 20th century, it did so in part for reasons advanced by Leo Tolstoy in the 19th. Tolstoy despised aesthetic hedonism, he hated the way that philosophers would define art around what personally pleased them only to rush to change their definitions when new artworks came along which didn't quite fit. Tolstoy believed if we want to understand the nature of art and how to evaluate it, we need to examine _why_ it exists, why it is so widespread, what function it plays in our lives and stop thinking merely about what pleases us about artworks. He points to food, and says it would not occur to anyone that the importance of food consists in the pleasure we receive in eating it. The satisfaction of our taste cannot serve as basis for our definition of the merits of food, and so we have no basis to presuppose that the tastiest meals are the best ones for us. He believed that art was not simply the production of pleasing aesthetic objects, but art brings us together and there is a kind of link between the artist's mind and that of the spectator where the spectator can actually feel the emotions of the artist. To Tolstoy, art is fundamentally a form of communication, and one that transcends some of the limitations presented by language. So Tolstoy shifted the value of art from an intrinsic value (something valued for it's own sake) to an extrinsic value (a means to an end). Art is valuable because empathy between human beings is valuable, and art facilitates that process. This move also allows one to evaluate artworks differently; if art has a function we can evaluate it by how well it meets that function. How well did the artist communicate what they intended? Was the emotion convincing? Was it accessible to the audience? Did it have an impact? Granted, such an approach still leaves a lot of room for disagreement, but at least those judgments rest on a firmer foundation than "I like it" or "I don't like it". Of course one may not like the judgments rendered; as has already been pointed out in this thread, Tolstoy notoriously dismissed many of Shakespeare's plays and even his own books. He thought they pretended to emotions that the authors could not have possibly felt themselves and did so in a fashion that was inaccessible to many readers and that they did not promote universal brotherhood and so on. Whatever his reasons, the notion that Shakespeare is not art is rather odd and he was widely criticized.

Part of the problem with Tolstoy's ideas lie in this simplistic three part scheme where the artist begins with an emotion, they try to embody that emotion in the work, and then the viewer experiences the exact same emotion that the artist began with. Talk to any artist and they recognize the process is a lot more dynamic, so there has to be a lot more going on than just this. But if the specifics of Tolstoy's argument failed to impress, the overall message did much better. Expressivism is the view art's value lies chiefly in it's ability to communicate emotions. Expressivists largely dismissed Tolstoy's scheme but maintained the belief that art has some function or purpose and it can be judged according to whether it meets its function. Many also maintained that art begins with an emotion; it may be little more than a psychic disturbance, some vague impression that even the artist does not understand. But the artist labors to convert this impression into a form that consciousness can inspect and understand. In doing so the artist comes to clarify and understand their emotions through the creative process. Put simply: art is a means to self-knowledge. Likewise the viewer will come to know themselves better by trying to unravel the meaning of the work. Art is necessary for the welfare of humanity. It is far to important to be merely about pleasure. Not all works may deliver authentic self-knowledge, for instance some artworks engage or escapist impulses, some cater to our egocentric tendencies and tell us what we already want to think about ourselves, and others are little more than a propaganda vehicle for pushing some agenda. R.G. Collingwood believed that "art is not a luxury, and bad art is not a thing we can afford to tolerate. To know ourselves is the foundation of all life that develops beyond the mere physical level of experience."


----------



## SilenceIsGolden

Collingwood is usually thought of as an expressionist, but his emphasis on knowledge makes him a favorite for the aesthetic cognitivists. Like the expressivists the cognitivists hold the value of art to be extrinsic in nature, but whereas the expressivists locate the value in emotional communication and self-knowledge, congnitivists focus on knowledge in a broader sense. To them art is valuable because through the creation and viewing of artworks one can actually come to understand the world better. Obviously artists have their own viewpoints about the world and may try to present their viewpoints to the public through their artwork, but the cognitivists have more in mind when they claim that art is a way of knowing than just the message that gets across. For example aesthetic philosopher Gordon Graham said that "good art does not just have a message, good art directs the mind through a process of understanding." Painters will arrange elements in the foreground or the background to direct the attention of the viewer; poetry utilizes rhythm to determine the sense of a line; composers conductors and performers all influence the way a piece is actually heard; architects determine the order in which elements are seen upon entering a building. In other words good artists work to make piece understandable, and skillful viewers also direct their minds through concentration, imagination, and attention to detail and openness. Art directs the mind, but it does so in a distinct way. That's why Nelson Goodman argues that "The Arts must be taken no less seriously than the sciences as modes of discovery, creation and enlargement of knowledge in the broad sense of advancement of understanding." Now if that's true, the distinction between high art and low art, superior and inferior works and other aesthetic judgments are no less plausible than ranking the contributions of great scientists and mathematicians. It's about knowledge, and what have these artworks contributed to our understanding. And we might have some objective grounds for talking about those things. 

This is a crowd that takes art very, very seriously, and while many of people may agree that art has expanded our knowledge of the world, plenty of people have criticized the cognitivists for overselling this aspect of art. Art might be valuable for very different reasons, and cognitivism is a symptom of our society's worship of science, where art is dragged into the knowledge business. But other philosophers have criticized cognitivism for the opposite reason; they're upset to see knowledge dragged into the art business. For them it's one thing to say art is congnitively stimulating, that it provides food for thought, but it's quite another to say that art is a unique method of inquiry and a process for discovering truth. Truth claims usually take the form of propositions and are judged by the argument's validity and their coherence to previously established knowledge. Propositions are statements that can either be true, or false, and sometimes objectively true or false. Whatever kind of knowledge we can get from art though, it seems very unlikely that it would be propositional knowledge. Some people take wonder if it even makes sense to speak of non-propositional knowledge, and supposing it does, how could that knowledge possibly be justified?

The cognitivists respond to the first set of criticisms by pointing out how often critics themselves use cognitive vocabulary to evaluate artworks. Critics routinely use words like "exploration", "insight", "distortion", "profound", "superficial", "illuminating", "convincing" or "unconvincing", all sorts of cognitively loaded terms. Even critics who oppose aesthetic cognitivism can't seem to resist using such language, and if art isn't a way of illuminating the world for us, why use this sort of language? Still for those concerned we not loose sight of the medium by concentrating on the message, cognitivists are quick to point out that understanding is not the only measure of art's value. Not all artworks must be true, some are valued for the pleasure we derive from them, some provide us with novel experiences, some are valued for their expressive content or their unique place in art history. The cognitivists are not trying to exclude other values from the discussion, they're simply saying that understanding chief amongst those values. In other words, art can be good for many reasons, but the great works, those that will leave their mark on history will endure becasue they shaped our view of ourselves and of our world and not just because they triggered an emotion or tantalized our senses. 

To answer their philosophical critics, the cognitivists have focused on specifying the kinds of knowledge art can convey and by divising methods by which they can be justified. There's plenty to be said for and against their efforts there, but let's focus on just one of the less controversial examples: experential knowledge. Many cognitivists say we can specify one type of knowledge, and it's knowledge of an experience. What it's like to go through something, even if you've never gone through it yourself. A convincing artist who is good at their craft can provide that experience for you. So through art we can get a sense of what it's like to share another's experience. The question is justification. How do we know the artist got it right? Perhaps the artist knows nothing of that experience for themselves, and they're giving us a false impression of it. The philosopher David Novitz has a rather simple idea, it's that "if the experiences depicted in fiction turn out to have some basis in, or to cohere with our future or past experiences, they will pass as knowledge." And in our own lives we can often attest to whether or not the artists' account accurately depicts the experience.

Or is this all more thinking than anyone wanted to do on the subject?


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^Very complete. Very well done .

Instant thought of course: Hume's "disproportionate pairs" test/argument is the fatal asp he holds to the bosom of his theory.

Some objects or sounds fit the neural pathways of/please the palates of/fit in with the aesthetics or ideologies of more members of some defined or, if not defined, then general groups of people experiencing those objects or sounds. I personally do not care for the art of Thomas Kinkade, nor of Milton Babbitt. But Kinkade made millions and Babbitt got a Special Pulitzer. Who's wrong, who right?


----------



## Nereffid

I think Hume's my guy, more or less. The expressivists and the cognitivists are describing experiences I simply don't have when listening to music.


----------



## Strange Magic

Nereffid said:


> I think Hume's my guy, more or less. The expressivists and the cognitivists are describing experiences I simply don't have when listening to music.


Hume Sweet Hume. Better an incomplete Hume than no Hume at all. There may be a Kinkade on the wall in his study.


----------



## Jacck

> ...David Hume's philosophy treated beauty as a subjective quality, and yet he still insisted that some evaluations of artworks were objectively superior to others....


this is where poor Hume let his rationality be clouded by wishful thinking. Humans might think that Mona Lisa is more attractive than a pile of stinking ****, but every dog knows otherwise.


----------



## Bulldog

stomanek said:


> The middle mvt of K467 is anything but syruppy sweet - rather a mysterious, dreamlike aimless journey.


I find the opening theme extremely sweet and syrupy. Fortunately, the movement greatly improves after that.


----------



## DeepR

Yeah well, opinions. I happen to like the last movement of Sibelius 2nd and I don't care much for the other movements... I've been quite moved by the ending a few times. The performance that was linked isn't the best. Try Vanska.


----------



## Bluecrab

stomanek said:


> There's really nothing remotely like this mvt in music.


So, in your opinion, this is the best movement ever written in Western classical music?


----------



## Barbebleu

I thought my razor was dull until I started reading this thread. I lost the will to live about fifty posts back. Come on people. Is this what TC was intended to be. I hope not. Hume, Collingwood and all the other laugh-a-minute philosophers can keep their half-baked philosophising to themselves. Let's actually talk classical.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> In the attempt to understand aesthetic perception, I find the "subjective/objective" dichotomy simplistic and unhelpful. Harping on it doesn't do much to promote understanding of art; in fact it tends to obstruct any inquiry into what factors are fundamentally important in artistic creation, in the perception of aesthetic qualities, and in judgments of artistic merit.
> 
> Showing us a bare geometric shape which necessarily exhibits a few of the formal qualities found in art, trying to prove thereby that those formal qualities are trivial or meaningless, and then asking if the image is great art, is frankly laughable and insulting._ Of course_ the mere presence of unity and contrast in an object proves nothing about its aesthetic merit! Who would suggest otherwise? I was only offering some very basic principles of form as a starting point for considering the sorts of factors that artists consider - mostly subconsciously (i.e., without naming them) - as they compose a work. The ways in which formal principles combine and interact in even simple works of actual art are extraordinarily complex, subtle and variable. I haven't the patience or desire, or probably the skill, to take people by the hand and guide them through that thicket. Many others have attempted it, and anyone really interested can look the matter up in any number of treatises on artistic composition.
> 
> Most contributors to this discussion are clearly not artists. I am - in arts musical and visual, in the capacities of both creator and performer. As one who lives and breathes art and has a natural inclination to think about what I'm doing, I can tell you that academic dissertations on what "subjectivity" and "objectivity" mean have nothing useful to say to me about the process of creating art, and not much more about understanding and appreciating it. As a practicing artist, I deal with the _objective structures and dynamic forms of subjective realities_ constantly, and know that they are the basic building blocks of artistic expression, especially in music where there is no literal reference to concrete things to import meaning in an obvious way. If that seems a paradox or a conundrum, I recommend inquiring into the area of psychology known as "cross-domain mapping," in which the perception of patterns abstracted from both "subjective" and "objective" realities enable different perceptual modes to function as "metaphors" of one another and carry expressive meaning and affective power across "domains."
> 
> As an artist, I'm constantly confronted with the problem of "significant form," and in art formal significance manifests in two ways: expressiveness and coherence. To take the second of these first, the pursuit of coherence is not a "subjective" crap-shoot: the moment I draw a line on paper I begin the process of setting up a problem for which I must find a solution, and the nature of the problem limits the terms of that solution and directs me toward it. The farther I go in a composition, the stricter those limits become. My goal is to bring the terms of my evolving problem to a conclusion that "works" - artist's vernacular for having things in harmonious, non-contradictory relation to one another. The metaphor of a logical problem is deliberate: there are innumerable points in the process at which the "premises" I've set up require a specific "conclusion" and no other. There may be many revisions and adjustments along the way, and if there's a basic flaw in the premises a satisfactory conclusion may prove impossible. But if I can achieve a "logical" consistency throughout a complex work, where every line and form is where it should and must be, I will have achieved a fine, possibly a great, work of art.
> 
> As for the second formal principle, expressiveness, coherence itself goes some way toward ensuring it, since affect must have form and form conveys feeling. But expressiveness is also contingent on an artist's capacity for "cross-domain mapping" - his ability to grasp the underlying, characteristic forms of life - of sensation, feeling, emotion, even of thought, and the gestures to which these give rise - and find visual or audible "metaphors" for them. This is the "subjective" element in art, but there is an "objectivity" to it as well, since the repertoire of meaningful forms is rooted in the common organismic experience of mankind - hence the ability of art to communicate feeling - and since the artist, in manipulating these forms consciously, stands apart from them even while he experiences them inwardly.
> 
> Art is thus the product of two processes dancing together in an intimate embrace as they seek to create significant form; and even while the dance originates "subjectively" from within the artist's mind, the basic intellectual materials with which he works are embodied in principles and forms which he draws from the common fund of human experience, of which his work is a metaphor. The more successful he is at finding the archetypal forms of human feeling, and at projecting them into forms which exhibit coherence and comprehensibility to a viewer or auditor, the more likely that people will respond to his work. It's in this way that art, no matter how personal, has "objective" meaning, and it's because of this that "aesthetically intelligent" responses to art, though of course never free from individuality, have a substantial "objective" component. It's perfectly obvious that people vary widely in how they "feel' about works of art. What's a bit less obvious, unless one is paying attention to it, is the degree to which even people with very different feelings about a work will have similar views on what the work is "about," and why there is so much consensus about the stature of works which irresistibly impress us, around the world and through the centuries, as "great."
> 
> OK, I've worked my fingers to the bone here, and my brain to the - well, whatever is the squishy gray equivalent of the bone (my cross-domain mapping skills fail me). Good night.


I also find the subjective/objective dichotomy simplistic, which is why it's so surprising people constantly get it completely wrong! I don't think discussing it obstructs anything, though; we have to know in what realm to search for answers to any questions we may have, and when it comes to art you have too many people searching in the wrong places to answer certain questions. Searching art to find principles of beauty does no good if beauty is a subjective concept; in that case you need to be doing cognitive/neuro science rather than aesthetics or metaphysics.

The point with the geometric shapes is to show that clearly those principles are not enough to make something great art; you clearly agree with me on that! So if it takes more than those principles to make a work of art great, then pointing out that those principles exist in a work of art tells us next to nothing about why it's great or why people perceive it as great. In fact, I think this is one of the key points to understanding why aesthetic judgments are subjective, precisely because you cannot find any aesthetic principle that underlies every work of art deemed good/great or bad. It's a fool's errand to even attempt such a thing. In fact, the moment you point to an aesthetic principle underlying some work deemed great, I could almost certainly either find it in works deemed bad, or find the opposite principle in works deemed great.

I wouldn't presume to call myself an artist, but I have been deeply involved in the arts since childhood. I've always deeply loved music, literature, and film. I developed an overwhelming passion for them in my teens, and took to playing guitar and writing (mostly poetry, but also fiction and reviews). While I never attempted a career in the arts, my actual profession gave me ample free time to keep engaged with my true passion. I've read numerous textbooks on film and poetry, and many studies, essays, and other academic works on works and artists I've been interested in. My musical education has been even more informal, but I have read many books, taught myself how to (roughly) read music, and made it a point to read every booklet essay of every work I ever bought, and have also listened to many online and audiobook lectures on various composers, works, and music theory ideas. So I'd put my knowledge somewhere below a professor and somewhere above your average dilettante.

That said, I would agree that the subjective/objective dichotomy has nothing to do with my creative process; but that's really neither here nor there. That's like saying that an understanding of physics doesn't help a baseball player hit a fast ball. It's not that I disagree with your quest for "significant form," and, indeed, as someone who's very seriously studied and practiced writing poetry-whose entire justification for existing alongside prose is the presence of form and how it can add significance beyond what prose is capable of-I find myself agreeing with much of what you say from a creative point of view. However, I cannot share your conclusions that, having achieved significance of form in which I feel I've achieved coherence and expressiveness, that I have achieved a "fine, or even great work of art" in any objective sense. All I've done is create a work that I feel achieved MY goals. Others are free and frequently inclined to feel differently based on their own aesthetic principles and perceptions, which can't possibly be identical to my own in my creation of it. What's more, even the principle of "coherence" isn't much of a shared principle in the age of postmodernism where coherence is frequently sacrificed for the possibilities of incoherent inclusiveness and juxtaposition. John Ashbery or Geoffrey Hill-great as they are-are a long ways away from the formal principles that made Shakespeare great.

Also, while much of your writing on this issue is quite eloquent, it's what any rationalist would describe as jargonny woo; too full of very vague, imprecise terms to be of much use in really addressing the subject at hand. Something like "…there is an "objectivity" to it as well, since the repertoire of meaningful forms is rooted in the common organismic experience of mankind…" sentence really offers no argument as to how such a thing is actually objective. What does the "common organismic experience of mankind," eloquent though it may be, have to do at all with objectivity? Love is a "common organismic experience of mankind," but it's also a 100% subjective experience and concept. Love doesn't exist without minds to feel it. So while much of what you've written reads well and even poetically, as substantial, rational argument it's incredibly weak. It's not even that I necessarily disagree with all of what you says, as I do think there is some truth to the notion that most great art contains some mixture of form and content that seems to resonate deeply with more people than other art; it's merely that I would not describe this process as objective, and I would not claim it's possible to extract any universal aesthetic principles from it. The history of art and what's been deemed great is just too complex and varied for the latter, and as for the former no amount of agreement on subjective values can ever make those values objective.


----------



## JeffD

stomanek said:


> I've been to such forums - and left them after a short visit.
> 
> But I am still here on TC after all these years correcting false assumptions and pouring measured scorn on disagreeable comments.
> 
> If TC was just Mozart fans expressing their homage to Mozart - it's unlikely it would be of much interest to me.


Is it uninformed homage to Mozart you don't like, or uninformed homage in general, or just Mozart fans? 

I just get tired, myself, of the bickering and correcting and putting people on the defense. I myself am into TC because of the music. But, to each his own, your tastes are different than mine.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Bluecrab said:


> So, in your opinion, this is the best movement ever written in Western classical music?


One of the best.


----------



## PlaySalieri

JeffD said:


> Is it uninformed homage to Mozart you don't like, or uninformed homage in general, or just Mozart fans?
> 
> I just get tired, myself, of the bickering and correcting and putting people on the defense. I myself am into TC because of the music. But, to each his own, your tastes are different than mine.


I was trying to say that all the things you hate about TC - the bickering etc - is the life blood of TC. It's what makes it worthwhile coming here. If all I wanted to do is share my love of Mozart with fellow Mozart admirers - I would go to a Mozart forum.

I come to TC because there is a wide variety of people who disagree with me on many topics in music and I love the debate.

I love it when people say "I dont like Mozart because he is predictable etc" - the first thing I want to do is challenge those statements.

At the heart of it is the love of the art - and that is what matters.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I also find the subjective/objective dichotomy simplistic, which is why it's so surprising people constantly get it completely wrong! I don't think discussing it obstructs anything, though; we have to know in what realm to search for answers to any questions we may have, and when it comes to art you have too many people searching in the wrong places to answer certain questions. Searching art to find principles of beauty does no good if beauty is a subjective concept; in that case you need to be doing cognitive/neuro science rather than aesthetics or metaphysics.
> 
> The point with the geometric shapes is to show that clearly those principles are not enough to make something great art; you clearly agree with me on that! So if it takes more than those principles to make a work of art great, then pointing out that those principles exist in a work of art tells us next to nothing about why it's great or why people perceive it as great. In fact, *I think this is one of the key points to understanding why aesthetic judgments are subjective, precisely because you cannot find any aesthetic principle that underlies every work of art deemed good/great or bad.* It's a fool's errand to even attempt such a thing. In fact, the moment you point to an aesthetic principle underlying some work deemed great, I could almost certainly either find it in works deemed bad, or find the opposite principle in works deemed great.
> 
> I wouldn't presume to call myself an artist, but I have been deeply involved in the arts since childhood. I've always deeply loved music, literature, and film. I developed an overwhelming passion for them in my teens, and took to playing guitar and writing (mostly poetry, but also fiction and reviews). While I never attempted a career in the arts, my actual profession gave me ample free time to keep engaged with my true passion. I've read numerous textbooks on film and poetry, and many studies, essays, and other academic works on works and artists I've been interested in. My musical education has been even more informal, but I have read many books, taught myself how to (roughly) read music, and made it a point to read every booklet essay of every work I ever bought, and have also listened to many online and audiobook lectures on various composers, works, and music theory ideas. So I'd put my knowledge somewhere below a professor and somewhere above your average dilettante.
> 
> That said, I would agree that the subjective/objective dichotomy has nothing to do with my creative process; but that's really neither here nor there. That's like saying that an understanding of physics doesn't help a baseball player hit a fast ball. It's not that I disagree with your quest for "significant form," and, indeed, as someone who's very seriously studied and practiced writing poetry-whose entire justification for existing alongside prose is the presence of form and how it can add significance beyond what prose is capable of-I find myself agreeing with much of what you say from a creative point of view. However, I cannot share your conclusions that, having achieved significance of form in which I feel I've achieved coherence and expressiveness, that I have achieved a "fine, or even great work of art" in any objective sense. All I've done is create a work that I feel achieved MY goals. Others are free and frequently inclined to feel differently based on their own aesthetic principles and perceptions, which can't possibly be identical to my own in my creation of it. What's more, even the principle of "coherence" isn't much of a shared principle in the age of postmodernism where coherence is frequently sacrificed for the possibilities of incoherent inclusiveness and juxtaposition. John Ashbery or Geoffrey Hill-great as they are-are a long ways away from the formal principles that made Shakespeare great.
> 
> Also, while much of your writing on this issue is quite eloquent, it's what any rationalist would describe as jargonny woo; too full of very vague, imprecise terms to be of much use in really addressing the subject at hand. Something like "…there is an "objectivity" to it as well, since the repertoire of meaningful forms is rooted in the common organismic experience of mankind…" sentence really offers no argument as to how such a thing is actually objective. What does the "common organismic experience of mankind," eloquent though it may be, have to do at all with objectivity? Love is a "common organismic experience of mankind," but it's also a 100% subjective experience and concept. Love doesn't exist without minds to feel it. So while much of what you've written reads well and even poetically, as substantial, rational argument it's incredibly weak. It's not even that I necessarily disagree with all of what you says, as I do think there is some truth to the notion that most great art contains some mixture of form and content that seems to resonate deeply with more people than other art; it's merely that I would not describe this process as objective, and I would not claim it's possible to extract any universal aesthetic principles from it. The history of art and what's been deemed great is just too complex and varied for the latter, and as for the former no amount of agreement on subjective values can ever make those values objective.


If you can object that my descriptions of the principles informing artistic creation are too general to be of use to you in this discussion (and I agree that my descriptions are general; I'm not writing a book here), I can say that your theoretical approach to the subject, though apparently satisfying to you and to a couple of other people here who think they agree with you, entirely fails to account for how and why people understand and respond to art the way they do. That, to me, is the thing most worth examining, but unfortunately most people are neither equipped nor willing to examine it, but would rather wrangle over such superficial and unprofitable things as definitions of "objective" and "subjective" (which have already been used in about three different ways in this thread). or who is "greater" than whom, or who feels "scorned" for the music they happen to like.

I could tell you - again - that the decisions artists make during the creative process are guided by (objective) principles as well as (subjective) preference - I thought my metaphor of a syllogism would be useful in explaining that - but for some reason you presume to have the right to tell me I don't know what I've actually been doing all my life. I could also tell you that you have a habit of extracting conclusions from my statements which I don't intend, and then refuting your straw men. When I said, for example, that " if I can achieve a 'logical' consistency throughout a complex work, where every line and form is where it should and must be, I will have achieved a fine, possibly a great, work of art," you ignored the word "complex" (and probably also the word "possibly"), much as you had previously simplified and distorted my reference to a number of aesthetic qualities when you posted that silly geometric shape and asked if I considered it great art. (Besides which, I was talking about myself, and I've done a goodly amount of work which I know is fine - as well as work that falls short of that.)

So no, a work in which every part finds its proper place in the whole is not _necessarily_ fine or great; but there is no fine or great art in which that is not the case. The question then is how the artist, or the art connoisseur, knows that that has been achieved. No one can tell you _how_ anyone knows anything, "objective" or "subjective," but it's in the nature of aesthetic perception that this is a thing that can be known, and that this knowledge is critical in enabling us to say that one symphony is a great work and another is just a good try. When artists get together and talk about art, they make such judgments all the time; they call each other over to their work and ask, "does this work?", and it isn't a "jargony woo" answer they're looking for, but a clean, tough, objective appraisal - objective, because a work of art is an object of a specific kind, and there are real, objective principles which determine whether an object of that kind "works" or not. The fact that most people haven't a clue about what those are, why they exist, where they come from, and how to apply them, doesn't make them "subjective."

There are more kinds of knowledge in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

It's difficult to impossible to describe the experience of art. I did my best to approach, in general terms, some if the essential mental processes involved in creating it, and some of the principles of "significant form" and where they originate in human experience. But even my pointing to some cross-disciplinary support - my reference to cross-domain mapping - failed to impress you with its relevance. All you seem able to do here is to criticize my efforts (and your straw men), while offering no ideas of your own about how art works. I suppose it would be best at this point just to let the good citizens of TC-land flail about in the swamps of "subjectivity," compare artistic judgment to eating ice cream, and defend defensively their inalienable right to junk food (as if anyone has suggested taking it away; don't we all enjoy a little crap now and then?).

(BTW, the sentence I bolded above is a non sequitur.)


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Most contributors to this discussion are clearly not artists. I am - in arts musical and visual, in the capacities of both creator and performer. As one who lives and breathes art and has a natural inclination to think about what I'm doing, I can tell you that academic dissertations on what "subjectivity" and "objectivity" mean have nothing useful to say to me about the process of creating art, and not much more about understanding and appreciating it. As a practicing artist, I deal with the _objective structures and dynamic forms of subjective realities_ constantly, and know that they are the basic building blocks of artistic expression, especially in music where there is no literal reference to concrete things to import meaning in an obvious way.


I can see how some of what you say (and have explained in a number of posts) might apply to the visual arts, but less so the musical. There seems to me something qualitatively different about the way we perceive the visual and the aural, the latter being a much more physical experience and provoking in the audience a more physical response. Perhaps it's this that gets in the way of agreement about criteria, as well as the manner of encountering the visual. Go to a gallery and stand and look at a painting for however long, is not the same type of experience as sitting at home listening for 40 mins to a symphony or even 20something minutes to _Supper's Ready._ The artist can immerse herself all day long in the visual (and if you're a textile or ceramic artist, the tactile as well), but the best a consumer can do is spend a day at a gallery - not an equivalent experience at all, no matter how good the art on show. There is something more impersonal about receiving the visual, as if there is a more explicitly cross-boundary transaction, whereas the aural is a more personal and engaging activity. It can lead to a more _Marmite _response (love it or hate it) than the visual.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> I can see how some of what you say (and have explained in a number of posts) might apply to the visual arts, but less so the musical. There seems to me something qualitatively different about the way we perceive the visual and the aural, the latter being a much more physical experience and provoking in the audience a more physical response. Perhaps it's this that gets in the way of agreement about criteria, as well as the manner of encountering the visual. Go to a gallery and stand and look at a painting for however long, is not the same type of experience as sitting at home listening for 40 mins to a symphony or even 20something minutes to _Supper's Ready._ The artist can immerse herself all day long in the visual (and if you're a textile or ceramic artist, the tactile as well), but the best a consumer can do is spend a day at a gallery - not an equivalent experience at all, no matter how good the art on show. There is something more impersonal about receiving the visual, as if there is a more explicitly cross-boundary transaction, whereas the aural is a more personal and engaging activity. It can lead to a more _Marmite _response (love it or hate it) than the visual.


Wonderful, MacLeod. The differences and similarities between the arts have always intrigued me. possibly because I was active concurrently for years in several of them. I can recall having late-night discussions in college on the subject. Alas, it's now late at night here on my side of the ocean, and I no longer have a college student's physical constitution. But I'd like to think about what you've said and see what I can come up with tomorrow (when _your_ bedtime is approaching, no doubt).


----------



## Jacck

@McLeod concerning visual arts
I once visited a gallery in Vienna that held an exposition of the Flemish painters - Hieronymus Bosch, Adriaen Brouwer, Jan Brueghel the Older etc. and studied the paintings for hours and could not get enough. The paintings were very interesting, because they are often symbolic in a manner that music can't be. Look at this, you can spend as much time as with a symphony with this
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...of_Earthly_Delights_(Ecclesia's_Paradise).jpg
And music is so abstract that you cannot really interpret it. Take for example the Symphonie fantastique. Without reading about the content of the symphony (what it is supposed to be about), I would have never guessed it. But a painting can speak directly in a manner music cant (political cartoons etc)


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> I can see how some of what you say (and have explained in a number of posts) might apply to the visual arts, but less so the musical. There seems to me something qualitatively different about the way we perceive the visual and the aural, the latter being a much more physical experience and provoking in the audience a more physical response. Perhaps it's this that gets in the way of agreement about criteria, as well as the manner of encountering the visual. Go to a gallery and stand and look at a painting for however long, is not the same type of experience as sitting at home listening for 40 mins to a symphony or even 20something minutes to _Supper's Ready._ The artist can immerse herself all day long in the visual (and if you're a textile or ceramic artist, the tactile as well), but the best a consumer can do is spend a day at a gallery - not an equivalent experience at all, no matter how good the art on show. There is something more impersonal about receiving the visual, as if there is a more explicitly cross-boundary transaction, whereas the aural is a more personal and engaging activity. It can lead to a more _Marmite _response (love it or hate it) than the visual.


We can also think of reading a book. One reason they are different is that reading and looking at a painting are basically individual experiences whereas listening to a concert is a group experience. We want to applaud as a group. This does not apply when we listen to music on our own.


----------



## Bulldog

DavidA said:


> We can also think of reading a book. One reason they are different is that reading and looking at a painting are basically individual experiences whereas listening to a concert is a group experience. We want to applaud as a group.


I never feel part of a group experience when I attend a concert. That could be a prime reason I prefer listening to music in solitude.


----------



## Strange Magic

Last night on PBS, a two-hour special presented us very, very briefly with 100 novels, chosen with some care as to breadth of the American audience (ethnicity, geographical location, age, gender, religion, etc.). The PBS audience was asked to vote for their favorite among these. Of course I had my favorites but was struck by the extreme diversity of the offerings and by the zeal with which proponents of the several novels chosen for specific highlighting pressed their cases. I'm sure the votes will be tallied and a winner declared (though that wasn't the point of the exercise).

Art/the arts can be viewed as an almost infinite number of ways to tell some kind of story or to make some sort of "statement" to oneself and/one's fellows. Some of these attempts will resonate with some number of other people and they will be moved/pleased by them. Some efforts will enthrall nobody; some will engage numbers of an identifiable audience; others, millions. The art will "work" in a scattershot, random fashion in one sense, as it is perceived by X, Y, Z, but will succeed as it encounters those in its path whose unique brain chemistry, life experience, expectations, neural wiring, are receptive to that particular bundle of offered stimuli. Not everybody put forward _Moby Dick_ as their favorite novel that "everybody must read". And nobody mentioned _The Wind in the Willows_, not even nominated, yet I get weepy every time Rat and Mole pass Mole's old home and Rat insists on marching them past it without stopping. But for everyone presenting the case for their particular novel, their choice moved them deeply and powerfully. And uniquely: they were all Great novels, all so very different yet all so equally(?) great.


----------



## Enthusiast

Strange Magic said:


> But for everyone presenting the case for their particular novel, their choice moved them deeply and powerfully. And uniquely: they were all Great novels, all so very different yet all so equally(?) great.


That happens all the time in the arts. You cannot rank the top rank any further except as your own personal preferences.


----------



## larold

_<<in appreciation of classical music...there (is an) assumption of greatness. We tend to think that most pieces are great, just because it's classical music, or just because it's written by Mozart or whomever. Even if we don't like a work, we'd rather say we don't get it, and not that it sucks. Quite the opposite, the less we get a work, or the less we like it, sometimes we think more highly of it... it must be so good, inaccessible, avant-garde, etc. I'm not saying that this is always true, nor that it's the only attitude towards classical music, but it's quite common.>>_

Sweeping characterizations are rarely correct and the flaws in this one have been cited ad nauseam here. I think there are plenty of classical music fans that will call a spade a spade, regardless of critical or other opinion. Among them are concert goers.

One of the great tragedies in classical music, to me, has been what I call the classical music establishment (mostly the slick magazines and people in the industry) calling the music of ne'er do wells like Pierre Boulez and Elliott Carter first rate or better.

These composers, and many others of recent vintage, arose in the era when performing their music in concert was no longer the goal. When Beethoven and Brahms wrote new works the goal was to get it performed in concert. If no one wanted it, the die was cast.

In the late 20th century, after introduction of the long playing record, this was no longer the litmus test because people could play the music for themselves at home. They no longer had to go to a concert hall to hear it.

There aren't many people that would pay to hear the music of people whose music makes no sense to them yet the establishment thinks it is wonderful. When Boulez died last year slick magazines were full of features about what a terrific composer he was. I couldn't disagree more with that assessment. In fact I think he did more to destroy classical music in the 20th century than just about anyone.

But that's my opinion, not a fact. And that's the entirety of "assumption of greatness": someone's or mass opinion. So probably best not to get too wound up about it.


----------



## Bluecrab

larold said:


> One of the great tragedies in classical music, to me, has been what I call the classical music establishment (mostly the slick magazines and people in the industry) calling the music of ne'er do wells like Pierre Boulez and Elliott Carter first rate or better.


Neither Pierre Boulez nor Elliott Carter was a "ne'er do well," your opinion of their music notwithstanding. Both lived comfortably from the income they earned from their musical activities.


----------



## Enthusiast

Bluecrab said:


> Neither Pierre Boulez nor Elliott Carter was a "ne'er do well," your opinion of their music notwithstanding. Both lived comfortably from the income they earned from their musical activities.


Larold does, later, clarify that his low opinion of these composers is just an opinion but his post did leave me wondering if he believes that those of us who actually _love _music by both Carter and Boulez are merely deluded or, even worse, are gullible. Such a view, as it from on high, about things I _love_ gets my hackles up. You retrained response is all the more admirable.

You could have gone on to point out the inconsistency of his post (people aren't willing to go to hear that music in the hall - wrong, as it happens - but that doesn't matter because we have recordings now - as if recordings don't cost money).


----------



## Nereffid

larold said:


> I think there are plenty of classical music fans that will call a spade a spade, regardless of critical or other opinion. Among them are concert goers.
> 
> One of the great tragedies in classical music, to me, has been what I call the classical music establishment (mostly the slick magazines and people in the industry) calling the music of ne'er do wells like Pierre Boulez and Elliott Carter first rate or better.


I'd say there's a false dichotomy here. Surely the concert-going audience, with its continued desire for its Beethoven and Brahms and a general reluctance to venture much outside its comfort zone, is also "the establishment"?

I don't want to have a go at some monolithic "audience" either though. Many listeners have embraced all manner of new music, be it Boulez or Glass. There's too much variety these days to justify an "us v them" stance.


----------



## DaveM

Bluecrab said:


> Neither Pierre Boulez nor Elliott Carter was a "ne'er do well," your opinion of their music notwithstanding. Both lived comfortably from the income they earned from their musical activities.


Boulez likely made far more of his income from conducting than composition.


----------



## Bluecrab

DaveM said:


> Boulez likely made far more of his income from conducting than composition.


That could well be; I suppose you'd have to speak with his accountants to get those details. That's why I used the broad term "musical activities."

Carter was also a teacher at various points in his life.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> Larold does, later, clarify that his low opinion of these composers is just an opinion but his post did leave me wondering if he believes that those of us who actually _love _music by both Carter and Boulez are merely deluded or, even worse, are gullible. Such a view, as it from on high, about things I _love_ gets my hackles up...


If he clarified that it is only an opinion, why is that considered to be 'from on high'. Not to mention that you're assuming the 'deluded' and 'gullible' part.


----------



## DaveM

Bluecrab said:


> That could well be; I suppose you'd have to speak with his accountants to get those details. That's why I used the broad term "musical activities."
> 
> Carter was also a teacher at various points in his life.


The subject at hand was their compositions. Income from 'musical activities' other than from composition is irrelevant, hence my post.


----------



## Bluecrab

DaveM said:


> The subject at hand was their compositions. Income from 'musical activities' other than from composition is irrelevant, hence my post.


No, the subject of my original post was larold's erroneous use of the term _ne'er do well._ Therefore, their income from all of their musical activities is relevant.


----------



## DaveM

Bluecrab said:


> No, the subject of my original post was larold's erroneous use of the term _ne'er do well._ Therefore, their income from all of their musical activities is relevant.


larold's comment: 'calling *the music* of ne'er do wells like Pierre Boulez and Elliott Carter first rate or better.'


----------



## Bluecrab

DaveM said:


> larold's comment: 'calling the music of *ne'er do wells like Pierre Boulez and Elliott Carter* first rate or better.'


Different part of the post bolded.

He's clearly calling Boulez and Carter ne'er do wells, which they most certainly were not.

If you can't see the distinction I'm laboring to point out to you, that's your issue, not mine.


----------



## larold

_<<Larold does, later, clarify that his low opinion of these composers is just an opinion but his post did leave me wondering if he believes that those of us who actually love music by both Carter and Boulez are merely deluded or, even worse, are gullible. >>_

Not at all. I know people like what they like. My belief is those two composers, so heralded by the musical establishment of their time, will be forgotten in 50 years or less. I don't believe their music has staying power against whatever will come. It certainly doesn't compare to the greats that preceded them. I think they are two exemplars for what has happened to classical music in our lifetimes.

This is where I find the fraud, the mischief of the musical establishment. Had these composers been around in the 1930s when Richard Strauss, Vaughan Williams, Shostakovich, Sibelius and Elgar were alive do you think they'd have been taken seriously? In my opinion they were merely among the "best" (perhaps better) of a very poor period in classical music. I think history will properly note that down the road.

In one case it already noted it since Carter was alive and composing in the 1930s.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> If he clarified that it is only an opinion, why is that considered to be 'from on high'. Not to mention that you're assuming the 'deluded' and 'gullible' part.


Make up your own mind - Larold's post is #556 at the top of this page - but I formed my impressions based on the language he used. I did credit him with, at one point (and in relation to part of his post), acknowledging he was expressing an opinion. I don't think I do him an injustice but probably should have just let it rest.


----------



## Enthusiast

larold said:


> _<<Larold does, later, clarify that his low opinion of these composers is just an opinion but his post did leave me wondering if he believes that those of us who actually love music by both Carter and Boulez are merely deluded or, even worse, are gullible. >>_
> 
> Not at all. I know people like what they like. My belief is those two composers, so heralded by the musical establishment of their time, will be forgotten in 50 years or less. I don't believe their music has staying power against whatever will come. It certainly doesn't compare to the greats that preceded them. I think they are two exemplars for what has happened to classical music in our lifetimes.


OK, clarification accepted. Thanks. But I feel rather sure that their music will have staying power. I fear I will not live long enough to see it!


----------



## Lisztian

Enthusiast said:


> The older man wanted to write different music to the music he had written when he was younger. He matured and the world changed but that doesn't negate his younger music. The music from different periods of his life is different and was written in different times. If he really hadn't liked his 2nd symphony he could have withdrawn it, as he did Kullervo (which is also a very worthwhile work). I look back on my own younger days and even if I am wiser today (I said if) I still wonder with regret where some parts of the younger Enthusiast has gone!


Indeed, and music whose appeal tends to be felt most by the relatively youthful, written by young men who haven't matured/whose worlds haven't changed, shouldn't necessarily be considered inferior to their later music because of that fact or because people often prefer these later works as they mature: this would not be taking into account the existence of a lot of younger people and their perspectives  Thankfully we have music that just seems 'right' for all stages of our lives...


----------



## Bulldog

larold said:


> Not at all. I know people like what they like. My belief is those two composers, so heralded by the musical establishment of their time, will be forgotten in 50 years or less. I don't believe their music has staying power against whatever will come. It certainly doesn't compare to the greats that preceded them. I think they are two exemplars for what has happened to classical music in our lifetimes.


Unfortunately, you are allowing your bias to lead you into the future.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Bulldog said:


> Unfortunately, you are allowing your bias to lead you into the future.


yes - and who, just 40 years ago with - could have thought that pop music today would be what it actually is. risible dross to many of us.

it may be that in 50 years, todays canon in music will be shunned in favour of Carter and Boulez


----------



## Bluecrab

stomanek said:


> it may be that in 50 years, todays canon in music will be shunned in favour of Carter and Boulez


But consider this alternative: Boulez and Carter will be part of the canon. No composers from the past need be eliminated. Can't the canon grow with time?

I'd definitely consider Carter as part of the modern canon (I'm far less familiar with Boulez's work). Carter composed for about 70 years. His credentials are impeccable (for example, he studied under Nadia Boulanger and Charles Ives). After composing in what could be called a neoclassical style, he found his own voice. And it was truly original.

The canon must expand as we move forward in time. Otherwise, it will become nothing more than an ossified relic.


----------



## Enthusiast

I can still remember a time when Bartok was considered daring and not guaranteed to survive in the repertoire, when Shostakovich was widely derided by both progressives and traditionalists and yet Stockhausen and Boulez were already finding an audience. It wasn't that long before this (the 1960s) that Sibelius was said to be box office suicide. Even Mahler was considered exotic and had recently been widely derided (in Britain at least) as vulgar. Even Dvorak was looked down upon!


----------



## Larkenfield

At one time there was also "Exit in case of Brahms."  One would have to be a clairvoyant to know exactly what music is going to survive or not in the future. My guess is that some of Carter and Boulez will survive as being of interest , but not most of it. It took Carter forever to find himself, and Boulez ended up evolving into exactly but he was against at the beginning. Mahler and Bruckner but no Shostakovich? Really? People will still be interested to know what they sounded like as part of modern music, but not as the _whole_ of modern music. Some of it is pretty tough going.

There was such incredible diversity in the 20th century that still continues into the 21st, and no one is being forced to listen to anyone they don't like. But overall attacks on modern music after its existence of over 100 years is really poor form, in my opinion. That some listeners have not found anything at all to complement in that hundred years is less than inspiring and insightful. It's like the music stopped at the end of the 19th century, and I've found that simply untrue.


----------



## janxharris

MacLeod said:


> There is something more impersonal about receiving the visual, as if there is a more explicitly cross-boundary transaction, whereas the aural is a more personal and engaging activity. It can lead to a more _Marmite _response (love it or hate it) than the visual.


I am unclear as to why you think this. I'm not saying you are wrong.


----------



## janxharris

Larkenfield said:


> That some listeners have not found anything at all to complement in that hundred years is less than inspiring and insightful. It's like the music stopped at the end of the 19th century, and I find that simply untrue.


A good example of 21st C growth - Thomas Adès: Polaris (2010).


----------



## Bulldog

stomanek said:


> yes - and who, just 40 years ago with - could have thought that pop music today would be what it actually is. risible dross to many of us.
> 
> it may be that in 50 years, todays canon in music will be shunned in favour of Carter and Boulez


Right, the future will be a brave new world and one needs to be ready for anything.


----------



## janxharris

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I think this is one of the key points to understanding why aesthetic judgments are subjective, precisely because you *cannot find any aesthetic principle that underlies every work of art deemed good/great or bad*.





Woodduck said:


> So no, a work in which every part finds its proper place in the whole is not _necessarily_ fine or great; but there is no fine or great art in which that is not the case. The question then is how the artist, or the art connoisseur, knows that that has been achieved. No one can tell you _how_ anyone knows anything, "objective" or "subjective," but it's in the nature of aesthetic perception that *this is a thing that can be known*, and that this knowledge is critical in enabling us to say that one symphony is a great work and another is just a good try.


Care to justify the emboldened?


----------



## Guest

So, I said,



MacLeod said:


> There is something more impersonal about receiving the visual, as if there is a more explicitly cross-boundary transaction, whereas the aural is a more personal and engaging activity. It can lead to a more _Marmite _response (love it or hate it) than the visual.


And jan said,



janxharris said:


> I am unclear as to why you think this. I'm not saying you are wrong.


I am unclear too. I need to disentangle the different contexts in which we consume a painting and a symphony (for example).

In a gallery, there is a painting, exhibited. It sits on the wall, waiting for a succession of people to come along, stop, observe, study, react, reflect...move on. The artist has presented his work; and I have come along and consumed it, after the fact. It has crossed an invisible boundary from him/her to me. It's in front of me, not surrounding me, not making me want to tap my feet, not filling my ears, not inescapable, as the music I'm listening to at home is. The artist offers; I can accept or decline. An impersonal exchange, even if I love the painting.

I love going to galleries. I've been to exhibitions of Wyndham Lewis, Magritte, Hammershoi, Kienholz, Royal Academy summer exhibition, Whistler, Turner. And as often as I can get to London, I'll go to see two of my favourites in the National Gallery, _The Execution of Lady Jane Grey_ (Delaroche) and _Perseus turning Phineas and his Followers to Stone_ (Giordano)_.
_
None of these compares emotionally to the more sheerly physical experience of sitting at home (or even when walking the dog) and listening to a favourite symphony.


----------



## DaveM

Larkenfield said:


> There was such incredible diversity in the 20th century that still continues into the 21st, and no one is being forced to listen to something they don't like. But overall attacks on modern music after its existence of over 100 years is really poor form, in my opinion. That some listeners have not found anything at all to complement in that hundred years is less than inspiring and insightful. It's like the music stopped at the end of the 19th century, and I've found that simply untrue.


The changes that occurred in classical music starting particularly in the early 20th were major and they didn't occur gradually. A form of classical music that had structural roots in melodic music that preceded it for at least two hundred years died almost overnight. For a time, new composers who composed 'traditional' music were not supported. IMO, classical music as we knew it, has never fully recovered from this turn of events.

That's not to say that there is nothing to find worth listening to, but it is, by far, a greater challenge to do so for those of us who preferred that music. Personally, I have found no value in atonal, amelodic music. Whereas before about 1900, one, for the most part, could expect some consistency in structure, the music today is all over the map. Some call this diversity; others might call some of it adversity. Whenever these kinds of thoughts are expressed, instead of reading closely what is being said, the response is often in the same category as your comments above.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> Care to justify the emboldened?


The statement you ask for a justification of - specifically the part in bold - was:

'So no, a work in which every part finds its proper place in the whole is not necessarily fine or great; but there is no fine or great art in which that is not the case. The question then is how the artist, or the art connoisseur, knows that that has been achieved. No one can tell you how anyone knows anything, "objective" or "subjective," but it's in the nature of aesthetic perception that *this is a thing that can be known,* and that this knowledge is critical in enabling us to say that one symphony is a great work and another is just a good try.'

I could answer with a question: care to justify a statement that you love your wife? Or that the sky is blue?

Some things are known only because they're perceived directly, and the only way to "justify" believing them is to invite others to experience a similar perception and then assume that what they report experiencing is the "same" thing as what you're experiencing. You tell your wife you love her, or tell a friend that the sky is deep blue today. But if your wife doesn't read your behavior as motivated by love, and your friend is blind, you won't have "justified" your statements. You will then have to present indirect evidence for what you perceive or intend, perhaps citing the experience of other people in support of your own assertions.

That is the nature of perceptual knowledge. The integrity of a work of art - the excellence of its composition - is perceived directly by the individual, and different individuals possess different levels of skill in perceiving it (nearly everyone, I think, possesses this ability in some degree, as evidenced by the almost universal participation in some form of aesthetic activity, even if it's only decorating the living room or applying makeup - or, of course, listening to music). People with exceptional perceptual skills - visual, musical, or otherwise - will tend to be artists or lovers of art, and the better they are at it the better they'll be at distinguishing quality in art and the more agreement they're likely to reach as to what are the greatest works and who are the greatest composers and painters. Disagreements among the aesthetically sophisticated are more likely to focus on the significance or value of an artist's "message" than on the aesthetic fitness of his work. But of course the relationship between these dimensions is extraordinarily complex, and so there will always be disagreements. Which is fine. I've always found competitions and rankings in art a rather silly game; if two works are obviously different in quality, talking about it seems like belaboring the obvious, and if they aren't, talking about it should be directed toward understanding the works, not simply "rating" them.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

janxharris said:


> Care to justify the emboldened?


I'm a bit limited on time today, but I'll try to briefly clarify what I meant:

Generally, when we're talking about objective classifications there are qualities or properties that all members of that category share. If you ask what makes an apple an apple one can say they're edible, round-ish fruits grown on trees, usually green and/or red in color, sweet-to-sour in taste, made up of mostly water, and partly carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals. I'm sure a chemist could get even more precise in describing the common chemical make-up that all apples share. If we transfer that to the concept of greatness/badness/goodness in art, if these things were objective properties of art, and it was the perception of them that allows us to objectively categorize art as great/good/bad, then there should be some common property/principle in all art deemed great/bad/good. Instead, what we find is that when people point to principles/properties that some great art has, yet much bad art also has, and vice versa, then it's clearly not those principles/properties that are defining any work as good or bad. Instead, in all cases it seems to be how individuals are reacting to the complex of properties within any given work, and if it's about how people are reacting that puts the categorization of great/good/bad in the subjective realm by definition.

Even if one is to take Woodduck's principle of coherency within a complex work: I dare say that Hamlet is Shakepspeare's most incoherent play. There are numerous inconsistencies and things that don't make sense if we're parsing it rationally: yet Hamlet is often considered a monolithic masterpiece of English literature. How can that be so if it's one of the language's most incoherent plays? And, indeed, many eminent critics like TS Eliot have argued that very point; that Hamlet ISN'T a great play because it's too incoherent. But I think it's safe to say Eliot has been overruled by the vast majority of history. What's more, if we do decide that Hamlet's great, it would hard to think of some common property or principle it shares with a work like WC Williams's Red Wheelbarrow, also considered a masterpiece of modernist literature, or John Ashbery's Daffy Duck in Hollywood, a masterpiece of postmodernist literature.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Even if one is to take Woodduck's principle of coherency within a complex work: I dare say that Hamlet is Shakepspeare's most incoherent play. There are numerous inconsistencies and things that don't make sense if we're parsing it rationally: yet Hamlet is often considered a monolithic masterpiece of English literature. How can that be so if it's one of the language's most incoherent plays? And, indeed, many eminent critics like TS Eliot have argued that very point; that Hamlet ISN'T a great play because it's too incoherent. But I think it's safe to say Eliot has been overruled by the vast majority of history.


I need to answer this. There are artworks which are very extended temporally - plays, operas, novels, occasionally even a long musical work in several parts (e.g., a symphony or a suite of pieces) - in which perfection of _overall_ form is not essential, and sometimes not even meaningful or possible. Such works are either held together by a narrative which suffices to explain and bind together their separate scenes or episodes, or they are intended as pleasing collections of separate pieces, each of which is to be perceived as a unified entity with its own structure and meaning. Additionally, literature (which I gather is your specialty) is not, except in the case of poetry, concerned with perceptual form in the same way as painting and music, since words perform a different cognitive function than do shapes, colors, and sounds. The artistic quality and value of literature is thus judged, at least in part, by different criteria.

In sum, the nature and value of form must be understood in terms appropriate to the kind of art under consideration. I can't presume to say much about literature as an art, since I practice it only incidentally (in trying, say, to give words good pacing and aesthetic appeal when that seems desirable). I'm happy to leave literary criticism to whoever has competence in it.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'm a bit limited on time today, but I'll try to briefly clarify what I meant:
> 
> Generally, when we're talking about objective classifications there are qualities or properties that all members of that category share. If you ask what makes an apple an apple one can say they're edible, round-ish fruits grown on trees, usually green and/or red in color, sweet-to-sour in taste, made up of mostly water, and partly carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals. I'm sure a chemist could get even more precise in describing the common chemical make-up that all apples share. If we transfer that to the concept of greatness/badness/goodness in art, if these things were objective properties of art, and it was the perception of them that allows us to objectively categorize art as great/good/bad, then there should be some common property/principle in all art deemed great/bad/good. Instead, what we find is that when people point to principles/properties that some great art has, yet much bad art also has, and vice versa, then it's clearly not those principles/properties that are defining any work as good or bad. Instead, in all cases it seems to be how individuals are reacting to the complex of properties within any given work, and if it's about how people are reacting that puts the categorization of great/good/bad in the subjective realm by definition.
> 
> Even if one is to take Woodduck's principle of coherency within a complex work: I dare say that Hamlet is Shakepspeare's most incoherent play. There are numerous inconsistencies and things that don't make sense if we're parsing it rationally: yet Hamlet is often considered a monolithic masterpiece of English literature. How can that be so if it's one of the language's most incoherent plays? And, indeed, many eminent critics like TS Eliot have argued that very point; that Hamlet ISN'T a great play because it's too incoherent. *But I think it's safe to say Eliot has been overruled by the vast majority of history.* What's more, if we do decide that Hamlet's great, it would hard to think of some common property or principle it shares with a work like WC Williams's Red Wheelbarrow, also considered a masterpiece of modernist literature, or John Ashbery's Daffy Duck in Hollywood, a masterpiece of postmodernist literature.


not the only literary opinion of TS Eliot that has been overruled by posterity.

and posterity has established Cosi Fan Tutte as one of the great operas - dismissing Beethoven's claims that its subject and treatment diminished it artistically to the point where it could not be considered a good opera.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> The statement you ask for a justification of - specifically the part in bold - was:
> 
> 'So no, a work in which every part finds its proper place in the whole is not necessarily fine or great; but there is no fine or great art in which that is not the case. The question then is how the artist, or the art connoisseur, knows that that has been achieved. No one can tell you how anyone knows anything, "objective" or "subjective," but it's in the nature of aesthetic perception that *this is a thing that can be known,* and that this knowledge is critical in enabling us to say that one symphony is a great work and another is just a good try.'
> 
> I could answer with a question: care to justify a statement that you love your wife? Or that the sky is blue?
> 
> Some things are known only because they're perceived directly, and the only way to "justify" believing them is to invite others to experience a similar perception and then assume that what they report experiencing is the "same" thing as what you're experiencing. You tell your wife you love her, or tell a friend that the sky is deep blue today. But if your wife doesn't read your behavior as motivated by love, and your friend is blind, you won't have "justified" your statements. You will then have to present indirect evidence for what you perceive or intend, perhaps citing the experience of other people in support of your own assertions.
> 
> That is the nature of perceptual knowledge. The integrity of a work of art - the excellence of its composition - is perceived directly by the individual, and different individuals possess different levels of skill in perceiving it (nearly everyone, I think, possesses this ability in some degree, as evidenced by the almost universal participation in some form of aesthetic activity, even if it's only decorating the living room or applying makeup - or, of course, listening to music). People with exceptional perceptual skills - visual, musical, or otherwise - will tend to be artists or lovers of art, and the better they are at it the better they'll be at distinguishing quality in art and the more agreement they're likely to reach as to what are the greatest works and who are the greatest composers and painters. Disagreements among the aesthetically sophisticated are more likely to focus on the significance or value of an artist's "message" than on the aesthetic fitness of his work. But of course the relationship between these dimensions is extraordinarily complex, and so there will always be disagreements. Which is fine. I've always found competitions and rankings in art a rather silly game; if two works are obviously different in quality, talking about it seems like belaboring the obvious, and if they aren't, talking about it should be directed toward understanding the works, not simply "rating" them.


Just to clarify - do you consider the example I cited (section of the finale of Sibelius's second symphony) as an instance of a work in which not every part finds its proper place in the whole? - or is it just an instance of personal distaste?


----------



## Larkenfield

If the "flaws" within a work of literature or music do not override or destroy the integrity of the effects of the whole-the integrity of the whole that the author set out to accurately create-it will usually pass muster. On the other hand, some works are so apparently flawless that they essentially do not make any aesthetic mistakes whatsoever-and I would include most of what Mozart wrote-or they are so slight that they do not spoil the dominant feelings or the clear intentions of the whole.

Nevertheless, in music, there is potentially such a thing as a 'wrong' note, or someone like Brahms would have had no need to edit the Schubert Symphonies for errant notes or misprints in the manuscript or for Brahms to go over and over his own scores to eliminate the 'wrong' or non-essential notes. Too many of those 'wrong' notes left in and a work might end up relegated to the dustbin of history because the mood of the work is destroyed with too many errant distractions and spoiled, with a number of composers as examples who discarded many of their own scores, including Brahms, Dukas, and Sibelius, they felt didn't meet the standards of the intentions behind those works. _I view a great work of art or music as one that I or posterity cannot possibly imagine being improved upon after repeated hearings , _ and that any change would only diminish the work... Instead, the intentions of the work sound as if they are carried out perfectly, or as near perfectly as possible, that its so-called flaws do not _spoil_ or detract from the overriding enjoyment, meaning, or significance of the whole personal experience-the listener is somehow _satisfied_.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> Just to clarify - do you consider the example I cited (section of the finale of Sibelius's second symphony) as an instance of a work in which not every part finds its proper place in the whole? - or is it just an instance of personal distaste?


I have two problems with that last movement. I need to say that I don't consider it _bad_ music. Its structure is not weak, its melodic material is all right, and it provides a forceful and viscerally exciting conclusion. My objections are that it doesn't continue the subtlety and sophistication of the first two movements - which is why I called it crude - and that its "big tune" is a stylistic throwback to a Romantic conception of a multimovement work which the beginning of the symphony doesn't lead us to expect. Even Sibelius's first symphony is more unified as a whole, despite the Romantic "big tune" in the finale.

What Sibelius failed to do in his 2nd symphony - provide a triumphant conclusion stylistically consistent with the rest of the work - he did magnificently in his 5th.


----------



## KenOC

stomanek said:


> ...and posterity has established Cosi Fan Tutte as one of the great operas - dismissing Beethoven's claims that its subject and treatment diminished it artistically to the point where it could not be considered a good opera.


As a collector of Beethoveniana, I'm not aware of his stated opinion on _Cosi_. Can you point me to a reference on this? Thanks!


----------



## Phil loves classical

larold said:


> _<<in appreciation of classical music...there (is an) assumption of greatness. We tend to think that most pieces are great, just because it's classical music, or just because it's written by Mozart or whomever. Even if we don't like a work, we'd rather say we don't get it, and not that it sucks. Quite the opposite, the less we get a work, or the less we like it, sometimes we think more highly of it... it must be so good, inaccessible, avant-garde, etc. I'm not saying that this is always true, nor that it's the only attitude towards classical music, but it's quite common.>>_
> 
> Sweeping characterizations are rarely correct and the flaws in this one have been cited ad nauseam here. I think there are plenty of classical music fans that will call a spade a spade, regardless of critical or other opinion. Among them are concert goers.
> 
> One of the great tragedies in classical music, to me, has been what I call the classical music establishment (mostly the slick magazines and people in the industry) calling the music of ne'er do wells like Pierre Boulez and Elliott Carter first rate or better.
> 
> These composers, and many others of recent vintage, arose in the era when performing their music in concert was no longer the goal. When Beethoven and Brahms wrote new works the goal was to get it performed in concert. If no one wanted it, the die was cast.
> 
> In the late 20th century, after introduction of the long playing record, this was no longer the litmus test because people could play the music for themselves at home. They no longer had to go to a concert hall to hear it.
> 
> There aren't many people that would pay to hear the music of people whose music makes no sense to them yet the establishment thinks it is wonderful. When Boulez died last year slick magazines were full of features about what a terrific composer he was. I couldn't disagree more with that assessment. In fact I think he did more to destroy classical music in the 20th century than just about anyone.
> 
> But that's my opinion, not a fact. And that's the entirety of "assumption of greatness": someone's or mass opinion. So probably best not to get too wound up about it.


I share the opinion Boulez and Carter were first rate. For me it is about clarity and craft. Carter was especially hard to get into at first, but their music is very well organized without a doubt. If Bach is first rate, I don't see how they can't be. For me atonal music is just learning another language. I've heard many tonal and atonal composers, and I believe there are many not at the level of those 2, to pick on some more obvious examples Max Bruch, Glass, or Feldman.


----------



## Guest

Eva Yojimbo said:


> If you ask what makes an apple an apple one can say they're edible, round-ish fruits grown on trees, usually green and/or red in color, sweet-to-sour in taste, made up of mostly water, and partly carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals. I'm sure a chemist could get even more precise in describing the common chemical make-up that all apples share. If we transfer that to the concept of greatness/badness/goodness in art, if these things were objective properties of art, and it was the perception of them that allows us to objectively categorize art as great/good/bad, then there should be some common property/principle in all art deemed great/bad/good. Instead, what we find is that when people point to principles/properties that some great art has, yet much bad art also has, and vice versa, then it's clearly not those principles/properties that are defining any work as good or bad.


I'm not sure the analogy quite works. You can find "edible, round-ish fruits grown on trees, usually green and/or red in color, sweet-to-sour in taste, made up of mostly water, and partly carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals" in many foods, so they can't be the defining properties of an apple.


----------



## janxharris

MacLeod said:


> So, I said,
> 
> And jan said,
> 
> I am unclear too. I need to disentangle the different contexts in which we consume a painting and a symphony (for example).
> 
> In a gallery, there is a painting, exhibited. It sits on the wall, waiting for a succession of people to come along, stop, observe, study, react, reflect...move on. The artist has presented his work; and I have come along and consumed it, after the fact. It has crossed an invisible boundary from him/her to me. It's in front of me, not surrounding me, not making me want to tap my feet, not filling my ears, inescapable, as the music I'm listening to at home is doing. The artist offers; I can accept or decline. An impersonal exchange, even if I love the painting.
> 
> I love going to galleries. I've been to exhibitions of Wyndham Lewis, Magritte, Hammershoi, Kienholz, Royal Academy summer exhibition, Whistler, Turner. And as often as I can get to London, I'll go to see two of my favourites in the National Gallery, _The Execution of Lady Jane Grey_ and_Perseus turning Phineas and his Followers to Stone.
> _
> None of these compares emotionally to the more sheerly physical experience of sitting at home (or even when walking the dog) and listening to a favourite symphony.


Did you perhaps intend to say 'inescapable' rather than personal? That is, to properly experience a piece of music one needs to apply full concentration from beginning to end without interruption - such not being the case with art where consumption may be piecemeal?


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> Did you perhaps intend to say 'inescapable' rather than personal? That is, to properly experience a piece of music one needs to apply full concentration from beginning to end without interruption - such not being the case with art where consumption may be piecemeal?


Thanks for spotting my mistake. I meant (now corrected) "_not _inescapable" (like the music at home).


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> I have two problems with that last movement. I need to say that I don't consider it _bad_ music. Its structure is not weak, its melodic material is all right, and it provides a forceful and viscerally exciting conclusion. My objections are that it doesn't continue the subtlety and sophistication of the first two movements - which is why I called it crude - and that its "big tune" is a stylistic throwback to a Romantic conception of a multimovement work which the beginning of the symphony doesn't lead us to expect. Even Sibelius's first symphony is more unified as a whole, despite the Romantic "big tune" in the finale.
> 
> What Sibelius failed to do in his 2nd symphony - provide a triumphant conclusion stylistically consistent with the rest of the work - he did magnificently in his 5th.


I'm with you on the fifth.

Perhaps an example of of a work in which not every part finds its proper place in the whole?


----------



## janxharris

MacLeod said:


> Thanks for spotting my mistake. I meant (now corrected) "_not _inescapable" (like the music at home).


...I actually didn't spot that...but was asking specifically if 'personal' was perhaps the wrong description?


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> ...I actually didn't spot that...but was asking specifically if 'personal' was perhaps the wrong description?


I think that comparisons between consuming art and music are difficult. Obviously, people can sit at home and stare at a painting on their wall, just as they can listen to music at home. They can turn off the music and turn away from the painting, so both are escapable. But music's impact on the senses seems to me to be more prolonged and physical than a painting's.


----------



## janxharris

Definition - that is quality of distinctiveness - is verifiable and may be considered objective I would say; anyone disagree?


----------



## DaveM

Phil loves classical said:


> I share the opinion Boulez and Carter were first rate. For me it is about clarity and craft. Carter was especially hard to get into at first, but their music is very well organized without a doubt. If Bach is first rate, I don't see how they can't be. For me atonal music is just learning another language. I've heard many tonal and atonal composers, and I believe there are many not at the level of those 2, to pick on some more obvious examples Max Bruch, Glass, or Feldman.


How could you besmirch Max:









Oops! Wrong Max.


----------



## Woodduck

I should know better than to get drawn into this at bedtime (!), but I'd say offhand that the basic difference between painting and music is that in our experience of the world the formal components of painting - line. shape, color - are primarily experienced as properties of physical reality, not as objects in themselves, while the opposite is true of musical tones. Abstract painting attempts to present these visual elements as a kind of visual music, but even when abstract design is animated it doesn't have the effect on our organism that music has. 

Clearly, we've evolved to respond differently to sound than to visual information - more immediately, intuitively, and emotionally. It's one thing to observe a lion hunting on the veldt in broad daylight, but quite another to hear its growl from your hut in the middle of the night! In nature, the primary cognitive purpose of visual qualities is to provide information, though they can also be aesthetically pleasing. Sounds in nature provide much more limited information about objects, but are powerful vehicles for emotional expression in human and animal communication. And loud, deep, or harsh sounds have a physical and psychic impact that shapes and colors can't match; there's no visual equivalent of rock music! It seems reasonable that the emotional power of music derives, in biological/evolutionary terms, mainly from that primal expressive function of sound, in combination with the expressiveness of physical gesture which musical forms mimic as they unfold in time.


----------



## KenOC

Shorter version: A talented person can forge a painting. But nobody can forge a major work of Bach or Beethoven.


----------



## Jacck

KenOC said:


> Shorter version: A talented person can forge a painting. But nobody can forge a major work of Bach or Beethoven.


computers can do it today. Who knows what they will compose in 200 years?
I could not tell if this is a real Mozart or computer-generated Mozart. I like how the AI is able to capture all the Mozart clichés and rearrange them to produce Mozart-like music


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> computers can do it today. Who knows what they will compose in 200 years?
> I could not tell if this is a real Mozart or computer-generated Mozart. I like how the AI is able to capture all the Mozart clichés and rearrange them to produce Mozart-like music


If composers are translating their life experiences into music then one wonders if AI could realistically achieve something comparable. The opening of Beethoven's 9th symphony proves to us, does it not, that he had been through much tribulation in his life - even if we knew nothing about him. If AI could not experience such emotion then any music written would sound like second rate pastiche wouldn't it?


----------



## DavidA

Bulldog said:


> I never feel part of a group experience when I attend a concert. That could be a prime reason I prefer listening to music in solitude.


That is a matter of your personality preferences


----------



## DavidA

stomanek said:


> not the only literary opinion of TS Eliot that has been overruled by posterity.
> 
> and posterity has established Cosi Fan Tutte as one of the great operas - dismissing Beethoven's claims that *its subject and treatment diminished it artistically to the point where it could not be considered a good opera*.


If subject and treatment were a factor we would have to rid ourselves of some pretty good operas! In fact most of the romantic repertoire!


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> If composers are translating their life experiences into music then one wonders if AI could realistically achieve something comparable. The opening of Beethoven's 9th symphony proves to us, does it not, that he had been through much tribulation in his life - even if we knew nothing about him. If AI could not experience such emotion then any music written would sound like second rate pastiche wouldn't it?


That's a big "if" that you start with. Some may in some way have done that but it seems a very Romantic idea to say that is what composition is about. As for AI, why assume that successful AI must produce something like consciousness at all? We need it but that doesn't mean machines would need it to perform as well as us in anything and better than us in most things. I think we just don't know whether AI will ever be able to produce music that _we _find original and inspired. It doesn't seem impossible but the problem might be working to impress _us - which might indeed lead to a tendency towards producing pastiche._


----------



## Jacck

Enthusiast said:


> That's a big "if" that you start with. Some may in some way have done that but it seems a very Romantic idea to say that is what composition is about. As for AI, why assume that successful AI must produce something like consciousness at all? We need it but that doesn't mean machines would need it to perform as well as us in anything and better than us in most things. I think we just don't know whether AI will ever be able to produce music that we find original and inspired. It doesn't seem impossible.


there are algorithms to produce novel and original things, for example genetic programming
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming
despite the recent hype concerning AI, despite the misinformed alarmism and fearmongering of people like Nick Bostrom, Elon Musk or Stephen Hawking, we are very far to creating an AI, that would be ACTUALLY intelligent. The AI algoritms can get really good at specific narrow tasks such as playing chess or waging war strategy or face recognition, but their "intelligence" is narrow, limit, deterministic, and not the broad, self-conscious, versatile intelligence that humans possess.


----------



## Enthusiast

Larkenfield said:


> At one time there was also "Exit in case of Brahms."  It took Carter forever to find himself, and Boulez ended up evolving into exactly but he was against at the beginning. Mahler and Bruckner but no Shostakovich? Really? People will still be interested to know what they sounded like as part of modern music, but not as the _whole_ of modern music. Some of it is pretty tough going.


We all have opinions and it is right that we should. But, resisting my "have you heard this" reflex (when we see opinions that don't match our own) I will try to answer your doubts! Really, is Boulez's music so tough? These days when I listen to it I am often struck by how accessible it is. I have been as surprised as anyone might be by this but isn't that what happens when you live with new music for a good while? It either seems suddenly dull or it opens up into being effortlessly rewarding!

And, I don't know, so Boulez learned to love Mahler and Bruckner (and to become a master in presenting them) but never found anything of worth in Shostakovich. Is that such a strange position? Is it so unusual for a great musician to dislike some great music? And isn't it really just the way the 1960s were that Boulez started so critical of everything and then mellowed?

As for Carter, I don't get your point really. So he took a long time to find his voice. So did Janacek (as an example) but it doesn't belittle _his _achievement. Do great composers all have to follow the pattern of the greats of the distant past? But I do agree that a lot of Carter can be tough. It took me ages to get his big established masterpieces (like the Concerto for Orchestra) but eventually he settled into my consciousness and it was worth the "effort". I suspect that future generations, perhaps struggling with their latest avant-garde, will not have so much more difficulty with it than we do with the 2nd Viennese School. Carter's later music is much more accessible, by the way, because it is less acerbic. Probably the biggest difficulty in getting to appreciate Carter is that he wrote so much!


----------



## Enthusiast

Jacck said:


> there are algorithms to produce novel and original things, for example genetic programming
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming
> despite the recent hype concerning AI, despite the misinformed alarmism and fearmongering of people like Nick Bostrom, Elon Musk or Stephen Hawking, we are very far to creating an AI, that would be ACTUALLY intelligent. The AI algoritms can get really good at specific narrow tasks such as playing chess or waging war strategy or face recognition, but their "intelligence" is narrow, limit, deterministic, and not the broad, self-conscious, versatile intelligence that humans possess.


Yes, I know. But "very far from" doesn't mean "impossible". And I haven't seen any convincing case for saying it would be impossible - although I do think the ideal of being "like humans" is a bit of a false steer. Why aim to duplicate something? That is just simulation.


----------



## Gallus

Woodduck said:


> I should know better than to get drawn into this at bedtime (!), but I'd say offhand that the basic difference between painting and music is that in our experience of the world the formal components of painting - line. shape, color - are primarily experienced as properties of physical reality, not as objects in themselves, while the opposite is true of musical tones. Abstract painting attempts to present these visual elements as a kind of visual music, but even when abstract design is animated it doesn't have the effect on our organism that music has.
> 
> Clearly, we've evolved to respond differently to sound than to visual information - more immediately, intuitively, and emotionally. It's one thing to observe a lion hunting on the veldt in broad daylight, but quite another to hear its growl from your hut in the middle of the night! In nature, the primary cognitive purpose of visual qualities is to provide information, though they can also be aesthetically pleasing. Sounds in nature provide much more limited information about objects, but are powerful vehicles for emotional expression in human and animal communication. And loud, deep, or harsh sounds have a physical and psychic impact that shapes and colors can't match; there's no visual equivalent of rock music! It seems reasonable that the emotional power of music derives, in biological/evolutionary terms, mainly from that primal expressive function of sound, in combination with the expressiveness of physical gesture which musical forms mimic as they unfold in time.


I think this comparison of the arts/sensory information is more a matter of taste than anything. Speaking for myself, I often don't feel deep emotion in a work of music without some objective correlative to the sound, like a programmatic title or a link to a particular memory...the greatest aesthetic experience of my life has been inside the Sistine Chapel, and the musical equivalent one naturally thinks of, a Palestrina mass, is sublime in its own way, but (to me) the experience in listening to one is certainly less 'immediate' than I remember the awesome, overpowering sublimity of Michelangelo's frescoes being. Likewise with 'intuitiveness': if music is naturally more intuitive than the visual arts, why do I find Chinese landscape painting more intuitively pleasing than I do Classical Chinese music? Shouldn't the latter, if it is more intuitive, be able to cross cultural boundaries more easily? Yet it seems to me that music is the most culturally particularist of all the arts precisely *because* it is so abstract and therefore requires more interpretation than does a sculpture or a play. But this is just my take.

The lion example isn't quite analogous because one is lion is being viewed from a distance and the other is a few feet away. A more accurate test would be: is it more immediately terrifying to hear a lion growling in your hut at night, or to see a lion silently walk into your hut during the daytime? Doesn't seem very clear-cut to me. Is there sound which is as immediately affecting in human terms as that famous photograph of the child dying of famine with the vulture waiting in the background? I'm not sure.


----------



## Enthusiast

I want to explain why I keep responding on the question of Boulez and Carter. I think when I see so many people saying "don't bother: I've looked into it and it is not worth the effort" about a composer it can lead to my not bothering to put in the effort myself. There is so much new music to listen to that it is tempting to filter out the music that seems to be disliked by those who have tried it. If I had decided to ignore Carter and Boulez (both *very *different, by the way) I would have missed things that I have come to greatly value and that _do not give me anything that I can get from other music_. That matter of finding something that is a totally different experience - not just a new language for saying similar things - is very important to me.

When I say "put in the effort" I *do not mean *sitting through endless hearings in abject misery while trying to get it. It works differently for me. I might listen to something and give up if I am not enjoying it. But there is then a "tab" in my mind and another time comes along when I am feeling like something very new and the tabbed piece seems like a potential way of addressing that feeling. Sometimes I give up a few times. But sometimes a day comes along when I listen and the music seems to talk to me a bit more. Then the game is on! Perhaps I have done some subconscious processing of the tabbed music in the interim periods. Or perhaps it is a matter of waiting for the right mood. So it is not really effort so much as patience.


----------



## Guest

I agree, Enthusiast. Being a bit crass, it's like food. I love curry. I love ice cream. But when I want curry I don't want ice cream and vice versa. No food gives you everything. Curry is great and ice cream is great. But I don't want poppadoms with my gelato.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Jacck said:


> computers can do it today. Who knows what they will compose in 200 years?
> I could not tell if this is a real Mozart or computer-generated Mozart. I like how the AI is able to capture all the Mozart clichés and rearrange them to produce Mozart-like music


There are programs that can take and rework all the baroque and romantic musical cliches too!!!!

and jazz, pop etc etc and yes - Genesis too! whatever you want - there's a computer simulation that can do it

does this "music" sell?

do orchestras play it in the concerts? pianists?

No


----------



## PlaySalieri

Jacck said:


> computers can do it today. Who knows what they will compose in 200 years?
> I could not tell if this is a real Mozart or computer-generated Mozart. I like how the AI is able to capture all the Mozart clichés and rearrange them to produce Mozart-like music


it sounds like a mish mash of snippets from various classical sonatas, quite cleverly sequenced and repeated along the lines of the classical sonata form - there are little phrases here and there that sound Mozartian and someone who is not too familiar with Mozart might claim this is Mozart like whatever that means. But there is little musical sense to the piece.

but it's better than some samples I heard 10 years ago attempting the same thing.


----------



## Enthusiast

dogen said:


> I agree, Enthusiast. Being a bit crass, it's like food. I love curry. I love ice cream. But when I want curry I don't want ice cream and vice versa. No food gives you everything. Curry is great and ice cream is great. But I don't want poppadoms with my gelato.


Not crass at all but you leave out one element - the discovery of a new type of food, quite unlike any other category of food, perhaps like discovering another of the great cuisines. Like discovering Thai or Lebanese food for the first time! So much new music is like a new chef cooking the same food but composers like Carter and Boulez have new qualities that you may not recognise at first.


----------



## Nereffid

Larkenfield said:


> There was such incredible diversity in the 20th century that still continues into the 21st, and no one is being forced to listen to anyone they don't like. But overall attacks on modern music after its existence of over 100 years is really poor form, in my opinion. That some listeners have not found anything at all to complement in that hundred years is less than inspiring and insightful. It's like the music stopped at the end of the 19th century, and I've found that simply untrue.





DaveM said:


> The changes that occurred in classical music starting particularly in the early 20th were major and they didn't occur gradually. A form of classical music that had structural roots in melodic music that preceded it for at least two hundred years died almost overnight. For a time, new composers who composed 'traditional' music were not supported. IMO, classical music as we knew it, has never fully recovered from this turn of events.
> 
> That's not to say that there is nothing to find worth listening to, but it is, by far, a greater challenge to do so for those of us who preferred that music. Personally, I have found no value in atonal, amelodic music. Whereas before about 1900, one, for the most part, could expect some consistency in structure, the music today is all over the map. Some call this diversity; others might call some of it adversity. Whenever these kinds of thoughts are expressed, instead of reading closely what is being said, the response is often in the same category as your comments above.


I do try to be sympathetic to those who are upset over the way classical music has changed over the past century, but it is _a century_ at this stage. Imagine someone in 1718 complaining about how Monteverdi and Buxtehude had ruined music! But the fact of it is that music _has_ changed, whether you're happy about it or not. IThe question is how the individual listener is to deal with that fact. Either "classical music" as you define it is dead, and you can spend your time listening to and enjoying the music of (circa) 1700-1900 (or -1950, or whatever), in which case as Larkenfeld says "attacks on modern music are really poor form". Or you can try to get on board with the past century and (it's possible!) end up liking it. As my old prison buddy Andy used to say, "Get busy living, or get busy dying"...


----------



## Woodduck

Gallus said:


> I think this comparison of the arts/sensory information is more a matter of taste than anything. Speaking for myself, I often don't feel deep emotion in a work of music without some objective correlative to the sound, like a programmatic title or a link to a particular memory...the greatest aesthetic experience of my life has been inside the Sistine Chapel, and the musical equivalent one naturally thinks of, a Palestrina mass, is sublime in its own way, but (to me) the experience in listening to one is certainly less 'immediate' than I remember the awesome, overpowering sublimity of Michelangelo's frescoes being. Likewise with 'intuitiveness': if music is naturally more intuitive than the visual arts, why do I find Chinese landscape painting more intuitively pleasing than I do Classical Chinese music? Shouldn't the latter, if it is more intuitive, be able to cross cultural boundaries more easily? Yet it seems to me that music is the most culturally particularist of all the arts precisely *because* it is so abstract and therefore requires more interpretation than does a sculpture or a play. But this is just my take.
> 
> The lion example isn't quite analogous because one is lion is being viewed from a distance and the other is a few feet away. A more accurate test would be: is it more immediately terrifying to hear a lion growling in your hut at night, or to see a lion silently walk into your hut during the daytime? Doesn't seem very clear-cut to me. Is there sound which is as immediately affecting in human terms as that famous photograph of the child dying of famine with the vulture waiting in the background? I'm not sure.


Would the Sistine ceiling be so overpowering to you if it were shrunk to fit the ceiling of your living room? I doubt it. The experience of visual art also involves subject matter, which carries its own intellectual and emotional associations.

Naturally there are different temperaments, mental styles, and corresponding degrees of responsiveness to different artistic media. Some people are more visually oriented, some more aurally. Some are more responsive to sensual qualities, some are more cerebral. You apparently engage more easily with art that comes with "objective" references or external associations, whereas others are more responsive to abstract form or even raw sensory data. Some people, musicians in particular I think, find programmatic associations an actual impediment to responding to music; they would rather just respond to the sounds unfiltered and uncontaminated by simultaneous associations.

I didn't say that music was more intuitive than visual art. I said that our response to sound itself was more intuitive - less rationally mediated - than our response to visual data, which has more literal functions and associations and is therefore more likely to generate conceptual, analytical thought. The point about the lion's growl was to note the instantaneous and irrational response to isolated sounds which don't impart much information, yet - or for that very reason - cause a strong emotional reaction. When we can see the lion, we can think about ways to defend ourselves or escape, and the activity of thinking can modify or even block our emotions. I think we've probably lost some of our primitive reactivity to sound because of the constant noise pollution of civilized life. But the howl of a wolf on a recording can still send an inexplicable chill through us, and even induce a powerful emotion in many people, that a photograph of a wolf cannot.

I agree that music of alien cultures may be more difficult to respond to emotionally than visual art of those cultures, but that's explainable by the simple fact that we all share the same visual world and can easily respond to its representation in art. In fact, the very strangeness or even unpleasantness of certain musical styles, even within our own culture, is a testament to the intimate relationship between sound as such and our emotional makeup. I may dislike certain styles of painting, but am rarely repelled as viscerally as I am by styles of music I dislike (and I'm talking about aesthetic qualities, not subject matter; obviously a picture of something repulsive can affect us strongly).

It seems that you're comparing apples with oranges. I'm comparing the affective power of sound as such with its visual equivalent, without reference to the subject matter of visual images. The appropriate comparison to music would be fully abstract art, and I'd guess that very, very few people, unless they're tone deaf and rhythmically uncoordinated, can derive the same level of emotional pleasure from that as they can from music.


----------



## DaveM

Nereffid said:


> I do try to be sympathetic to those who are upset over the way classical music has changed over the past century, but it is _a century_ at this stage. Imagine someone in 1718 complaining about how Monteverdi and Buxtehude had ruined music! But the fact of it is that music _has_ changed, whether you're happy about it or not. IThe question is how the individual listener is to deal with that fact. Either "classical music" as you define it is dead, and you can spend your time listening to and enjoying the music of (circa) 1700-1900 (or -1950, or whatever), in which case as Larkenfeld says "attacks on modern music are really poor form". Or you can try to get on board with the past century and (it's possible!) end up liking it. As my old prison buddy Andy used to say, "Get busy living, or get busy dying"...


Classical music of modern times is no longer music that is composed within some constraints and consistency. There are apparently no rules any more. So you have some that one might call traditional (think Miaskovsky Symphony 27) and IMO far too much at the other extreme (think random bonks, clinks etc.) that dares to call itself classical music. In between is a potpourri, some of which has value, some IMO not so much. When one says 'attacks on modern music are really poor form', one infers that all of it is above criticism.

As for 'Get busy living, or get busy dying' -a bit of unnecessary irrelevant sermonizing- I'm quite happy finding gems in the treasure trove of forgotten works from a time that inspires me more than much of that composed in the last 75 years.


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> Not crass at all but you leave out one element - the discovery of a new type of food, quite unlike any other category of food, perhaps like discovering another of the great cuisines. Like discovering Thai or Lebanese food for the first time! So much new music is like a new chef cooking the same food but composers like Carter and Boulez have new qualities that you may not recognise at first.


Oh yes, good point! I'm always keen to try any new food I come across (within my dietary choice). Yet I know some people who would never dream of trying anything different. Very much like musical preferences in that regard. Maybe the two are positively correlated!


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> There are apparently no rules any more.


Given that music is the organisation of sound in time, there have to be rules. Even random bonks that dares to call itself music involving aleatoricism.


----------



## DaveM

dogen said:


> Given that music is the organisation of sound in time, there have to be rules. Even random bonks that dares to call itself music involving aleatoricism.


That doesn't make it classical music. Besides, the more one dumbs down what music is, the less skill it takes to make it.


----------



## JeffD

stomanek said:


> I was trying to say that all the things you hate about TC - the bickering etc - is the life blood of TC. It's what makes it worthwhile coming here. If all I wanted to do is share my love of Mozart with fellow Mozart admirers - I would go to a Mozart forum.
> 
> I come to TC because there is a wide variety of people who disagree with me on many topics in music and I love the debate.


Aaahhhh. If what you say is true, and if the majority of folks on TC are in agreement, then there is no hope and this is not the place for me.



> I love it when people say "I dont like Mozart because he is predictable etc" - the first thing I want to do is challenge those statements.


That is a difference between us. I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would care what someone else likes or doesn't like, much less why.



> At the heart of it is the love of the art - and that is what matters.


Let us hope.


----------



## Bulldog

JeffD said:


> Aaahhhh. If what you say is true, and if the majority of folks on TC are in agreement, then there is no hope and this is not the place for me.


I doubt that the majority of people on TC would agree with Stomanek. For a congenial time on TC, check out the TC games where the bickering herd is nowhere to be found.


----------



## DaveM

The whole subject of bickering is overblown. There are many threads active as we speak where everyone is civil and non-confrontational. People have a choice to stay out of the few contentious threads.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> That doesn't make it classical music.


I didn't say it made it classical music. I said music (which obviously includes classical) has rules.


----------



## KenOC

dogen said:


> I didn't say it made it classical music. I said music (which obviously includes classical) has rules.


"…above all things, throw rules to the winds, for they only hamper a genius." -Weber, writing (satirically) about Beethoven


----------



## PlaySalieri

JeffD said:


> Aaahhhh. If what you say is true, and if the majority of folks on TC are in agreement, then there is no hope and this is not the place for me.
> 
> That is a difference between us.* I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would care what someone else likes or doesn't like,* much less why.
> 
> Let us hope.


In order to figure this out - you first need to read carefully and understand what people write on these forums. You didn't get my first post (reply to yours) and you have totally misconstrued my second in similar fashion. It's no wonder you lack understanding.

Yes we are very different.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure the analogy quite works. You can find "edible, round-ish fruits grown on trees, usually green and/or red in color, sweet-to-sour in taste, made up of mostly water, and partly carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals" in many foods, so they can't be the defining properties of an apple.


The reason I mentioned chemists being more precise is that, without their precision, it's difficult to translate "apple-ness" into common words. In the case of objectively existing things, it's much easier to just hold up an apple and go "that's an apple" (extensional) rather than trying to describe it in words (intensional).

I'm reminded of the attempts of the Greeks to create a definition of "human," and when one offered "feather-less biped," Diogenes held up a plucked chicken and said "there's your human!"


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

stomanek said:


> not the only literary opinion of TS Eliot that has been overruled by posterity.
> 
> and posterity has established Cosi Fan Tutte as one of the great operas - dismissing Beethoven's claims that its subject and treatment diminished it artistically to the point where it could not be considered a good opera.


And if greatness in art was objective, and if it only requires a certain advanced aesthetic perception in which to see it, it makes one wonder how great artists--and even great critics sd in the case of Eliot--could not see these qualities. To me, it makes far more sense to think that they, just like every person regardless of their level of knowledge or aesthetic perception, have their own biases and values that made them devalue these works, while others that don't share those values and biases find those works to be masterpieces.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> I need to answer this. There are artworks which are very extended temporally - plays, operas, novels, occasionally even a long musical work in several parts (e.g., a symphony or a suite of pieces) - in which perfection of _overall_ form is not essential, and sometimes not even meaningful or possible. Such works are either held together by a narrative which suffices to explain and bind together their separate scenes or episodes, or they are intended as pleasing collections of separate pieces, each of which is to be perceived as a unified entity with its own structure and meaning. Additionally, literature (which I gather is your specialty) is not, except in the case of poetry, concerned with perceptual form in the same way as painting and music, since words perform a different cognitive function than do shapes, colors, and sounds. The artistic quality and value of literature is thus judged, at least in part, by different criteria.
> 
> In sum, the nature and value of form must be understood in terms appropriate to the kind of art under consideration. I can't presume to say much about literature as an art, since I practice it only incidentally (in trying, say, to give words good pacing and aesthetic appeal when that seems desirable). I'm happy to leave literary criticism to whoever has competence in it.


I think it would depend on what you mean by "perfection of overall form." If by that you mean (in the case of a play/novel) that every single word is in its proper place, then I'd be inclined to agree. However, in larger-scale works there are also larger-scale structures involved, and perfection of these is not only possible but has historically been a desired goal. The Greeks felt that in drama, the three unities (action, place, and time) was an ideal form for drama. Many of Shakespeare's innovations involved flouting these unities and expanding all three of them; and he was criticized for this in his own time. However, you had initially mentioned coherency, and in the case of drama and novels, coherency involves things like character motivations and the rational development of plot--the 3-act and 5-act structures are meant to outline this exact development.

My point with mentioning Hamlet, however, was that one thing that's made it so much discussed is that it lacks these elements of coherence. This is reason behind Hamlet being seen as a "mysterious" play, because nearly impossible to make sense of many of its contradictions and inconsistencies. These aren't minor details, mind you, these are elements that affect the entire play. It seems to me, that part of Hamlet's value lies precisely in how flawed it is, in the fact that its flaws create mysteries/incoherencies that, in its own strange way, is more reflective of how humans actually experience life. In real life, we rarely encounter perfection in which everything is in its right place, everything makes perfect sense, in which the evidence is conclusive and definitive and there's no room for doubt or disagreement or whatever. So if the value of drama is, in the words of Hamlet, to hold a mirror up to nature, Hamlet may be even more reflective of life as we experience than would be plays that are far more perfect in form/structure/coherency. It's even arguable that these inconsistencies are reflected in the play's themes of the relativity/subjectivity of perception itself.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I think it would depend on what you mean by "perfection of overall form." If by that you mean (in the case of a play/novel) that every single word is in its proper place, then I'd be inclined to agree. However, in larger-scale works there are also larger-scale structures involved, and perfection of these is not only possible but has historically been a desired goal. The Greeks felt that in drama, the three unities (action, place, and time) was an ideal form for drama. Many of Shakespeare's innovations involved flouting these unities and expanding all three of them; and he was criticized for this in his own time. However, you had initially mentioned coherency, and in the case of drama and novels, coherency involves things like character motivations and the rational development of plot--the 3-act and 5-act structures are meant to outline this exact development.
> 
> My point with mentioning Hamlet, however, was that one thing that's made it so much discussed is that it lacks these elements of coherence. This is reason behind Hamlet being seen as a "mysterious" play, because nearly impossible to make sense of many of its contradictions and inconsistencies. These aren't minor details, mind you, these are elements that affect the entire play. It seems to me, that part of Hamlet's value lies precisely in how flawed it is, in the fact that its flaws create mysteries/incoherencies that, in its own strange way, is more reflective of how humans actually experience life. In real life, we rarely encounter perfection in which everything is in its right place, everything makes perfect sense, in which the evidence is conclusive and definitive and there's no room for doubt or disagreement or whatever. So if the value of drama is, in the words of Hamlet, to hold a mirror up to nature, Hamlet may be even more reflective of life as we experience than would be plays that are far more perfect in form/structure/coherency. It's even arguable that these inconsistencies are reflected in the play's themes of the relativity/subjectivity of perception itself.


I'm not in a position of knowing enough to discuss _Hamlet_ in detail, but I will say that if what you're calling "contradictions and inconsistencies" in the play are in fact there to convey a message about the nature of life, then it's absurd to call them artistic flaws and _Hamlet_ a flawed play. After all, form in literature (and for the most part in the other arts) doesn't exist for its own sake, and certainly I have not suggested that it does. On the contrary, to quote Frank LLoyd Wright, "form follows function." If the unusual form of _Hamlet_ is not that of a classical or "well-made" play, and by virtue of that fact it conveys Shakespeare's meanings in ways that more conventional dramatic structures could not, then his irregularities are the right structural choices and the work has aesthetic integrity.


----------



## Star

Greatness in a play like Hamlet isn't about perfection but the impact it makes when done well. As Lawrence Olivier said, however many times you warch it there is always something different you see in it.


----------



## Woodduck

Star said:


> Greatness in a play like Hamlet isn't about perfection but the impact it makes when done well. As Lawrence Olivier said, however many times you warch it there is always something different you see in it.


Absolutely. There are a few works of art so rich in content and/or powerful in their mode of expression that imperfections, if such they are, seem trivial and barely register in our minds.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Absolutely. There are a few works of art so rich in content and/or powerful in their mode of expression that imperfections, if such they are, seem trivial and barely register in our minds.


My Überexample is _Moby Dick._. But the imperfection(s) of _Moby Dick_--actually a single one--is not trivial; it is one that even as humble an ant as myself could have eliminated without harm. Yet, as is indicated above, the content and the power of the work--this work--sweep all before .


----------



## Strange Magic

On another matter previously discussed: I think (personal experience) that the emotive power of music, of visual art, and of literature are all (or, rather, can be) roughly equal both in intensity and in the way they operate within/upon the mind, as they either jar us out of a previous stasis or induce within us a new and pleasing stasis. Without boring or irritating people too much (yet again), I note that Leonard Meyer developed much of the groundwork for this analysis of the arts in several of his books.


----------



## janxharris

I wonder - have we made any progress in resolving this issue? - whether we can say a piece of music is objectively great?


----------



## Strange Magic

janxharris said:


> I wonder - have we made any progress in resolving this issue? - whether we can say a piece of music is objectively great?


No, but it's been fun!


----------



## Room2201974

The bane of composition teachers everywhere: time spent on the contemplation of "art" and "greatness" and "objectivity" takes away from time spent on the acts of performing and writing music.


----------



## janxharris

Strange Magic said:


> No, but it's been fun!


I've never read _Moby Dick_ - but I've had it on my bookshelf for a long time...


----------



## Jacck

janxharris said:


> I wonder - have we made any progress in resolving this issue? - whether we can say a piece of music is objectively great?


you can say whatever you want and believe whatever you want. But to measure greatness, you need comparison. Great compared to what and by what criteria? I hereby humbly offer myself to serve as an objective etalon and a scale to measure greatness. And if I say, that Sibelius is great and Mozart is a dull, plodding goof, repeatedly attempting to hide his vacuity with twinkles and tricks, then that is the reality, the objective, unquestionable truth. You can disagree, you can fight it, you can argue, but you cannot change the truth. :tiphat:


----------



## janxharris

Sorted................


----------



## Strange Magic

Room2201974 said:


> The bane of composition teachers everywhere: time spent on the contemplation of "art" and "greatness" and "objectivity" takes away from time spent on the acts of performing and writing music.


What about the time that we could have spent _listening_ to music?


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> What about the time that we could have spent _listening_ to music?


What about it? It's so much more fun arguing!


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> I've never read _Moby Dick_ - but I've had it on my bookshelf for a long time...


Leave it where it sits.


----------



## Barbebleu

What was it Groucho Marx said about some book or other. 

'Thank you for the copy of your book that you sent to me. I laughed from the moment I picked it up until the moment I put it down. Someday I must read it!'


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> I wonder - have *we* made any progress in resolving this issue? - whether *we* can say a piece of music is objectively great?


That depends on who "we" are.


----------



## science

I've been drinking again. Let's see if I have anything to contribute.... Having trouble spelling....


----------



## eugeneonagain

'We' as a collective representation of values, has changed. In some ways it is the same thing, but the so-called 'global village' has proven itself to be just a huge collection of 'villages' occupying the same huge space....er a bit like the world always was, but with the internet .
So the truth and 'rightness' and the proper values of _village A _are no longer confined to the village, where everyone was sure about them and most people there took them for granted as right and proper. Suddenly the right and proper values and 'truths' of villages B-Z and beyond are also there messing everything up.

Previously, even though we occupied smaller places - physically and mentally - during our lives, there was a more fixed arbiter of the truths and values. A few trusted newspapers and other mass media networks; a smaller group of public thinkers; a consensus on what was right, what was a scandal, what really ought to happen and what not. Now we have the chieftains of a trillion and one little villages - little world-views essentially - with a number of villagers (adherents) all telling us what the elusive truth is.

'We' is what village A uses to refer to itself and by extension to the whole of humanity. 'We have become blunted to the nature of greatness' they will cry and in this they mean everyone else but themselves. We, oui, wee, hoooey!


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^Right as rain! And never was rationality and a diligent search for the most accurate data more necessary. 

One great thing that has come forth in our time is the #MeToo movement, and the increasing presence of women in politics (and every other field of endeavor). Hard to imagine during the time of a few fixed certainties.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> 'We' as a collective representation of values, has changed. In some ways it is the same thing, but the so-called 'global village' has proven itself to be just a huge collection of 'villages' occupying the same huge space....er a bit like the world always was, but with the internet .
> So the truth and 'rightness' and the proper values of _village A _are no longer confined to the village, where everyone was sure about them and most people there took them for granted as right and proper. Suddenly the right and proper values and 'truths' of villages B-Z and beyond are also there messing everything up.
> 
> Previously, even though we occupied smaller places - physically and mentally - during our lives, there was a more fixed arbiter of the truths and values. A few trusted newspapers and other mass media networks; a smaller group of public thinkers; a consensus on what was right, what was a scandal, what really ought to happen and what not. Now we have the chieftains of a trillion and one little villages - little world-views essentially - with a number of villagers (adherents) all telling us what the elusive truth is.
> 
> 'We' is what village A uses to refer to itself and by extension to the whole of humanity. 'We have become blunted to the nature of greatness' they will cry and in this they mean everyone else but themselves. We, oui, wee, hoooey!


The central irony, and the great danger, of the internet age. The promise? Universal access to the truth. The reality? A million alternate truths, an identity politics that allows a tribal animal to fulfill his wildest dreams of tribal exclusivity.

But, _pace_ Strange Magic, rationality and accurate data will not suffice for a cure, badly needed though they are. Not unless the "data" in question include insight into values of the sort which some in this very thread have called "subjective" and unverifiable.

Nothing is more dangerous than a soulless rationality. If our premises are perverse, reasoning from them will lead only to disaster. Do women understand this better than men? I can't prove that, but I'm glad to see more of them taking charge.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> The central irony, and the great danger, of the internet age. The promise? Universal access to the truth. The reality? A million alternate truths, an identity politics that allows a tribal animal to fulfill his wildest dreams of tribal exclusivity.
> 
> But, _pace_ Strange Magic, rationality and accurate data will not suffice for a cure, badly needed though they are. Not unless the "data" in question include insight into values of the sort which some in this very thread have called "subjective" and unverifiable.
> 
> Nothing is more dangerous than a soulless rationality. If our premises are perverse, reasoning from them will lead only to disaster. Do women understand this better than men? I can't prove that, but I'm glad to see more of them taking charge.


I will observe quietly that neither rationality nor access to accurate data have ever ranked very highly in the sad history of human "thought" or action, or in the hierarchy of values to be pursued by the vast majority of _Homo sapiens_. Galileo comes to mind; several others; the Enlightenment flickers like a brief candle in the dark. While rationality (Soulless? Yes, why not try soullessness for a bit, as soulfulness has gotten us where we are today.) will likely not be enough in itself to assure us of a better future, it hasn't actually been really tried.


----------



## janxharris

Eva Yojimbo's remarks seem appropriate:



Eva Yojimbo said:


> ...too full of very vague, imprecise terms to be of much use in really addressing the subject at hand...


I'm sure I fail too.


----------



## janxharris

George Eliot comes to mind.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> I will observe quietly that neither rationality nor access to accurate data have ever ranked very highly in the sad history of human "thought" or action, or in the hierarchy of values to be pursued by the vast majority of _Homo sapiens_. Galileo comes to mind; several others; the Enlightenment flickers like a brief candle in the dark. *While rationality *... *it hasn't actually been really tried.*


Agreed. And I expect nothing better, no paragons of reason, no Jean-Luc Picards to engage the future (the next man in the captain's seat may be better than the current one, but that's saying little). Time is running out, along with everything else except newborns. Our only hope is a pandemic that renders us sterile.

Sorry. This is supposed to be a family-friendly forum.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> The statement you ask for a justification of - specifically the part in bold - was:
> 
> 'So no, a work in which every part finds its proper place in the whole is not necessarily fine or great; but there is no fine or great art in which that is not the case. The question then is how the artist, or the art connoisseur, knows that that has been achieved. No one can tell you how anyone knows anything, "objective" or "subjective," but it's in the nature of aesthetic perception that *this is a thing that can be known,* and that this knowledge is critical in enabling us to say that one symphony is a great work and another is just a good try.'
> 
> I could answer with a question: care to justify a statement that you love your wife? Or that the sky is blue?
> 
> Some things are known only because they're perceived directly, and the only way to "justify" believing them is to invite others to experience a similar perception and then assume that what they report experiencing is the "same" thing as what you're experiencing. You tell your wife you love her, or tell a friend that the sky is deep blue today. But if your wife doesn't read your behavior as motivated by love, and your friend is blind, you won't have "justified" your statements. You will then have to present indirect evidence for what you perceive or intend, perhaps citing the experience of other people in support of your own assertions.
> 
> That is the nature of perceptual knowledge. The integrity of a work of art - the excellence of its composition - is perceived directly by the individual, and different individuals possess different levels of skill in perceiving it (nearly everyone, I think, possesses this ability in some degree, as evidenced by the almost universal participation in some form of aesthetic activity, even if it's only decorating the living room or applying makeup - or, of course, listening to music). *People with exceptional perceptual skills *- visual, musical, or otherwise - will tend to be artists or lovers of art, and the better they are at it the better they'll be at distinguishing quality in art and the more agreement they're likely to reach as to what are the greatest works and who are the greatest composers and painters. Disagreements among the aesthetically sophisticated are more likely to focus on the significance or value of an artist's "message" than on the aesthetic fitness of his work. But of course the relationship between these dimensions is extraordinarily complex, and so there will always be disagreements. Which is fine. I've always found competitions and rankings in art a rather silly game; if two works are obviously different in quality, talking about it seems like belaboring the obvious, and if they aren't, talking about it should be directed toward understanding the works, not simply "rating" them.


Who are these people Woodduck? Do you include members of this year's Pulitzer Prize? 
I'd be loth to determine who among us has achieved such skill.


----------



## KenOC

I can only repeat myself. We are a splinter of the larger classical music community. Like all communities, we want to share beliefs and even myths and lies (maybe especially these last two!) It’s a Darwinian thing, as they say.

So over time we enter a grand consensus about what music is great and what is not. We assign our beliefs an objective reality, unbothered by the fact that the consensus can and does change over time. In fact, we find it totally unnecessary to even define what “great” means. Even though we achieve our consensus by popular acclaim, we sneer at the very idea that “greatness” anything to do with popularity.

Well, that’s the way it looks from here.


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> I wonder - have we made any progress in resolving this issue? - whether we can say a piece of music is objectively great?





Woodduck said:


> That depends on who "we" are.


And on what is meant by "progress". I doubt that "we" have "answered" the OPs' question, or resolved it into some answer as simplistic as '42', but we've actually explored a number of interesting ideas along the way, as well as confirmed some continuing unshakeable convictions.

Actually, reviewing the OP, the main point seemed to be not greatness itself, and what it is, but the idea that criticism of classical music is tame in comparison to criticism in, say, cinema; that there are established works/composers that no-one criticises - their greatness is taken for granted. That idea hasn't been considered properly, though some made a decent stab at it in the first couple of pages. Unsurprisingly, the 'greatness' controversy took over pretty quickly (via its alter-ego, 'crap'!)

So, I would say that the 'greats' of cinema are also now 'assumed', and having begun to work my way through the alleged greats of the silent era, I can safely say that there is room for subjective opinion there too. As I posted in another thread, the films of DW Griffiths - a "pioneer" of cinema - are worthy, but dull, and belong only in cinema school, whereas Keaton's movies are worth decent restoration and a wider audience.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> That is the nature of perceptual knowledge. The integrity of a work of art - the excellence of its composition - is perceived directly by the individual, and different individuals possess different levels of skill in perceiving it... ...People with exceptional perceptual skills - visual, musical, or otherwise - will tend to be artists or lovers of art, and the better they are at it the better they'll be at distinguishing quality in art and the more agreement they're likely to reach as to what are the greatest works and who are the greatest composers and painters.


IMHO, though theoretically possible, this remains unsubstantiated.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> The statement you ask for a justification of - specifically the part in bold - was:
> 
> 'So no, a work in which every part finds its proper place in the whole is not necessarily fine or great; but there is no fine or great art in which that is not the case. The question then is how the artist, or the art connoisseur, knows that that has been achieved. No one can tell you how anyone knows anything, "objective" or "subjective," but it's in the nature of aesthetic perception that *this is a thing that can be known,* and that this knowledge is critical in enabling us to say that one symphony is a great work and another is just a good try.'
> 
> I could answer with a question: care to justify a statement that you love your wife? Or that the sky is blue?
> 
> Some things are known only because they're perceived directly, and the only way to "justify" believing them is to invite others to experience a similar perception and then assume that what they report experiencing is the "same" thing as what you're experiencing. You tell your wife you love her, or tell a friend that the sky is deep blue today. But if your wife doesn't read your behavior as motivated by love, and your friend is blind, you won't have "justified" your statements. You will then have to present indirect evidence for what you perceive or intend, perhaps citing the experience of other people in support of your own assertions.


Anyone claiming to be able to prove their 'love' objectively would no doubt meet similar problems as demonstrated on this thread.
I guess the sky's shade of blue is a limited range of wavelengths.


----------



## janxharris

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;


----------



## janxharris

Just a thought - is the first movement of Shostakovich's 8th symphony objectively less aesthetically pleasing because it obviously copies the exact 'feel' of his 5th's equivalent movement?

Same charge to Rachmaninoff's 3rd piano concerto - echo's of the 2nd are all over it.

Even my favourite Sibelius has moments that are the equivalent of previous works - for example his use of grand brass swells:

Symphony 5 - second movement

Symphony 3 - first movement


----------



## EdwardBast

janxharris said:


> Just a thought - is the first movement of Shostakovich's 8th symphony objectively less aesthetically pleasing because it obviously copies the exact 'feel' of his 5th's equivalent movement?
> 
> Same charge to Rachmaninoff's 3rd piano concerto - echo's of the 2nd are all over it.
> 
> Even my favourite Sibelius has moments that are the equivalent of previous works - for example his use of grand brass swells:
> 
> Symphony 5 - second movement
> 
> Symphony 3 - first movement


Copies a feel? Don't see getting to any objective judgments starting there. The Shostakovich movements aren't all that similar. The Rachmaninoff concertos even less so. Are you sure you aren't just making too much of these composers' personal voices?


----------



## janxharris

EdwardBast said:


> Copies a feel? Don't see getting to any objective judgments starting there. The Shostakovich movements aren't all that similar. The Rachmaninoff concertos even less so. Are you sure you aren't just making too much of these composers' personal voices?


I could go into a bit of detail as to why I see similarities but if you disagree that's fine. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word 'objectively' - though I did say 'if'. For me, the similarities are striking and immediately compromise those particular works. I wouldn't say that about the Sibelius though.

I guess we don't agree.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> I could go into a bit of detail as to why I see similarities but if you disagree that's fine. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word 'objectively' - though I did say 'if'. For me, the similarities are striking and immediately compromise those particular works. I wouldn't say that about the Sibelius though.
> 
> *I guess we don't agree*.


apart from Jacck (who seems to have become active in the board at the same time as you oddly enough) I havent noticed anybody on this forum substantially agreeing with any of your points.

first you cant listen to most of Mozart because of all the cliches - now you find Shostakovitch and Rachmaninov repeating themselves and class those works as compromised. Sibelius it seems - can repeat the use of brass swells without attracting your distaste, and despite the fact this is one of his trademarks.

If you really want to sniff in disgust at a composer repeating himself listen to Rossini's overtures or select at random any concertos from the entire output of baroque music.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> apart from Jacck (who seems to have become active in the board at the same time as you oddly enough) I havent noticed anybody on this forum substantially agreeing with any of your points.
> 
> first you cant listen to most of Mozart because of all the cliches - now you find Shostakovitch and Rachmaninov repeating themselves and class those works as compromised. Sibelius it seems - can repeat the use of brass swells without attracting your distaste, and despite the fact this is one of his trademarks.
> 
> If you really want to sniff in disgust at a composer repeating himself listen to Rossini's overtures or select at random any concertos from the entire output of baroque music.


I don't have a problem if it's only me thinking this way and I'm not sniffing in disgust. 
I rate Sibelius and Shostakovich as favourites.


----------



## janxharris

Mark's notes on Shostakovich Symphony No.8

_There is a school of thought which finds the work lacking some of the invention of previous symphonies. Questions are asked for instance as to why the opening is so similar to that of the Fifth Symphony. But that is to misunderstand the purpose of so much of Shostakovich's music. He always chose meaning over logic and truth over beauty. If there are passages that sound depressingly similar to what had gone before, that is because he felt that that was the case in life. If there are sections that are ugly, that is because the world itself seemed ugly. If there are episodes that are unbearable, this corresponded to Shostakovich's feelings too. There are moments that don't seem to make sense, just as there were days that appeared meaningless to many Russians. The piece is inflated, mundane and chaotic at times. But this was intentional. This was Shostakovich's view of the world.
The vast opening movement (longer than the next three combined) does follow with striking similarity the structure of the corresponding movement in the Fifth. But there is more passion in the earlier piece, more sorrow._


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> Mark's notes on Shostakovich Symphony No.8
> 
> _There is a school of thought which finds the work lacking some of the invention of previous symphonies. Questions are asked for instance as to why the opening is so similar to that of the Fifth Symphony. But that is to misunderstand the purpose of so much of Shostakovich's music. He always chose meaning over logic and truth over beauty. If there are passages that sound depressingly similar to what had gone before, that is because he felt that that was the case in life. If there are sections that are ugly, that is because the world itself seemed ugly. If there are episodes that are unbearable, this corresponded to Shostakovich's feelings too. There are moments that don't seem to make sense, just as there were days that appeared meaningless to many Russians. The piece is inflated, mundane and chaotic at times. But this was intentional. This was Shostakovich's view of the world.
> The vast opening movement (longer than the next three combined) does follow with striking similarity the structure of the corresponding movement in the Fifth. But there is more passion in the earlier piece, more sorrow._


so - you read this and tested Mark's opinion on the board - but your articulated poorly, hence Edwardbast's confusion - thank you though for posting the source of your initial post.

but really, why dont you listen more and read around other's views less


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> so - you read this and tested Mark's opinion on the board - but your articulated poorly, hence Edwardbast's confusion - thank you though for posting the source of your initial post.
> 
> but really, why dont you listen more and read around other's views less


I didn't know of Wigglesworth's view till I searched after your post for a stance that might agree with mine.

Why the cynicism stomanek? If you read the OP again you'll see that I am merely responding appropriately to it. I'm only expressing my views.


----------



## EdwardBast

janxharris said:


> Mark's notes on Shostakovich Symphony No.8
> 
> _There is a school of thought which finds the work lacking some of the invention of previous symphonies. Questions are asked for instance as to why the opening is so similar to that of the Fifth Symphony. But that is to misunderstand the purpose of so much of Shostakovich's music. He always chose meaning over logic and truth over beauty. If there are passages that sound depressingly similar to what had gone before, that is because he felt that that was the case in life. If there are sections that are ugly, that is because the world itself seemed ugly. If there are episodes that are unbearable, this corresponded to Shostakovich's feelings too. There are moments that don't seem to make sense, just as there were days that appeared meaningless to many Russians. The piece is inflated, mundane and chaotic at times. But this was intentional. This was Shostakovich's view of the world.
> The vast opening movement (longer than the next three combined) does follow with striking similarity the structure of the corresponding movement in the Fifth. But there is more passion in the earlier piece, more sorrow._


Wigglesworth is hard to take seriously. Anyone who could call _Testimony_ Shostakovich's "disputed but reliable memoirs" either has little awareness of current scholarship on Shostakovich or is confused about what a reliable memoir is. For most of us, the prime characteristic of a reliable memoir would be that it was written by the person to whom it is attributed. _Testimony_ is fraudulent. There is no good reason to believe it contains the words of Shostakovich. And that is the only source Wigglesworth sites. He mentions a "school of thought" about the Eighth and that "questions are asked as to why the opening is so similar. …" This is BS - Wigglesworth is just expressing his personal opinion and trying to pass it off as a general one. There is no such school of thought and everyone who knows Shostakovich knows that beginning with strings alone was a fingerprint of his style. He did it in the Sixth and Tenth as well. Then there is this: "The piece is inflated, mundane and chaotic at times. But this was intentional." What nonsense. W likes the 5th and doesn't like or understand the 8th. That's the only meaningful takeaway from that essay.


----------



## janxharris

EdwardBast said:


> Wigglesworth is hard to take seriously. Anyone who could call _Testimony_ Shostakovich's "disputed but reliable memoirs" either has little awareness of current scholarship on Shostakovich or is confused about what a reliable memoir is. For most of us, the prime characteristic of a reliable memoir would be that it was written by the person to whom it is attributed. _Testimony_ is fraudulent. There is no good reason to believe it contains the words of Shostakovich. And that is the only source Wigglesworth sites. He mentions a "school of thought" about the Eighth and that "questions are asked as to why the opening is so similar. …" This is BS - Wigglesworth is just expressing his personal opinion and trying to pass it off as a general one. There is no such school of thought and everyone who knows Shostakovich knows that beginning with strings alone was a fingerprint of his style. He did it in the Sixth and Tenth as well. Then there is this: "The piece is inflated, mundane and chaotic at times. But this was intentional." What nonsense. W likes the 5th and doesn't like or understand the 8th. That's the only meaningful takeaway from that essay.


My opinion isn't underpinned by Wigglesworth's or anyone else's view. I only cited him because it was suggested that I was on my own on this.


----------



## Guest

I'm not convinced that the controversy surrounding Testimony is as settled as Edward suggests...

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2000/jan/07/music

This article may be quite old, but worth looking at, given Wigglesworth wrote his paper only 5 years later.

Unless, of course, something has been definitively established since then?


----------



## EdwardBast

MacLeod said:


> I'm not convinced that the controversy surrounding Testimony is as settled as Edward suggests...
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/books/2000/jan/07/music
> 
> This article may be quite old, but worth looking at, given Wigglesworth wrote his paper only 5 years later.
> 
> Unless, of course, something has been definitively established since then?


I got carried away, but only slightly carried away in my response above. What I should have said, and what I usually say whenever this issue resurfaces is: Nothing in _Testimony_ that is not confirmed in other sources can be taken as the words of Shostakovich. It is likely, or at least possible, there are parts of _Testimony_ that were transcribed from conversations with Shostakovich. But it isn't possible to know which parts those might be. Thus Wigglesworth's statement that it is "disputed but reliable" is absurd.

Laurel Fay, who was the first to challenge _Testimony_ back in 1980 - with a devastating critique Volkov never adequately answered - wrote a follow up in 2002. Both the original and the update, "Volkov's Testimony Reconsidered," are published in _A Shostakovich Casebook_ (ed. Malcolm Hamrick Brown (Indiana U Press, 2004), 11-66). I can't imagine anyone could read Fay's work carefully without seeing that _Testimony_ is a fraud and also how it was perpetrated. And when I say _Testimony_ is a fraud I mean: Volkov's claim that the book consists of the words of Shostakovich as spoken to Volkov is false. Volkov claims to have taken down Shostakovich's words in shorthand and then produced a typescript from them. He claims to have the original shorthand transcription in his possession. Fay, logically, said: Show us the shorthand transcription and maybe we'll believe you. Volkov didn't/can't. Richard Taruskin pointed out how odd it is that a book allegedly consisting entirely of the words of Shostakovich has one copyright holder that is not Shostakovich's estate.

The article you linked isn't primarily concerned with the objective issues Fay addresses, it is concerned with "the struggle for Shostakovich's soul," the issue of whether he was a faithful and loyal communist or, oxymoronically, a "closet dissident." That's where any controversy is to be found. The evidence of documentary fraud is overwhelming and stands unrefuted.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> The article you linked isn't primarily concerned with the objective issues Fay addresses,


True, but I linked to it only because it acknowledged the dispute - not because it settled it. It is odd that Wigglesworth say that it is 'reliable', since plainly it isn't. It may contain some factual material and even some of the actual words and thoughts of DSCH - but as you say, we don't know which.


----------



## JeffD

stomanek said:


> In order to figure this out - you first need to read carefully and understand what people write on these forums. You didn't get my first post (reply to yours) and you have totally misconstrued my second in similar fashion. It's no wonder you lack understanding.
> 
> Yes we are very different.


Yes we are. You're a bully.


----------



## PlaySalieri

JeffD said:


> Yes we are. You're a bully.


aw - you should learn to stick up for yourself - or as another poster suggested - try the games threads.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> ...I haven't noticed anybody on this forum substantially agreeing with any of your points.
> 
> first you cant listen to most of Mozart because of all the cliches


Certainly, whether such clichés are an aesthetic issue is subjective, but the fact of their existence isn't in dispute. You have suggested before that I'm pretty much on my own on this here on TC but one might cite Maria Callas, Glenn Gould and Delius in support.

To be clear (to anyone else reading this), I still consider Mozart a genius for a number of his works.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> Certainly, whether such clichés are an aesthetic issue is subjective, but the fact of their existence isn't in dispute. You have suggested before that I'm pretty much on my own on this here on TC but one might cite Maria Callas, Glenn Gould and Delius in support.
> 
> To be clear (to anyone else reading this), I still consider Mozart a genius for a number of his works.


I dont dispute with you that works from the classical period (not just Mozart - in fact Mozart's music is much less formulaic than any of his contemporaries) and barqoue and romantic eras all bear stylistic features of their times. I just dont think its a big deal.


----------



## Star

janxharris said:


> Certainly, whether such clichés are an aesthetic issue is subjective, but the fact of their existence isn't in dispute. You have suggested before that I'm pretty much on my own on this here on TC but one might cite Maria Callas, Glenn Gould and Delius in support.
> 
> To be clear (to anyone else reading this), I still consider Mozart a genius for a number of his works.


Gould was a great puanist but his opinions sometimes were pretty idiotic


----------



## Dima

I want to tell you in this topic about different mentality in Russia (where I live) and Western countries. The first and main difference between Western music forum like TC and the Russian music forum is that: here half of the topics are about who is greater or what composition is greater. Someone explain it that this is due to consumer philosophy of life. I’m a fan of watching such struggles, but people try to count what cannot be counted. 
On russian forum there are no talks about greatness. May be as a result, I do not know it's good or bad, but in Russia in general there is no cult of composers at all. The average citizen does not know who is Rachmaninov (maybe the writer?), and never heard Stravinsky's music. Everybody know only the name of Tchaikovsky. 
Another thing in our country people mostly don't speak English. That’s why almost no users from Russia in topics where Russian composers discussed.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Dima said:


> I want to tell you in this topic about different mentality in Russia (where I live) and Western countries. The first and main difference between Western music forum like TC and the Russian music forum is that: here half of the topics are about who is greater or what composition is greater. Someone explain it that this is due to consumer philosophy of life. I'm a fan of watching such struggles, but people try to count what cannot be counted.
> On russian forum there are no talks about greatness. May be as a result, I do not know it's good or bad, but in Russia in general there is no cult of composers at all. The average citizen does not know who is Rachmaninov (maybe the writer?), and never heard Stravinsky's music. Everybody know only the name of Tchaikovsky.
> Another thing in our country people mostly don't speak English. That's why almost no users from Russia in topics where Russian composers discussed.


So what is discussed on music forums in Russia?

I find it strange that Russians I have met all the time try to prove Russia is the greatest at science, space, maths, medicine etc etc etc - but somehow Russian classical music lovers dont care who is the best in music.

how odd!


----------



## Gallus

Dima said:


> May be as a result, I do not know it's good or bad, but in Russia in general there is no cult of composers at all. The average citizen does not know who is Rachmaninov (maybe the writer?), and never heard Stravinsky's music. Everybody know only the name of Tchaikovsky.


That's no different to the UK.


----------



## Dima

stomanek said:


> So what is discussed on music forums in Russia?
> 
> I find it strange that Russians I have met all the time try to prove Russia is the greatest at science, space, maths, medicine etc etc etc - but somehow Russian classical music lovers dont care who is the best in music.
> 
> how odd!


What is discussed in Russia you can look on these forums and translate the page in google (mostly current classical music news):
http://classicalforum.ru/ 
http://www.forumklassika.ru/

When I come here I become like a sport fan and as everybody trying to prove unprovable. But on our forums I will look like an idiot if I do the same.

P.S. I'm very glad to have an opportunity to communicate with people from other countries.


----------



## EdwardBast

janxharris said:


> Certainly, whether such clichés are an aesthetic issue is subjective, but the fact of their existence isn't in dispute. You have suggested before that I'm pretty much on my own on this here on TC but one might cite Maria Callas, Glenn Gould and Delius in support.
> 
> To be clear (to anyone else reading this), I still consider Mozart a genius for a number of his works.


Cliché is the wrong word for what you are hearing. Using it is like complaining that someone's writing is full of clichés because they end every sentence with a period. Cadences, that is, the closing of phrases and passages, are about syntax and what is necessary to give a recognizable sense of closure in a given style, and what is necessary to distinguish partial closure from full closure. By your usage, the double leading tone cadences of the Ars Nova and the Piccardy third cadences of the Baroque would be clichés. Being irked by these kinds of stylistic features is just a sign that you haven't gotten "inside" these styles yet. And it is almost certain that the styles in which you don't hear "clichés" are just as full of stylistic markers, but ones that sound natural to you out of habit and long exposure. Good luck overcoming this syndrome.


----------



## janxharris

EdwardBast said:


> Cliché is the wrong word for what you are hearing. Using it is like complaining that someone's writing is full of clichés because they end every sentence with a period. Cadences, that is, the closing of phrases and passages, are about syntax and what is necessary to give a recognizable sense of closure in a given style, and what is necessary to distinguish partial closure from full closure. By your usage, the double leading tone cadences of the Ars Nova and the Piccardy third cadences of the Baroque would be clichés. Being irked by these kinds of stylistic features is just a sign that you haven't gotten "inside" these styles yet. And it is almost certain that the styles in which you don't hear "clichés" are just as full of stylistic markers, but ones that sound natural to you out of habit and long exposure. Good luck overcoming this syndrome.


It's also possible that some just don't enjoy hearing these classical cadences too many times. I accept that they were normal practice back then but there certainly isn't necessarily anything to 'get inside' or to 'overcome'.

I enjoy classical works where these cadences aren't so apparent - especially where the melody is, ihmo, very strong.


----------



## janxharris

EdwardBast said:


> And it is almost certain that the styles in which you don't hear "clichés" are just as full of stylistic markers, but ones that sound natural to you out of habit and long exposure.


This might be worth exploring.


----------



## EdwardBast

janxharris said:


> It's also possible that some just don't enjoy hearing these classical cadences too many times. *I accept that they were normal practice back then but there certainly isn't necessarily anything to 'get inside' or to 'overcome'. *
> 
> I enjoy classical works where these cadences aren't so apparent - especially where the melody is, ihmo, very strong.


I'm not sure, but I have an anecdote about a former student illustrating the general thing I'm talking about. After hearing a piece in the minor mode by JS Bach that ended on a major chord, as they mostly do, the student complained that the final cadence was a big disappointment because it was "a lie. The whole piece was sad and then we get a happy chord at the end." What he was doing was applying a romantic aesthetic to music for which it wasn't appropriate. To anyone more used to Baroque music, someone inside the style, that cadence wouldn't have said anything about the expressive thrust of the work and it certainly wouldn't be heard to contradict it.

In the Classical Era, one way of setting a crucial cadence apart from less important ones - a paragraph or section ending rather than just the end of a sentence, to put it in grammatical terms - was to sustain or elaborate the dominant chord (the penultimate harmony). The big trills at the end of sections of a Mozart Concerto are just the soloist's contribution to that extension. I would suggest that to those inside the style, just as in the case of the Bach example above, those trills aren't going to stand out or sound out of place. They are just as expected and appropriate as Bach's ending a piece in minor with a major chord.

Of course, none of this challenges your right to dislike the conventions of Classical Era music. You might never like them. But you shouldn't be surprised if people have trouble understanding that reaction.


----------



## Larkenfield

[unquote] According to Deryck Cooke, "Western composers, expressing the 'rightness' of happiness by means of a major third, expressed the 'wrongness' of grief by means of the minor third, and for centuries, pieces in a minor key had to have a 'happy ending' - a final major chord_ (the 'tierce de Picardie') _or a bare fifth." -wiki [unquote]

Notable examples:

Beethoven - Hammerklavier, slow movement
Brahms - Piano Trio No. 1, scherzo
Dvořák - New World Symphony, finale


----------



## janxharris

EdwardBast said:


> I'm not sure, but I have an anecdote about a former student illustrating the general thing I'm talking about. After hearing a piece in the minor mode by JS Bach that ended on a major chord, as they mostly do, the student complained that the final cadence was a big disappointment because it was "a lie. The whole piece was sad and then we get a happy chord at the end." What he was doing was applying a romantic aesthetic to music for which it wasn't appropriate. To anyone more used to Baroque music, someone inside the style, that cadence wouldn't have said anything about the expressive thrust of the work and it certainly wouldn't be heard to contradict it.
> 
> In the Classical Era, one way of setting a crucial cadence apart from less important ones - a paragraph or section ending rather than just the end of a sentence, to put it in grammatical terms - was to sustain or elaborate the dominant chord (the penultimate harmony). The big trills at the end of sections of a Mozart Concerto are just the soloist's contribution to that extension. I would suggest that to those inside the style, just as in the case of the Bach example above, those trills aren't going to stand out or sound out of place. They are just as expected and appropriate as Bach's ending a piece in minor with a major chord.


It isn't just the cadences but the harmonic language in general that I personally don't find interesting. Pieces often seem so rooted to their tonic that the alternative chords seem as mere vehicles in getting the piece back home.

Of course, I speak relativistically - it's the music of later periods and the modern era that, for some of us at least, can make earlier periods sound a tad flat.



> Of course, none of this challenges your right to dislike the conventions of Classical Era music. You might never like them. But you shouldn't be surprised if people have trouble understanding that reaction.


Aren't you making a claim here to objectivity thus finding fault with the listener?

_Being irked by these kinds of stylistic features is just a sign that you haven't gotten "inside" these styles yet. And it is almost certain that the styles in which you don't hear "clichés" are just as full of stylistic markers, but ones that sound natural to you out of habit and long exposure. Good luck overcoming this syndrome. _

For me, it's more than just syntax and punctuation but (and continuing with the analogy) repeating sentences almost verbatim.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Dima said:


> What is discussed in Russia you can look on these forums and translate the page in google (mostly current classical music news):
> http://classicalforum.ru/
> http://www.forumklassika.ru/
> 
> When I come here I become like a sport fan and as everybody trying to prove unprovable. But on our forums I will look like an idiot if I do the same.
> 
> P.S. I'm very glad to have an opportunity to communicate with people from other countries.


That's very interesting.

I looked at one of your forums - you are right - there is no discussion - which/who is better. But there is not too much discussion going on at all - a lot of it seems to be information exchange rather than people making a case for their point of view. There are no threads asking to rank works/composers.

I looked in the "composer" section - 90% of threads are about Russian/Soviet era composers.


----------



## Dima

stomanek said:


> That's very interesting.
> 
> I looked at one of your forums - you are right - there is no discussion - which/who is better. But there is not too much discussion going on at all - a lot of it seems to be information exchange rather than people making a case for their point of view. There are no threads asking to rank works/composers.
> 
> I looked in the "composer" section - 90% of threads are about Russian/Soviet era composers.


There is another reason why there are no such talks. In our country in such topics people often start to abuse each other. 
On TC people are very polite even without moderator. This is a very good quality.
Our forums is the place where periodically you can see virtual fights with abusing each other. 
Especially often this happens when it comes to the political context of music of the Soviet period.
That is why people rarely express their own opinion and write mostly news.
There is also a bad historical tradition when you should not have your own opinion when there is an opinion of Party and so on.
People who had not the same opinion were persecuted, the same is today.


----------



## EdwardBast

janxharris said:


> *Aren't you making a claim here to objectivity thus finding fault with the listener?*
> 
> _Being irked by these kinds of stylistic features is just a sign that you haven't gotten "inside" these styles yet. And it is almost certain that the styles in which you don't hear "clichés" are just as full of stylistic markers, but ones that sound natural to you out of habit and long exposure. Good luck overcoming this syndrome. _
> 
> For me, it's more than just syntax and punctuation but (and continuing with the analogy) repeating sentences almost verbatim.


No, I'm just suggesting there is difference between rejecting a style with an appreciation for why it is the way it is rather than because of extraneous criteria. I'm not terribly fond of the High Classical style either.


----------



## EdwardBast

Larkenfield said:


> [unquote] According to Deryck Cooke, "Western composers, expressing the 'rightness' of happiness by means of a major third, expressed the 'wrongness' of grief by means of the minor third, and for centuries, pieces in a minor key had to have a 'happy ending' - a final major chord_ (the 'tierce de Picardie') _or a bare fifth." -wiki [unquote]
> 
> Notable examples:
> 
> Beethoven - Hammerklavier, slow movement
> Brahms - Piano Trio No. 1, scherzo
> Dvořák - New World Symphony, finale


In the Renaissance and earlier only endings on octaves and fifths were considered consonant enough for a final resolution. Likewise in the Baroque Era the rationale for ending minor-mode works with major chords had nothing to do with affect. It was just a matter of which sonority sounded conclusive and fully resolved. Minor chords didn't to their ears. From the 19thc on minor chords were fully acceptable as final sonorities and the choice to use a major chord to end a work in the minor mode would have to be understood on a case by case basis.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Dima said:


> There is another reason why there are no such talks. In our country in such topics people often start to abuse each other.
> On TC people are very polite even without moderator. This is a very good quality.
> *Our forums is the place where periodically you can see virtual fights with abusing each other. *
> Especially often this happens when it comes to the political context of music of the Soviet period.
> That is why people rarely express their own opinion and write mostly news.
> There is also a bad historical tradition when you should not have your own opinion when there is an opinion of Party and so on.
> People who had not the same opinion were persecuted, the same is today.


well - that has happened here too on TC - many members have been banned for their insults etc.

the politeness here is often only on the surface - if you read carefully some of it is embedded with venom

for example, in reply to an opposing argument:

"with respect ..."

means : you are talking absolute nonsense you idiot

Russians are not good at this subtle style - too much emotion.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> It isn't just the cadences but the harmonic language in general that I personally don't find interesting. Pieces often seem so rooted to their tonic that the alternative chords seem as mere vehicles in getting the piece back home.
> 
> Of course, I speak relativistically - it's the music of later periods and the modern era that, for some of us at least, can make earlier periods sound a tad flat.
> 
> Aren't you making a claim here to objectivity thus finding fault with the listener?
> 
> _Being irked by these kinds of stylistic features is just a sign that you haven't gotten "inside" these styles yet. And it is almost certain that the styles in which you don't hear "clichés" are just as full of stylistic markers, but ones that sound natural to you out of habit and long exposure. Good luck overcoming this syndrome. _
> 
> For me, it's more than just syntax and punctuation but (and continuing with the analogy)* repeating sentences almost verbatim*.


if that's how you hear it then I would suggest you dont understand the musical logic of the classical era at its best. I accept that weaker composers from this era were capable of repeating material when their impoverished ability was unable to supply an alternative - but in the best works of Mozart and most of the lesser ones too - every note and phrase is in place for good artistic reasons. It obviously does not click with you - probably for the similar reason that I turn off the radio when I hear an overblown bombastic romantic symphony. It's not my thing.


----------



## Woodduck

stomanek said:


> well - that has happened here too on TC - many members have been banned for their insults etc.
> 
> the politeness here is often only on the surface - if you read carefully some of it is embedded with venom
> 
> for example, in reply to an opposing argument:
> 
> "with respect ..."
> 
> means : you are talking absolute nonsense you idiot
> 
> Russians are not good at this subtle style - too much emotion.


:lol: All politeness is on the surface. Politeness means not decking someone even if they have it coming.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> if that's how you hear it then I would suggest you dont understand the *musical logic of the classical era at its best*. I accept that weaker composers from this era were capable of repeating material when their impoverished ability was unable to supply an alternative - but in the best works of Mozart and most of the lesser ones too - every note and phrase is in place for good artistic reasons. It obviously does not click with you - probably for the similar reason that I turn off the radio when I hear an overblown bombastic romantic symphony. It's not my thing.


Have repeatedly cited a number of works that I love; the difference, it seems, is merely the quantity of such.


----------



## Phil loves classical

janxharris said:


> It isn't just the cadences but the harmonic language in general that I personally don't find interesting. Pieces often seem so rooted to their tonic that the alternative chords seem as mere vehicles in getting the piece back home.
> 
> Of course, I speak relativistically - it's the music of later periods and the modern era that, for some of us at least, can make earlier periods sound a tad flat.
> 
> Aren't you making a claim here to objectivity thus finding fault with the listener?
> 
> _Being irked by these kinds of stylistic features is just a sign that you haven't gotten "inside" these styles yet. And it is almost certain that the styles in which you don't hear "clichés" are just as full of stylistic markers, but ones that sound natural to you out of habit and long exposure. Good luck overcoming this syndrome. _
> 
> *For me, it's more than just syntax and punctuation but (and continuing with the analogy) repeating sentences almost verbatim.*


Rather than the words "cliché" or "repeating sentences", I think you mean conventions, that there are certain conventions in the high Classical style, which you feel are overused. With jazz, and modern music I also hear conventions, which I feel are overused in some cases. Just about every style have conventions that can become overused over time, and derivative music formed from these conventions.


----------



## janxharris

Phil loves classical said:


> Rather than the words "cliché" or "repeating sentences", I think you mean conventions, that there are certain conventions in the high Classical style, which you feel are overused. With jazz, and modern music I also hear conventions, which I feel are overused in some cases. Just about every style have conventions that can become overused over time, and derivative music formed from these conventions.


It's hard to agree without an example. Can you give one?


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> It's hard to agree without an example. Can you give one?


listen to the double base strumming in almost any jazz piece it's the same or very similar

if that's not a cliche I dont know what is


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> listen to the double base strumming in almost any jazz piece it's the same or very similar
> 
> if that's not a cliche I dont know what is


But my criticism is harmonic.


----------



## Phil loves classical

janxharris said:


> It's hard to agree without an example. Can you give one?


Like in Blues, the 12 bar blues, they sing the same line couple of times, then change up on the 3rd line which is longer all to the same chord progressions over many many songs like this one. They always return to the same chord as first.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> But my criticism is harmonic.


well you have criticized more than just harmonic inventiveness - despite Mozart being the most harmonically inventive classical composer - only Haydn was anywhere near him. You also bring up common chords used in classical music - not acknowledging that in the 18thC these chords were generally thought to produce the best most pleasing music - and again, Mozart used these much less than his contemporaries - which is one reason his music sounds more interesting than that of lesser masters.


----------



## DaveM

Fwiw, if someone has issues with the structure of Mozart's symphonic works (concertos, symphonies), IMO, the music in his last 4 operas is distinctly different. Much as I have loved the concertos and symphonies in the past, it is the later operas that have had lasting listening value partly because they anticipated elements of romanticism that was to come.


----------



## janxharris

Phil loves classical said:


> Like in Blues, the 12 bar blues, they sing the same line couple of times, then change up on the 3rd line which is longer all to the same chord progressions over many many songs like this one. They always return to the same chord as first.


Certainly this is a good example and one of the reasons I don't listen to this style.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

stomanek said:


> listen to the double base strumming in almost any jazz piece it's the same or very similar
> 
> if that's not a cliche I dont know what is


Depends on the bass player. The real greats, such as Niels Orsted Pedersen, played anything but 'the same or very similar'.


----------



## janxharris

DaveM said:


> Fwiw, if someone has issues with the structure of Mozart's symphonic works (concertos, symphonies), IMO, the music in his last 4 operas is distinctly different. Much as I have loved the concertos and symphonies in the past, it is the later operas that have had lasting listening value partly because they anticipated elements of romanticism that was to come.


Not of the last four but very beautiful...


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> Not of the last four but very beautiful...


Figaro is one of the last 4 Mozart operas.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> Figaro is one of the last 4 Mozart operas.


Not Cosi, Stone, Titus and Flute?


----------



## Barbebleu

Figaro is not even in the last five because that exalted spot is taken by Giovanni!:lol:


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> Not Cosi, Stone, Titus and Flute?


sorry got my counting wrong

well whether figaro is last 4 or not makes no odds - the last 6 operas are on an equal level.


----------



## DaveM

stomanek said:


> sorry got my counting wrong
> 
> well whether figaro is last 4 or not makes no odds - the last 6 operas are on an equal level.


I actually screwed up when I said 'last 4'. I meant 'last 6'. I s'pose I could have said 'big 4': Figaro, Cosi, DonG, and Flute.


----------



## PlaySalieri

DaveM said:


> I actually screwed up when I said 'last 4'. I meant 'last 6'. I s'pose I could have said 'big 4': Figaro, Cosi, DonG, and Flute.


well - you can forgive us Mozart fans - too many masterpieces to count correctly


----------



## Haydn70

KenOC said:


> Well then, you are fully equipped to separate the wheat from the chaff, to identify those supremely great works of art and discard the run-of-the-mill and mediocre that always seem to surround us. Wonderful! Please keep us informed.


I will continue to do so, Ken, with pleasure.



> With that, I'll leave off because my "aesthetic relativism" seems to generate some painful heartburn around here. So sorry!


Apology accepted!


----------



## Larkenfield

After more than 200 years of praise and accolades, I would indeed say there’s an assumption of greatness if it was composed by Mozart, or perhaps by any other high-profile composer. Well-deserved, IMO. Accolades suggest that something may be worth hearing because it’s been appreciated, perhaps by millions of listeners, and for so long; but it’s still not a guarantee that anyone is going to like it or agree depending on their needs or listening experience... It’s just a starting point and then listeners can make up their own minds... Anything that’s accepted blindly, including the assumption of a work’s value … What value is that? Nevertheless, an acclaimed work or composer is also an opportunity for the listener to hear what others may be hearing or praising in a work... and I believe that such an experience has always been a part of music in assessing the acclaim or greatness in reputedly great works of art because it’s so much a part of anyone’s personal aesthetic development.


----------

