# Objectively great?



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

I had never seen the expression "objectively great" until its recent appearance on TalkClassical. Having noticed that some people think "objective" in this context means something supported with quantitative data as evidence, it seems to me that we need to clarify whether that is what the users of this expression mean. I do not see greatness as quantifiable.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

This was my issue with that thread. To me, objective means criteria about which there can be no debate. Ranking composers by birth or death date, or alphabetically, or even height. This criteria is objective, and has nothing to do with anyone's perception.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I have said in several posts in the other threads that for art, you cannot use a Geiger Counter device to measure something for its greatness in some quantifiable sense. Rather you can assess a work of art's greatness with artistic criteria to conclude that there are significant merits in the work to determine whether it is great or not. The entire notion that "nobody has been able to prove to me that this composition is great" in some mathematical/scientific sense is laughable. This is art and so artistic criteria must be used, not scientific ones. (Much like religion is about faith and you cannot use scientific approaches to try to prove or otherwise the existence of God).


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> This was my issue with that thread. To me, objective means criteria about which there can be no debate. Ranking composers by birth or death date, or alphabetically, or even height. This criteria is objective, and has nothing to do with anyone's perception.


Objective can also mean under certain conditions that something holds true but not in generality. There are many proofs in mathematics for example that hold true under certain conditions but not in generality. I am not a mathematics student but my sister is and I was discussing this with her. So objectively you can say something is true within certain parameters/conditions but not necessarily completely and always the case under all parameters/conditions.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

This is my response to the objectivists:






And here's my response to the subjectivists:






It's a bit longer to watch, but per usual you're going to have to work harder.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

I agree that the term ‘objectively great’ is a problem. I don’t believe I’ve ever used the term. I hope not. However, I am also aware that those on the side of total subjectivity have had a way of interpreting posts of mine that amount to putting words in my mouth. 

One thing I am trying to be consistent about is making it clear that I’m talking about the CPT period. I see no reason to make comparisons between CPT era composers/music and that of, say, avant-garde. They are so different that it is best for each genre to stay in its own lane. Thus, the question that I’ve seen ‘Is Stockhausen as great as Beethoven?’ is IMO meaningless. Stockhausen may be a great avant-garde composer and there may be some objective reasons to say so. I wouldn’t know.

Back to the subject of objectivity: My premise has been that there are elements that allow objectivity in applying labels such as greatness to CPT era composers and their works. Some of these are education, experience, skill, talent and originality. Since composing CM at the highest level necessary to create symphonies, concertos and operas is a craft of the highest order, it stands to reason that, like any craft, some composers will perform better (judging from results) than others and there can be objective reasons why.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Ethereality said:


> This is my response to the objectivists:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I watched only a few minutes. What did I miss?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Three threads on the same subject?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

No one is on the side of total subjectivity. Stop misrepresenting what those who disagree with you are saying.

Limiting this question to CPT is a cop out. Unless all music can be compared objectively, then the issue is moot.

I don't _know_ if Bach's Art of Fugue is a great work, and not only that, *I don't care*. I know I enjoy it very much, and that is all I care about. But I also know that there are many, many people who find it boring.

So I have to conclude that Bach's music is not universally admired, and any claim to its being objectively great is specious.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> No one is on the side of total subjectivity. Stop misrepresenting what those who disagree with you are saying.
> 
> Limiting this question to CPT is a cop out. Unless all music can be compared objectively, then the issue is moot.
> 
> ...


Universal admiration is a necessary condition of greatness? It had better not be a necessary condition of anything.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

DaveM said:


> One thing I am trying to be consistent about is making it clear that I'm talking about the CPT period. I see no reason to make comparisons between CPT era composers/music and that of, say, avant-garde. They are so different that it is best for each genre to stay in its own lane. Thus, the question that I've seen 'Is Stockhausen as great as Beethoven?' is IMO meaningless. Stockhausen may be a great avant-garde composer and there may be some objective reasons to say so. I wouldn't know.


This is where I agree with you but also find your word choice problematic.

I've agreed that you can sort of objectively rank works/composers in certain contexts, like CPT or Gregorian chants. But I've also already explained that "objective greatness" can't be limited to a certain time period or human perception, because that's just not how facts work.

If you have to contextualize a fact under a certain human frame of thought in order for it to be objective, it is by definition not objective. No other facts are reliant on each individual's mindset to determine their veracity.

And certainly there are a lot of objectivists who would argue that CPT music is objectively superior to pop music. This may not be your view but it is a prevailing one.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> No one is on the side of total subjectivity. Stop misrepresenting what those who disagree with you are saying.


The hell you say. Stop misrepresenting what your little group of subjectivists have been saying. Any use of the word 'objectivity' by me and others has been met with a barrage. Show me one post of yours that supports any use of the word 'objectivity' in evaluating composers and their music.



> Limiting this question to CPT is a cop out. Unless all music can be compared objectively, then the issue is moot.


Your 'cop-out' is my common-sense. So, do you want to start comparing classical music and rap. How about big band music and reggae?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Three threads on the same subject?


There are three threads (objective truth). They are all on the same subject (subjective truth). :lol:


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Roger Knox said:


> I had never seen the expression "objectively great" until its recent appearance on TalkClassical. ...


https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLt4v6k4UAtAuvimQjtIe146Du2ykSTRNg

https://video.vice.com/en_us/topic/objectively-great-goals

https://www.engagedsne.com/2021/01/9-objectively-great-guestbook-ideas/

https://www.blazersedge.com/2020/12...ail-blazers-great-fans-damian-lillard-history







__
https://www.reddit.com/r/podcasts/comments/lu34he

... and they go on and on.

Apparently not everyone is confused by the term "objectively great." Go figure.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

ArtMusic said:


> I have said in several posts in the other threads that for art, you cannot use a Geiger Counter device to measure something for its greatness in some quantifiable sense. Rather you can assess a work of art's greatness with artistic criteria to conclude that there are significant merits in the work to determine whether it is great or not. The entire notion that "nobody has been able to prove to me that this composition is great" in some mathematical/scientific sense is laughable. This is art and so artistic criteria must be used, not scientific ones. (Much like religion is about faith and you cannot use scientific approaches to try to prove or otherwise the existence of God).


Ok, but for many, you've just admitted that artistic taste *cannot be objective*!!

Unless you want to create a new notion of 'objectivity' which applies only to art, alongside the other notion of objectivity which applies to mathematics, science, etc.

You say it's laughable that one be required to PROVE something is artistically great.

For others, you are simply saying its laughable that objective criteria exist for artistic greatness.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

*Past (and co-current) threads have shown that this subject can easily lead to confrontational posts. I would like to remind all posters upfront to adhere to one of the statements in the Terms of Service:

Be polite to your fellow members. If you disagree with them, please state your opinion in a »civil« and respectful manner. *


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

RogerWaters said:


> Ok, but for many, you've just admitted that artistic taste *cannot be objective*!!
> 
> Unless you want to create a new notion of 'objectivity' which applies only to art, alongside the other notion of objectivity which applies to mathematics, science, etc.
> 
> ...


Taste is preferences, what you enjoy, what you don't enjoy.

I can dislike a work but yet I can analyze it objectively to show it is great using artistic criteria. Conversely, I can show a work is weak but I can still enjoy it.

Yes, I said it is laughable if one requires to prove something is great using mathematical/scientific approaches. Rather, you should prove artistic greatness using artistic criteria, not mathematical/scientific ones as often mistakenly discussed.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

ArtMusic said:


> I can dislike a work but yet I can analyze it objectively to show it is great using artistic criteria.


Would you give an example please ArtMusic?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

janxharris said:


> Would you give an example please ArtMusic?


I have stated this before. And in any case, you are likely to reject them. If you have studied at music schools, then you will likely know how musicologists approach to evaluate compositions. I believe you are a composer and during your years of training perhaps, your tutors should have shown you such approaches to evaluate effectively.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)




----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

ArtMusic said:


> I have stated this before. And in any case, you are likely to reject them. If you have studied at music schools, then you will likely know how musicologists approach to evaluate compositions. I believe you are a composer and during your years of training perhaps, your tutors should have shown you such approaches to evaluate effectively.


This is obviously not a good argument, because many music tutors were once firmly against composers who ended up revered, such as the shameful treatment of Ravel by the then French academy.

Or is it only music tutors alive today who are objective in their judgements?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Roger Knox said:


> I had never seen the expression "objectively great" until its recent appearance on TalkClassical. Having noticed that some people think "objective" in this context means something supported with quantitative data as evidence, it seems to me that we need to clarify whether that is what the users of this expression mean. I do not see greatness as quantifiable.


Western classical music music goes back 1000 years. Whatever labels we apply in assessing or describing it will be limited because of its long history and sheer volume of music produced. Nobody knows everything, and even if someone did, making something that boils down to a set of principles or measures to assess and describe music is basically a folly.

I'm pretty much in line with the approach that everything is relative to everything else. A corollary of that is a focus on the significance of for instance a particular composer and his music. This approach includes things like the context, innovation, impacts of the music and so on. It can include aesthetics, performance practice and the canon. It can also be multidisciplinary, looking at links with the other arts.

I think that looking at the relative significance of a composer and his music can be both flexible and rigorous. It avoids a view which is overly confined to the notes on the page (e.g. formalism at its most extreme). At the same time it puts emphasis on making comparisons that are worth making. The piece in focus can be a common reference point and other pieces discussed relate to it in ways which increase our understanding and appreciation of it.

I remember a good example of this decades ago when I attended a performance of Hummel's Piano Concerto in B minor. The writer of the program notes argued for live performance of Hummel's music, even though it isn't in the core repertoire (and back then, was even less well known than it is today).

The writer said that Hummel was, in comparison to Beethoven, undoubtedly a lesser figure in music. Nevertheless, he did have his strengths and he made unique contributions which had impacts on the next generation of composers. He also said that audiences should get a chance to hear this music live, not necessarily because it matches core repertoire pieces like the Beethoven concertos, but because it presents a fuller picture of that period in music. It has its own merits and is potentially enjoyable to a many listeners if they get a chance to listen to it.

The relative significance of composers like Hummel can be disputed because their legacy is less obviously straightforward compared to the likes of Beethoven. However debating grey areas like this makes discussions of music interesting and provides potential for renewal of conventional notions of, for instance, performance repertoire. It can also be done when discussing the music of today, in terms of a composer's relationship with comparable music of the past. Music is continually evolving and so too are the ways in which we think about it.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

RogerWaters said:


> This is obviously not a good argument, because many music tutors were once firmly against composers who ended up revered, such as the shameful treatment of Ravel by the then French academy.
> 
> Or is it only music tutors alive today who are objective in their judgements?


Obviously schools today. We are fortunate enough to have the entire oeuvre of classical music before us. As I have written in the other threads, we have early music from the 1500s to contemporary music today before us and even some composers have declared we have come full circle with art music. We are now in the best position to evaluate all that were composed before us. Students today are better informed than they once were of the "shameful treatment of Ravel by the then French academy" you speak of. We are so lucky today to judge and to rank, being well informed and experienced listeners.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Chilham said:


>


I love that scene. For some years its what came to my mind when reading the perennial debates on this forum. It could almost pass as direct satire of what keeps going on at TC. Often I think we're moored in the 1950's here. I have thought of posting it more than once before, but I'm not so bold as you.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I welcome this new thread and contribute to it as an absolutist; as a radical individualist literally preaching that all measuring of quantities and qualities in the arts be of specific and universally recognized parameters, and that those be clearly labeled. The vastly common alternative we are subjected to is verbose mush--word salad. I asked before: what constitutes a great table? Is it size; shape; color; novelty; utility (for what? and when?); cost; skill in manufacture (butcher's table, elaborate parquet vs. George Nakashima?) Or is it how many people and of what sort think and say it is a great table?

All esthetics comes down to opinion, and all relevant opinion for the individual is the individual's opinion. What passes for supposedly objective "truths'' and evaluations in the arts is the consensus of a group who have polled themselves and those enthusiasts of gradation sequence A who are in the majority get to write the books and impose a consensus as some objective truth of superior value, when the only objective fact is that of the vote itself. It is no different than judging wine or ice cream, or tables. It isn't, really.

Once we start comparing art evaluation with "proofs" or "disproofs" of a god's existence, we have wandered far indeed from a search for objective evaluation, when embedded within the definition of a god is that it is not subject to any sort of proof. I know my position is difficult to embrace after a lifetime of people marrying to some extent (nobody can do it completely) one's personal choices to outwardly-imposed and accepted (imprinted) criteria for excellence, greatness, goodness, etc. But it is what it is.

All esthetics is personal and subjective.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

ArtMusic said:


> I have stated this before. And in any case, you are likely to reject them. If you have studied at music schools, then you will likely know how musicologists approach to evaluate compositions. I believe you are a composer and during your years of training perhaps, your tutors should have shown you such approaches to evaluate effectively.


So you can't demonstrate your claim. Good to know.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> All esthetics is personal and subjective.


Essentially, I agree with this statement. And further, what's wrong with that?


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

I have always felt it would be valuable in these discussions to speculate on what a totally complete understanding of the brain and how it processes art would reveal.

To narrow things down to a single factor, I think that there _probably_ is some sort of science to explain why certain note combinations and motifs strike the brain as melodic and memorable while others do not, and that theoretically you could distill those undiscovered "objective" principles into a sort of formula for what composers have always grasped with intuition and trial-and-error. It would be surprising to me if some such thing didn't exist, and it truly 
was just subjective whether the tunes in Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker are in some fundamental way different than those of Handel's lesser sonatas for the recorder.

You can always halt the discussion by just pointing out that we don't have the neurological know how to make such a claim, but I feel like there is some basis to believing we eventually could.

For comparison, I remember reading an article about MRI scans that revealed measurable responses to Shakespeare's stylized grammar, such as "He childed as I fathered," or "...him you have madded." I don't doubt that the recognition of irony, paradoxes, or sensory mix-and-matching like Neruda's line "Your silence is bright like a lamp," all correspond to a similar response. We can't prove empirically that "Your lips are red like cherries," isn't as good as "...your lips, where cherries ever grow," but I would bet anything that the latter line, being more evocative by making less literal sense, surprises something in our wiring and language processing software that the former line does not, and that that is objective.

I think that Beecham's famous ending stanza about being "Farther off from heaven than when I was a boy," is objectively enhanced by the double meaning setup in the previous line about having once believed as a child that the trees touched the sky. It's a rhetorical counter melody of sorts and it objectively changes the way our brain reacts to the line, vs how it would to that same sentiment on its own.

Obviously that's an entirely different artform, but I think analogues of those general ideas may exist for music as well, even if they're undiscovered. Basically the craftsmanship can be explained and somewhat proven, even if greatness can't.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Chilham said:


>


Perfect. This ought to be posted whenever one of these threads is opened.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

May we please have an objective listing of A) the greatest composers, 10 or 50 or whatever, and B) the greatest musical compositions? It would provide a useful data base for further discussion. The list can be either a group effort wherein all participants agree, or we can entertain individual, personal lists. I can supply, via Wikipedia, a definitive list of impact craters on Earth, identified so far ("astroblemes") graded by size (diameter) if that would be helpful as a template.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast (Jun 3, 2020)

I'd like someone to explain to me what's the difference between being subjective and being totally subjective? I'm asking honestly because for me if you think that subjectivity is key/king, then you can't half a** it


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> I'd like someone to explain to me what's the difference between being subjective and being totally subjective? I'm asking honestly because for me if you think that subjectivity is key/king, then you can't half a** it


All I can testify to is that I am a total subjectivist, and hold that all gradations of value in the arts other than one's own individual preferences are the expression (merely) of the consensus of a group, either randomly chosen or defined, that something is good, better than another, a Masterpiece, etc. This does not eliminate the idea of gradations or of value, but places it squarely within the purview of each individual--unique, idiosyncratic, entirely valid (for them). Any suggestion that the idea of greatness or gradation in the arts is nullified by this individualist view, is erroneous. Clearly, individuals in groups can share any set of criteria they find mutually to their taste in evaluating art objects.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast (Jun 3, 2020)

Yes, yes, i'm a subjectivist too, and I agree with what you say. But what I want to know is what someone like SanAntone (who introduced the category "totally subjective") thinks. For me, there's no way around being a subjectivist, either you are or you aren't, but It'd be nice if someone who thinks otherwise could explain it to me


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> I'd like someone to explain to me what's the difference between being subjective and being totally subjective? I'm asking honestly because for me if you think that subjectivity is key/king, then you can't half a** it


I would assume that it depends on what one thinks (co-)determines greatness. If for instance one thinks that the number of commercial recordings is an important factor (as I have seen stated some time ago), that's something that can be objectively established. If one thinks that the number of reference books or professors that state that a composer is great is an important factor, that could be counted and turned into an objective number.

Now of course there is a gliding scale from total objectivity to total subjectivity depending on the definition of such quantifiable factors, and also whether or not one accepts that they are important at all, and their relative importance from factor to factor.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> Yes, yes, i'm a subjectivist too, and I agree with what you say. But what I want to know is what someone like SanAntone (who introduced the category "totally subjective") thinks. For me, there's no way around being a subjectivist, either you are or you aren't, but It'd be nice if someone who thinks otherwise could explain it to me


I believe that we evaluate music subjectively, we each individually have a subjective response to a piece of music: we either like it or dislike it or are indifferent to it. Even "great" composers disagreed about other "great composers." Look at the "wars" waged in the press over the style of Brahms vs that of Wagner or Liszt. But with the passage of centuries the collective mass of these subjective opinions has solidified into a classical music canon of repertory of "great music." This takes on a whiff of objectivity, but I consider it an illusion.

The folly of those proposing an objective basis for judging music is their inability to demonstrate with objective data that a Brahms symphony is qualitatively better than _La Mer_ by Debussy. Or that a Bach fugue is objectively better than a Chopin nocturne.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> All esthetics is personal and subjective.


Is this statement subjective?


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> Essentially, I agree with this statement. And further, what's wrong with that?


It's a self defeating statement. If you believe everything is subjective, then so is this statement which means it's not true (it can only be true if it's objective), but it's just your opinion, so you cannot make the statement "All esthetics is...." as if you were stating something objective.

You are trying to use objectivity to prove subjectivity.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> It's a self defeating statement. If you believe everything is subjective, then so is this statement which means it's not true (it can only be true if it's objective), but it's just your opinion, so you cannot make the statement "All esthetics is...." as if you were stating something objective.
> 
> You are trying to use objectivity to prove subjectivity.


Of course it is subjective opinion, just as the statement that music can be judged objectively is an opinion. But the opinion that music can be objectively judged is empty without some proof of its validity. Subjectivity requires no proof since we admit it is a personal response, but everyone has one and they are different.

But y'all on the objective side of the debate claim that quality can be shown in a piece of music with more than just personal opinions.

So can you demonstrate that a Bach fugue is better than a Chopin nocturne using objective criteria?


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> May we please have an objective listing of A) the greatest composers, 10 or 50 or whatever, and B) the greatest musical compositions? It would provide a useful data base for further discussion. The list can be either a group effort wherein all participants agree, or we can entertain individual, personal lists. I can supply, via Wikipedia, a definitive list of impact craters on Earth, identified so far ("astroblemes") graded by size (diameter) if that would be helpful as a template.


:lol:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

DaveM said:


> One thing I am trying to be consistent about is making it clear that I'm talking about the CPT period. I see no reason to make comparisons between CPT era composers/music and that of, say, avant-garde. They are so different that it is best for each genre to stay in its own lane. Thus, the question that I've seen 'Is Stockhausen as great as Beethoven?' is IMO meaningless. Stockhausen may be a great avant-garde composer and there may be some objective reasons to say so. I wouldn't know.





SanAntone said:


> Limiting this question to CPT is a cop out. Unless all music can be compared objectively, then the issue is moot.


I agree with DaveM; CPT and avant-garde are very different. But part of why some subjectivists get so heated on this topic is because so often the people who dislike the avant-garde like to "prove" that this music isn't great _by using CPT as a stick to beat it with._

"Great music must be beautiful."
"I agree; Boulez's music is beautiful."
"Ugh, no, I mean beautiful like Mozart."

"Great music must have good melodies."
"I agree; Schoenberg wrote good melodies."
"Ugh, no, I mean melodies like Schubert."

etc etc.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> Of course it is subjective opinion, just as the statement that music can be judged objectively is an opinion. But the opinion that music can be objectively judged is empty without some proof of its validity. Subjectivity requires no proof since we admit it is a personal response, but everyone has one and they are different.
> 
> But y'all on the objective side of the debate claim that quality can be shown in a piece of music with more than just personal opinions.
> 
> So can you demonstrate that a Bach fugue is better than a Chopin nocturne using objective criteria?


Maybe it would make thinks easier to understand and clearer if people stated their opinions as if they were opinions and not facts.

My position is that objectivity must be true because subjectivity make no sense. That's how objectivity is proved to be true. If everything is subjective then a hair dryer can be as amazing as Bach's music, a story for a toddler as profound as a work of Shakespeare, a waterfall as beautiful as a dirty toilet. This is what proves objectivity. It must be true because subjectivity leads to absurdity.

But we won't get anywhere with this debate because people are committed to their atheism, this is the reason you are subjectivist.

If man is god then he decides. Which leads to no truth. Just various opinions in every realm of life.

But if God is God there is objective truth.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Maybe it would make thinks easier to understand and clearer if people stated their opinions as if they were opinions and not facts.
> 
> My position is that objectivity must be true because subjectivity make no sense. That's how objectivity is proved to be true. If everything is subjective then a hair dryer can be as amazing as Bach's music, a story for a toddler as profound as a work of Shakespeare, a waterfall as beautiful as a dirty toilet. This is what proves objectivity. It must be true because subjectivity leads to absurdity.
> 
> ...


What?

Surely your 'position' is your opinion and opinion is subjective therefore there is no objectivity and subjectivity rules all! 
And still nobody has answered SanAntone's question about the Bach Fugue and the Chopin Nocturne.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Barbebleu said:


> What?
> 
> Surely your 'position' is your opinion and opinion is subjective therefore there is no objectivity and subjectivity rules all!
> And still nobody has answered SanAntone's question about the Bach Fugue and the Chopin Nocturne.


When you say "there is no objectivity" are you being subjective or objective?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> My position is that objectivity must be true because subjectivity make no sense. That's how objectivity is proved to be true. If everything is subjective then a hair dryer can be as amazing as Bach's music, a story for a toddler as profound as a work of Shakespeare, a waterfall as beautiful as a dirty toilet. This is what proves objectivity. It must be true because subjectivity leads to absurdity.


But surely _to a toddler_, the bedtime story is more profound than the Shakespeare, which to the toddler would be meaningless. Which implies that the value of something depends on the audience, which implies that subjectivity is real. "Objectivity" requires some sort of prior limiting condition, in this case "Shakespeare is more profound than a bedtime story _if you understand Shakespeare_."

Which reminds me of the joke about the guy who claimed to be smarter than Einstein. When asked why, he explained "they say only three people in the world fully understand the theory of relativity. Well, I have a theory that _nobody_ understands."


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> When you say "there is no objectivity" are you being subjective or objective?


Clearly I am!

Who doesn't love a non sequitur?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Maybe it would make thinks easier to understand and clearer if people stated their opinions as if they were opinions and not facts.
> 
> My position is that objectivity must be true because subjectivity make no sense. That's how objectivity is proved to be true. If everything is subjective then a hair dryer can be as amazing as Bach's music, a story for a toddler as profound as a work of Shakespeare, a waterfall as beautiful as a dirty toilet. This is what proves objectivity. It must be true because subjectivity leads to absurdity.
> 
> ...


I think we are here dealing again with a continuing misunderstanding of the subjectivist position, perhaps willful: I assert that each individual establishes or is free to establish for him/herself the value to be assigned to anything in the arts, and the parameters being invoked. It's as simple as that. I celebrate, in return, the clarity of your objectivist viewpoint--it is maintained by establishing by fiat the presumed preferences of a god. Perhaps you could share these preferences--specifically, explicitly--with the forum. As Art Rock suggests, perhaps the Religion and Politics in Music subforum is the better place.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

If one watches the Dead Poet’s Society clip closely, it is about applying mathematics to the evaluation of the greatness of poetry. As much as I also love that clip, and the movie, it would be a mistake to apply that to the present discussion since no one is using something like x,y graphs or anything similar here. And we’re not talking about poetry.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> ..And still nobody has answered SanAntone's question about the Bach Fugue and the Chopin Nocturne.


Because it's irrelevant to the core of this discussion. If you want to see the absurdity of the question, I'll answer it this way: the Bach Fugue is a bad nocturne and the Chopin Nocturne is a lousy fugue.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

RogerWaters post from another thread on Greatness in the Arts:



> "Because both side are debating about what things in the world fall under the reference class of a small number of concepts ('objective', 'subjective', 'greatness') without agreeing on the meaning of the concepts. Only by having a clear understanding of the meaning of the relevant concepts can it be judged what things in the world fall under them (i.e. do musical judgements count as objective and/or subjective? Is Bach as opposed to Cage great?).
> 
> How on earth can we agree whether water exists on Mars? Of course, we need to do a lot of empirical observation, but, before that, we need to do armchair conceptual work: agreeing the concept 'water' refers to the clear, liquid stuff that boils at temperature X and freezes at temperature Y (relative to air pressure and other atmospheric variables), with molecular structure H20.
> 
> ...


It would appear that he is calling for, if not mathematical rigor and exactitude, something close to it in these ongoing discussions of objectivity in music and the arts. Something beyond consensus, expert testimony, personal testimony, appeals to precedent, religion, etc.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Strange Magic said:


> As Art Rock suggests, perhaps the Religion and Politics in Music subforum is the better place.


I did not actually say that. But the spooky thing is I did think it about an hour ago, before I went upstairs to make dinner. 

Indeed, if some posters really want to continue discussing whether or not there is a divine aspect in the objectivity/subjectivity of music, please do so in the appropriate sub-forum.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Art Rock said:


> I did not actually say that. But the spooky thing is I did think it about an hour ago, before I went upstairs to make dinner.
> 
> Indeed, if some posters really want to continue discussing whether or not there is a divine aspect in the objectivity/subjectivity of music, please do so in the appropriate sub-forum.


Does that include introducing that God is on my side?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

For that you have to go to the dungeons of the Groups. :devil:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> But y'all on the objective side of the debate claim that quality can be shown in a piece of music with more than just personal opinions.
> 
> So can you demonstrate that a Bach fugue is better than a Chopin nocturne using objective criteria?


Your unproven assumption is that everything that can be known can be shown.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast (Jun 3, 2020)

DaveM said:


> If one watches the Dead Poet's Society clip closely, it is about applying mathematics to the evaluation of the greatness of poetry. As much as I also love that clip, and the movie, it would be a mistake to apply that to the present discussion since no one is using something like x,y graphs or anything similar here. And we're not talking about poetry.


Your comment begs the question, that I've seen raised before but never answered: what are the criteria then to define objective superiority in music?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Nereffid said:


> But surely _to a toddler_, the bedtime story is more profound than the Shakespeare, which to the toddler would be meaningless. Which implies that the value of something depends on the audience, which implies that subjectivity is real. "Objectivity" requires some sort of prior limiting condition, in this case "Shakespeare is more profound than a bedtime story _if you understand Shakespeare_."
> 
> Which reminds me of the joke about the guy who claimed to be smarter than Einstein. When asked why, he explained "they say only three people in the world fully understand the theory of relativity. Well, I have a theory that _nobody_ understands."


The total subjectivists are not arguing for _contextual_ value. Even an objectivist knows that there is no such thing as value without context (good? for what? in what way?). They're arguing for value as a synonym for taste (it's good because I like it).


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Your unproven assumption is that everything that can be known can be shown.


Seems pretty logical to me.



allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> Your comment begs the question, that I've seen raised before but never answered: what are the criteria then to define objective superiority in music?


Some sort of amorphous "artistic criteria," I reckon.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast (Jun 3, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> The total subjectivists are not arguing for _contextual_ value. Even an objectivist knows that there is no such thing as value without context (good? for what? in what way?). They're arguing for value as a synonym for taste (it's good because I like it).


Again, how do you decide what's valuable?


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast (Jun 3, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> I believe that we evaluate music subjectively, we each individually have a subjective response to a piece of music: we either like it or dislike it or are indifferent to it. Even "great" composers disagreed about other "great composers." Look at the "wars" waged in the press over the style of Brahms vs that of Wagner or Liszt. But with the passage of centuries the collective mass of these subjective opinions has solidified into a classical music canon of repertory of "great music." This takes on a whiff of objectivity, but I consider it an illusion.
> 
> The folly of those proposing an objective basis for judging music is their inability to demonstrate with objective data that a Brahms symphony is qualitatively better than _La Mer_ by Debussy. Or that a Bach fugue is objectively better than a Chopin nocturne.


Right, but if the canon is an illusion -and I agree, first and foremost because I think the idea of a canon has some structural flaws- then what's the difference between subjectivity and total subjectivity? I'm sorry for piling on, but I don't understand really


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

SONNET CLV said:


> Apparently not everyone is confused by the term "objectively great." Go figure.


Well, my question about "objectively great" was answered thanks to the links provided by SONNET CLV, but I'm sorry that this thread has prolonged unnecessarily the subject of two previous threads. "Objectively great" is used to add credibility to "great" by breaking down a topic into factors including with specific examples. At least, that's what I saw in the links provided. Of "9 Objectively Great Wedding Guestbook Ideas," idea no. 1 is The Map, a map of the world included in the guestbook where people sign their names according to where they've travelled from. A photo is included. And in What Makes the Portland Trailblazers Objectively Great?, factors on this NBA team include chemistry, uniforms, branding, and logo. Photos are included. There are also links concerning videos that lack enough accompanying text for the likes of me to understand -- it's more sort of "if you get it then you're with it."

"Objectively great" is hype for what essays, reports, project proposals routinely have -- a topic, breakdown into factors, examples/photos -- plus some buzz. It has nothing to do with whether the content is objective or subjective, or if quantification is involved. So enough!


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Regarding the canon, according to the unstated criteria laid out for entering it -- that is, participation in the "serious" music tradition, rewardance of study/analysis, and uniqueness without being too radical -- some music is obviously more successful than others. Brahms' Third Piano Sonata fulfills these criteria better than almost anything Schoenberg wrote, but I don't think that means Schoenberg's compositions are objectively less valuable. I suppose the central question we should be answering is whether inherently subjectivity aesthetic judgments can be reconciled with objective normativity. This is going to get quite heady, and it's too early in the morning for philosophy...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> Again, how do you decide what's valuable?


What do you mean, "how"? Anything can be _valuable_ if someone can _value_ it. That isn't debatable. What's in question is whether things can reasonably be judged good or bad, better or worse. That question requires another question: in what respect? This seems rather elementary.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Something can be objectively valued if it is tied to a specific function. For example, one sword can be objectively better than another because it makes impaling people easier; the liver of a healthy person is objectively better than an alcoholic's. Can you do the same with music? I'm not completely sure, but I'm leaning towards no.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Roger Knox said:


> Well, my question about "objectively great" was answered thanks to the links provided by SONNET CLV, but I'm sorry that this thread has prolonged unnecessarily the subject of two previous threads. "Objectively great" is used to add credibility to "great" by breaking down a topic into factors including with specific examples. At least, that's what I saw in the links provided. Of "9 Objectively Great Wedding Guestbook Ideas," idea no. 1 is The Map, a map of the world included in the guestbook where people sign their names according to where they've travelled from. A photo is included. And in What Makes the Portland Trailblazers Objectively Great?, factors on this NBA team include chemistry, uniforms, branding, and logo. Photos are included. There are also links concerning videos that lack enough accompanying text for the likes of me to understand -- it's more sort of "if you get it then you're with it."
> 
> "Objectively great" is hype for what essays, reports, project proposals routinely have -- a topic, breakdown into factors, examples/photos -- plus some buzz. It has nothing to do with whether the content is objective or subjective, or if quantification is involved. So enough!


You don't even have to put the word objectively before the word great, just saying something is great is an objective claim. When you say it is great you are referring to a standard, a measurement. But if everything is subjective there doesn't exist a standard or measurement, so the words great or rubbish are meaningless in a subjective world.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast (Jun 3, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> What do you mean, "how"? Anything can be _valuable_ if someone can _value_ it. That isn't debatable. What's in question is whether things can reasonably be judged good or bad, better or worse. That question requires another question: in what respect? This seems rather elementary.


I fully agree, maybe I misinterpreted something.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast (Jun 3, 2020)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> You don't even have to put the word objectively before the word great, just saying something is great is an objective claim. When you say it is great you are referring to a standard, a measurement. But if everything is subjective there doesn't exist a standard or measurement, so the words great or rubbish are meaningless in a subjective world.


Great or good don't mean anything. All words have to be analized according to who says them and when and where.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Portamento said:


> Something can be objectively valued if it is tied to a specific function. For example, one sword can be objectively better than another because it makes impaling people easier; the liver of a healthy person is objectively better than an alcoholic's. Can you do the same with music? I'm not completely sure, but I'm leaning towards no.


What is objective in those examples is that one sword is better at impaling people, one liver at doing whatever livers do. Those are facts. What is subjective are the values of impaling people and livers functioning. Valuing those things is a matter, ultimately, of some kind of emotion.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

When someone says that one composition is objectively greater than another because of "artistic criteria," they are not eliminating subjectivity but moving it one level deeper. Instead of attaching value to subjective aesthetic judgements, they are attaching value to whether a composition has succeeded in accomplishing certain criteria; the level of accomplishment, however, is very much subjective. For example, let's evaluate Debussy's _La mer_ and Vaughan Williams' _A Sea Symphony_ -- not by how much we _like_ each piece but by how successful each is at depicting the sea. Given this criteria (or almost any for that matter), who's to say which of the two is objectively more valuable?



science said:


> What is objective in those examples is that one sword is better at impaling people, one liver at doing whatever livers do. Those are facts. What is subjective are the values of impaling people and livers functioning. Valuing those things is a matter, ultimately, of some kind of emotion.


Fully agree. But you have to be a... let's say, unique person to _not_ value what livers do.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> The total subjectivists are not arguing for _contextual_ value. *Even an objectivist knows that there is no such thing as value without context (good? for what? in what way?).* They're arguing for value as a synonym for taste (it's good because I like it).


Whoa, what?

What exactly does context do?

That looks to me like a way of slipping subjectivity in there without acknowledging it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Portamento said:


> When someone says that one composition is objectively greater than another because of "artistic criteria," they are not eliminating subjectivity but moving it one level deeper. Instead of attaching value to subjective aesthetic judgements, they are attaching value to whether a composition has succeeded in accomplishing certain criteria; the level of accomplishment, however, is very much subjective. For example, let's evaluate Debussy's _La mer_ and Vaughan Williams' _A Sea Symphony_ -- not by how much we _like_ each piece but by how successful each is at depicting the sea. Given this criteria (or almost any for that matter), who's to say which of the two is objectively more valuable?


This is an excellent example because if all sufficiently well-informed people could agree that X was objectively -- i.e. based only on indisputable factors in which preferences or opinions play no role -- a better depiction of the sea, there would still be the matter of value, or subjectivity, and no one would be able to objectively prove that depicting the sea is a good thing.



Portamento said:


> Fully agree. But you have to be a... let's say, unique person to _not_ value what livers do.


Yes, our subjective preferences probably overlap considerably on this and many other things. No surprise there, since our brains are similar.

But agreement about subjectivities does not constitute objectivity.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

When will we see the lists--and the listers--of the greatest composers by rank, and the greatest compositions? Is it being worked on now? Objective criteria only, and clearly stated. And remember that, in the case of the compositions themselves, the greatness is inherent within the compositions.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

science said:


> Whoa, what?
> 
> What exactly does context do?
> 
> That looks to me like a way of slipping subjectivity in there without acknowledging it.


Context is a necessary component of the act of valuing. It provides a reason for valuing something and tells us in what way the thing is valuable. To call Bach a "great" composer with no idea of what his greatness consists of in a broader musical context is simple subjectivity. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but we might prefer to understand what Bach did so well that we want to attach that adjective to him.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> When will we see the lists--and the listers--of the greatest composers by rank, and the greatest compositions? Is it being worked on now? Objective criteria only, and clearly stated.


Has anyone made the claim that aesthetic judgments are so uninfluenced by personal preference that there can be any such list or listers as you're suggesting? This is pure, snarky exhibitionism on your part.

When you have to resort to creating straw men out of your opponents, you've lost any pretense of legitimacy in the debate, and should retire from it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Portamento said:


> When someone says that one composition is objectively greater than another because of "artistic criteria," they are not eliminating subjectivity but moving it one level deeper. Instead of attaching value to subjective aesthetic judgements, they are attaching value to whether a composition has succeeded in accomplishing certain criteria; the level of accomplishment, however, is very much subjective. For example, let's evaluate Debussy's _La mer_ and Vaughan Williams' _A Sea Symphony_ -- not by how much we _like_ each piece but by how successful each is at depicting the sea. Given this criteria (or almost any for that matter), who's to say which of the two is objectively more valuable?
> 
> Fully agree. But you have to be a... let's say, unique person to _not_ value what livers do.


Neither _La Mer_ nor VWs _Sea Symphony_ "depicts" the sea. Music isn't photography. It's a composer's personal expression, not a transcription of the external world. It is not possible to compare the two works in the manner you suggest.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

The largest confirmed impact craters (structures) on Earth, identified so far are the Vredefort "Dome" in South Africa, 300 km, the Chicxulub crater of T. Rex fame in Mexico, 150 km, and the Sudbury "Basin" in Canada, 130 km in diameter. There are other, even larger structures, some 600 km in diameter, that await more evidence that they are impact structures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_craters_on_Earth

One of several articles on impact craters. The criteria used to determine the impact nature of these craters, including shocked quartz, etc. are spelled out in many publications. The value of any of this information is not directly connected to or inherent in the information, though often valuable mineral deposits are located within the craters, and evidence of the timing and strength of the flux of astronomical debris striking the Earth can be extrapolated.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Has anyone made the claim that aesthetic judgments are so uninfluenced by personal preference that there can be any such list or listers as you're suggesting? This is pure, snarky exhibitionism on your part.
> 
> When you have to resort to creating straw men out of your opponents, you've lost any pretense of legitimacy in the debate, and should retire from it.


Thank you. But can we stick to the subject? My example above may provide a template.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Neither _La Mer_ nor VWs _Sea Symphony_ "depicts" the sea. Music isn't photography. It's a composer's personal expression, not a transcription of the external world. It is not possible to compare the two works in the manner you suggest.


OK, so you don't like that criteria. Which other one(s) do you think would be more appropriate?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> Right, but if the canon is an illusion -and I agree, first and foremost because I think the idea of a canon has some structural flaws- then what's the difference between subjectivity and total subjectivity? I'm sorry for piling on, but I don't understand really


I did not come up "total subjectivity" it was used by others and I referred to it as not representing my and I think others' view concerning the subjective appreciation of music. Some have used the term "total subjectivity" to imply the I and others do not recognize any hierarchy of works and/or composers. This is a strawman argument used to avoid dealign with the weakness of their position.

We in the subjectivist camp create own own hierarchies as well as recognize existing ones that have been the product of historical canonization of some composers and their music. We simply believe that these hierarchies have been the result of subjective determinations, not objective criteria.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> I did not come up "total subjectivity" it was used by others and I referred to it as not representing my and I think others' view concerning the subjective appreciation of music. Some have used the term "total subjectivity" to imply the I and others do not recognize any hierarchy of works and/or composers. This is a strawman argument used to avoid dealign with the weakness of their position.
> 
> We in the subjectivist camp create own own hierarchies as well as recognize existing ones that have been the product of historical canonization of some composers and their music. We simply believe that these hierarchies have been the result of subjective determinations, not objective criteria.


What difference does it make whether it's your personal preferences or the preferences of a collective, if those preferences are still not shown to be related to any real merit in the music? In neither case does "merit" enter the equation, or, for that matter, even exist. Therefore, "total subjectivism."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Portamento said:


> OK, so you don't like that criteria. Which other one(s) do you think would be more appropriate?


Man, this is your experiment, not mine!


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

DaveM said:


> If one watches the Dead Poet's Society clip closely, it is about applying mathematics to the evaluation of the greatness of poetry. As much as I also love that clip, and the movie, it would be a mistake to apply that to the present discussion since no one is using something like x,y graphs or anything similar here. And we're not talking about poetry.


It's not about applying mathematics. It's about "Evaluating", "Judging", and "Ranking", works. Exactly the words used by others in this thread. You're criticising the method, not the intent.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> What difference does it make whether it's your personal preferences or the preferences of a collective, if those preferences are still not shown to be related to any real merit in the music?


Your conception of what criteria are related to "any real merit in the music" is subjective. I think that evaluating VW's _A Sea Symphony_ on the basis of how well it depicts the sea is perfectly reasonable, but clearly you disagree and have something else in mind.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> Context ... provides a reason for valuing something....


So within a given context, are the values objective?



Woodduck said:


> To call Bach a "great" composer with no idea of what his greatness consists of in a broader musical context is simple subjectivity.


What makes _that_ subjectivity?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Here is the set of criteria for determining whether a structure is indeed an impact crater (astrobleme):

http://passc.net/EarthImpactDatabase/New website_05-2018/Criteria.html

It is to be hoped that something similar that can be viewed (or heard) by multiple observers and agreed to be the same data, similarly measured, can be elucidated for a theory of an objective nature of esthetic value.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Man, this is your experiment, not mine!


If you're going to tell me that one way of evaluating two compositions is invalid, then you have to supply an alternative!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> What difference does it make whether it's your personal preferences or the preferences of a collective, if those preferences are still not shown to be related to any real merit in the music? In neither case does "merit" enter the equation, or, for that matter, even exist. Therefore, "total subjectivism."


How does one objectively measure the merit of an art object? Is it a show of hands? Whose hands? And what percentage of the vote?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> How does one objectively measure the merit of an art object? Is it a show of hands? Whose hands? And what percentage of the vote?


My hands!

And people who agree with me.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> My hands!
> 
> Ne,cons,m ne


All in favor of using Mandryka's hands to evaluate musical greatness?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

When people here issue their demands for the "measurement" of values, they are asking for _quantititative_ measurement, although they may not say so. They are accepting the idea that only quantitative measurement tells us anything true about reality. But values, including aesthetic ones, are not quantifiable but relative - relative to each other and relative to context. "Relative" does not mean arbitrary, whimsical or unreal. We don't _quantify_ Beethoven's success in exploiting the potential of his thematic material, and we don't need to in order to know that he was exceptionally brilliant at that aspect of his art. We need only see what other composers, attempting similar projects, did with their material. Relative to - and in the context of - relevant musical idioms and styles, Beethoven's powers are clear to anyone capable of grasping them. That is one reason - a perfectly justifiable reason - his work is called "great" (a _relative_ term) and why it is highly valued, both by individuals and by history.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Portamento said:


> If you're going to tell me that one way of evaluating two compositions is invalid, then you have to supply an alternative!


I told you _WHY_ it's invalid.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Your unproven assumption is that everything that can be known can be shown.


What would be some examples of the unshowable knowables? With advances in brain scanning, various mental states can located with finer and finer precision in various parts of the brain, so emotional states can be correlated between reported feelings and specific brain anatomy and physiology. I'm trying to think of other examples of things known but incapable of being otherwise made "tangible". I tend to be suspicious of such claims but am open to argument.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> When people here issue their demands for the "measurement" of values, they are asking for _quantititative_ measurement, although they may not say so. They are accepting the idea that only quantitative measurement tells us anything true about reality. But values, including aesthetic ones, are not quantifiable but relative - relative to each other and relative to context. "Relative" does not mean arbitrary, whimsical or unreal. We don't _quantify_ Beethoven's success in exploiting the potential of his thematic material, and we don't need to in order to know that he was exceptionally brilliant at that aspect of his art. We need only see what other composers, attempting similar projects, did with their material. Relative to - and in the context of - relevant musical idioms and styles, Beethoven's powers are clear to anyone capable of grasping them. That is one reason - a perfectly justifiable reason - his work is called "great" (a _relative_ term) and why it is highly valued, both by individuals and by history.


I have no quarrel with this. It is a consensus view of the _relative_ "greatness " of Beethoven, and fully in accord with my thesis of "greatness" being asserted by opinion, whether individual or consensus.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Of course there are elements in music which can be described, but various people will weigh their effectiveness differently. Because these elements can be identified does not constitute objective data. While many classical works will contain similar elements, melody, harmony, thematic development, contrapuntal technique, scale - these elements are unique to each work and cannot be compared to other works except subjectively. 

True objective data is constant. The weight of an object is the force acting on the object due to gravity, which is constant. Our subjective reaction to standing on the scale and seeing we weigh more than we want, will not effect our weight.

How do you objectively measure and demonstrate that a melody by Bach is better than a melody by Mozart? How do you measure and objectively demonstrate that the method of variation and development practiced by Beethoven in his 5th symphony is better than the method and development used by Brahms in his 3rd symphony?

No matter what attributes you choose in order to analyze a piece of music different analysts will place more or less weight to them, or find one better executed than another based on their subjective appraisal. None of these determinations are the result of immutable laws.

This is what each of us do when we listen intently to a piece of music. To say we respond to it subjectively means we use our own internal powers of discernment to weigh the various elements and end up with our judgment of how pleasing the work comes across. Some works impress us more than others. Hence we build our personal hierarchy of works and composers as an adjunct to the various lists and canons available throughout history.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I told you _WHY_ it's invalid.


And that's your opinion.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> How does one objectively measure the merit of an art object? Is it a show of hands? Whose hands? And what percentage of the vote?


There are 9 judges: 2 judge the Difficulty, 5 judge the Execution, and the other 2 are basically backups for the 5 Execution judges in case there's too great a disparity between their scores.

The Difficulty score is based on the difficulty value, the composition requirements, and the "connection value", where two skills are combined. The Execution score evaluates how well the routine was performed in its entirety, along with the individual skills. It also takes artistry into account.

Oh wait, sorry, I just realised that's Olympic gymnastics. But I guess it's that sort of thing, isn't it?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> I have no quarrel with this. It is a consensus view of the _relative_ "greatness " of Beethoven, and fully in accord with my thesis of "greatness" being asserted by opinion, whether individual or consensus.


Hmmmm. "Greatness," if it means anything substantial, is independent of opinion, individual or collective. Beethoven either did or did not handle thematic material with enormous creative resourcefulness relative to Vanhal and Pixis.

(People will call just about anything "great." It's why I prefer not to use the word, but instead speak of ability, skill, power, excellence, merit, etc.)


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Relative to - and in the context of - relevant musical idioms and styles, Beethoven's powers are clear to anyone capable of grasping them.


In other words, Beethoven's music is great when judged with the value system put forth by white, bourgeoisie men in the 19th century. However, if someone applying different criteria comes to the conclusion that Beethoven wasn't so great, I think that's also valid. No criteria are objectively "more relevant" than others.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Hmmmm. "Greatness," if it means anything substantial, is independent of opinion, individual or collective. Beethoven either did or did not handle thematic material with enormous creative resourcefulness relative to Vanhal and Pixis.
> 
> (People will call just about anything "great." It's why I prefer not to use the word, but instead speak of ability, skill, power, excellence, merit, etc.)


On the contrary, "greatness" depends entirely upon opinion, whether individual or summed as some sort of consensus. But I'm all in favor of abolishing the term, other than as a fallback when discussing an art object unless one has no other nouns immediately at hand yet chooses not to say "I love it!". I also never want to hear the word "incredible" again--it has lost all its credibility.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Portamento said:


> In other words, Beethoven's music is great when judged with the value system put forth by white, bourgeoisie men in the 19th century. However, if someone applying different criteria comes to the conclusion that Beethoven wasn't so great, I think that's also valid. No criteria are objectively "more relevant" than others.


So...only white bourgeois 19th century men could find Beethoven "great". It's not possible that a Chinese musician in Shanghai can't? And if that Chinese musician can, how to account for it?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

consuono said:


> So...only white bourgeois 19th century men could find Beethoven "great". It's not possible that a Chinese musician in Shanghai can't? And if that Chinese musician can, how to account for it?


There is no reason why a Chinese man cannot have a positive subjective reaction to a work by Beethoven.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

consuono said:


> So...only white bourgeois 19th century men could find Beethoven "great". It's not possible that a Chinese musician in Shanghai can't? And if that Chinese musician can, how to account for it?


When did I say that's not possible? Beethoven's music can be considered "great" using more than one criterion. Thanks for reading my post carefully.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Woodduck said:


> (People will call just about anything "great." It's why I prefer not to use the word, but instead speak of ability, skill, power, excellence, merit, etc.)


That's a great suggestion!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Chilham said:


> It's not about applying mathematics. It's about "Evaluating", "Judging", and "Ranking", works. Exactly the words used by others in this thread. You're criticising the method, not the intent.


I'm criticizing the method because any application of mathematics to the arts implies absolute objectivity which no one I know of is promoting here. I would have thought that was self-evident.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

consuono said:


> So...only white bourgeois 19th century men could find Beethoven "great". It's not possible that a Chinese musician in Shanghai can't? And if that Chinese musician can, how to account for it?


But the objectivist thesis requires that the Chinese musician finds the music of Beethoven great--the greatness is inherent in the work itself and should, in theory, work its magic on everyone.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Portamento said:


> When did I say that's not possible? Beethoven's music can be considered "great" using more than one criterion. Thanks for reading my post carefully.


No, you're the one that threw out the 19th century white bourgeois male angle, and I just wonder why. I don't know what that would have to do one way or other with Beethoven's skill as a composer or lack thereof.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> On the contrary, "greatness" depends entirely upon opinion, whether individual or summed as some sort of consensus. But I'm all in favor of abolishing the term, other than as a fallback when discussing an art object unless one has no other nouns immediately at hand yet chooses not to say "I love it!". I also never want to hear the word "incredible" again--it has lost all its credibility.


"Greatness" is just a word, and so the choice to apply it is indeed entirely "subjective" (personal). The achievement to which it may or may not be applied is not subjective, and we can recognize the magnitude of that achievement or not. It will always be there, waiting for us to "get it." No obligation to, of course.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Portamento said:


> In other words, Beethoven's music is great when judged with the value system put forth by white, bourgeoisie men in the 19th century. However, if someone applying different criteria comes to the conclusion that Beethoven wasn't so great, I think that's also valid. No criteria are objectively "more relevant" than others.


There certainly can be relevant criteria and irrelevant ones in evaluating anything.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> There are 9 judges: 2 judge the Difficulty, 5 judge the Execution, and the other 2 are basically backups for the 5 Execution judges in case there's too great a disparity between their scores.
> 
> The Difficulty score is based on the difficulty value, the composition requirements, and the "connection value", where two skills are combined. The Execution score evaluates how well the routine was performed in its entirety, along with the individual skills. It also takes artistry into account.
> 
> Oh wait, sorry, I just realised that's Olympic gymnastics. But I guess it's that sort of thing, isn't it?


Just for interest sakes: is it accepted that Simone Biles is the greatest female gymnast to date? Maybe someone doesn't think jumping and doing multiple twists in the air is all that great a skill. How far will someone's subjective, uneducated opinion be allowed here?

The scoring by experts raises another interesting analogy with the present discussion: The fact that there are 9 judges infers that there are some subjective differences in evaluating the performance. But all the judges would agree that Biles is among the greatest all-time gymnasts using objective criteria.

FWIW, I don't mind using the words great and greatest. They are used in books and encyclopedias describing composers. I would hope that people can distinguish the difference between that use and the 'throw-away' use: 'Oh yeah, he's great!'


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

consuono said:


> No, you're the one that threw out the 19th century white bourgeois male angle, and I just wonder why. I don't know what that would have to do one way or other with Beethoven's skill as a composer or lack thereof.


I was just pointing out that it was 19th-century white bourgeois males who first put forth the idea of thematic development/unity as a criterion for greatness. Am I wrong?



Woodduck said:


> There certainly can be relevant criteria and irrelevant ones in evaluating anything.


Not objectively.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Portamento said:


> Something can be objectively valued if it is tied to a specific function. For example, one sword can be objectively better than another because it makes impaling people easier; the liver of a healthy person is objectively better than an alcoholic's. Can you do the same with music? I'm not completely sure, but I'm leaning towards no.


Value is attached by the person. Value can of course be attached to music. People attach enormous value to music show convey emotional and entertainment meaning. Commercial companies attach monetary value to music. Pure and simple.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> But the objectivist thesis requires that the Chinese musician finds the music of Beethoven great--the greatness is inherent in the work itself and should, in theory, work its magic on everyone.


No, because there are no such "objectivists," at least none of my acquaintance. There are always "subjective" (personal) factors present in any act of perception. This does not negate Beethoven's achievement, as judged by appropriate criteria, or negate the general human capacity to appreciate such achievements.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> Of course there are elements in music which can be described, but various people will weigh their effectiveness differently. Because these elements can be identified does not constitute objective data. While many classical works will contain similar elements, melody, harmony, thematic development, contrapuntal technique, scale - these elements are unique to each work and cannot be compared to other works except subjectively.
> 
> True objective data is constant. The weight of an object is the force acting on the object due to gravity, which is constant. Our subjective reaction to standing on the scale and seeing we weigh more than we want, will not effect our weight.
> 
> ...


Again, the premise of using the word "measure" to show greatness as if there is a Geiger Counter equipment to do so is flawed. Musical analyses, history study, posterity and wider recognition are but some of the artistic criteria to prove whether a work is great or not.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DaveM said:


> I'm criticizing the method because any application of mathematics to the arts implies absolute objectivity which no one I know of is promoting here. I would have thought that was self-evident.


I think that I and possibly RogerWaters and others are looking for measurable, quantifiable, discernible criteria that will be agreed upon by all fair observers to be valid that then can be used to define for all audiences the intrinsic value of an art object. We have seen in pictorial art that enormous skill at brushwork, color, detail, etc. can produce massive quantities of kitsch. We discussed at length the four Davids of Michelangelo, Donatello, Bernini, and Verrocchio, and found differing opinions on which artist best depicted David, which the most expert carving, which the most emotionally accessible. Other than consensus, and experts, the objective value/"greatness" of art objects calls out for robust, universally accepted data that will literally quantify the assessment. Otherwise, we are left with _de gustibus..._.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> No, because there are no such "objectivists," at least none of my acquaintance. There are always "subjective" (personal) factors present in any act of perception. This does not negate Beethoven's achievement, as judged by appropriate criteria, or negate the general human capacity to appreciate such achievements.


Unless I am misunderstanding, you seem to think that some criteria are objectively more "appropriate" than others. Is that right?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> No, because there are no such "objectivists," at least none of my acquaintance. There are always "subjective" (personal) factors present in any act of perception. This does not negate Beethoven's achievement, as judged by appropriate criteria, or negate the general human capacity to appreciate such achievements.


Tree falling in the forest: If, through some freak phenomenon, no one could be located who would attest to the greatness of Beethoven's 9th, would its excellence still be inherent within the work? I am content to assert that many (some) works that I love do not so engage others. Human nature being what it is, I like to think the excellence of such works is inherent within them, but I know that this is not really the case--it's just another example of the idiosyncratic nature of our reactions to art objects.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

'Great' means 'very big', doesn't it?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

HenryPenfold said:


> 'Great' means 'very big', doesn't it?


It could do. Schubert's 9th symphony has been named "the Great".


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> Tree falling in the forest: If, through some freak phenomenon, no one could be located who would attest to the greatness of Beethoven's 9th, would its excellence still be inherent within the work? I am content to assert that many (some) works that I love do not so engage others. Human nature being what it is, I like to think the excellence of such works is inherent within them, but I know that this is not really the case--it's just another example of the idiosyncratic nature of our reactions to art objects.


Flawed analogy which completely ignores context. The "tree falling in the forest" didn't originate with human beings, wasn't created by a human being for other human beings to experience, and contains no "language" of expression. A Beethoven's 9th that sat unheard in a library for 200 years would still be an extraordinary symphony, and its belated discovery would be a major event.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Tree falling in the forest: If, through some freak phenomenon, no one could be located who would attest to the greatness of Beethoven's 9th, would its excellence still be inherent within the work? I am content to assert that many (some) works that I love do not so engage others. Human nature being what it is, I like to think the excellence of such works is inherent within them, but I know that this is not really the case--it's just another example of the idiosyncratic nature of our reactions to art objects.


Beethoven's 9th is studied, performed and recorded by eastern countries, Africa and other places who previously had little to zero appreciation and awareness of western classical music heritage. Again, consistency of posterity accept it or not, the great 9th symphony will march on well beyond 2021.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Portamento said:


> Unless I am misunderstanding, you seem to think that some criteria are objectively more "appropriate" than others. Is that right?


Don't you try to apply suitable criteria to all your values and choices? Are the qualities you want in everything the same?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Portamento said:


> I was just pointing out that it was 19th-century white bourgeois males who first put forth the idea of thematic development/unity as a criterion for greatness. Am I wrong?
> ...


Not having studied Chinese or Indian music (for example) I don't know if you're wrong or not. I don't see what race or ethnicity has to do with it.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Don't you try to apply suitable criteria to all your values and choices? Are the qualities you want in everything the same?


Of course I try to apply suitable criteria, but if someone else applies different criteria then I'm not going to assume that mine are more "appropriate."


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

DaveM said:


> ... any application of mathematics to the arts implies absolute objectivity ...


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


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Good grief! Angels, heads of pins etc. I just can't be doing with the idea that there is some truly objective measure of 'greatness' in music. Having had a career in the sciences, the value of pi is objective, the chemistry of photosynthesis is objective, the relative merits of Brahms and Mahler are subjective. 
By all means disagree with me. That's your subjective opinion and you're entitled to it.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Pat Fairlea said:


> Good grief! Angels, heads of pins etc. I just can't be doing with the idea that there is some truly objective measure of 'greatness' in music. Having had a career in the sciences, the value of pi is objective, the chemistry of photosynthesis is objective, the relative merits of Brahms and Mahler are subjective.
> By all means disagree with me. That's your subjective opinion and you're entitled to it.


That's right - you cannot use scientific measures but you can and must use artistic ones. One is science and the other is art. You cannot use a Geiger Counter to measure greatness like a scientific might measure radioactivity. Artistic evaluation and analysis exist to determine whether a work has any good merits and why it has survived through posterity. This approach is not difficult to understand.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Portamento said:


> Of course I try to apply suitable criteria, but if someone else applies different criteria then I'm not going to assume that mine are more "appropriate."


If you don't think you're applying the most appropriate criteria, then why not just flip a coin? Don't you trust your own judgment more than that?

Coming back to music, would you judge Berg's _Wozzeck_ as "crude" because its music (mostly) lacks tonality? Or _Don Giovanni _"immoral" because it makes a rapist the subject of a comedy? Or Beethoven's late works "crazy" because they juxtapose wildly disparate material and incorporate fugues that don't follow academic notions of what a fugue should sound like? Conceivably you could make such judgments, and some people actually have. But wouldn't they be examples of applying criteria irrelevant to the works in question, and show a simple lack of understanding?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Flawed analogy which completely ignores context. The "tree falling in the forest" didn't originate with human beings, wasn't created by a human being for other human beings to experience, and contains no "language" of expression. A Beethoven's 9th that sat unheard in a library for 200 years would still be an extraordinary symphony, and its belated discovery would be a major event.


What if the Count of T'ang uncovered the symphony? Would he regard it as an extraordinary piece of music, assuming he could decipher the notation--extraordinary in a sense other than its obviously alien origin? He might shudder in disgust. And is the 9th greater than the 3rd? If so, how so? Can we tell?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Some classical music was introduced to the emperor of China in the late 19th century. Records were vague but it did show the emperor and his entourage were impressed with such music.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> That's right - you cannot use scientific measures but you can and must use artistic ones. One is science and the other is art. You cannot use a Geiger Counter to measure greatness like a scientific might measure radioactivity. Artistic evaluation and analysis exist to determine whether a work has any good merits and why it has survived through posterity. This approach is not difficult to understand.


Maybe not difficult to understand ("I am an expert on these matters and I say this is a great symphony") but difficult to implement. If "artistic evaluation and analysis" were genuinely objective, the world of creative arts would not be taken in by frauds and there would be no argument over the 'greatness' of this or that body of work. But they are and there is. I have yet to hear a long-running argument over the atomic mass of astatine or the 'greatness' of quartz-gabbro. 
I'm not making a value-judgement between the sciences and arts. Just asserting that the objectivity of the former is much more problematic when claimed by the latter.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

ArtMusic said:


> Some classical music was introduced to the emperor of China in the late 19th century. Records were vague but it did show the emperor and his entourage were impressed with such music.


The reigning Emperor of Japan plays the viola


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Pat Fairlea said:


> Maybe not difficult to understand ("I am an expert on these matters and I say this is a great symphony") but difficult to implement. If "artistic evaluation and analysis" were genuinely objective, the world of creative arts would not be taken in by frauds and there would be no argument over the 'greatness' of this or that body of work. But they are and there is. I have yet to hear a long-running argument over the atomic mass of astatine or the 'greatness' of quartz-gabbro.
> I'm not making a value-judgement between the sciences and arts. Just asserting that the objectivity of the former is much more problematic when claimed by the latter.


It is only problematic if you take a scientific approach to evaluate art. Much like religion is based on faith, you cannot use science to prove or otherwise the existence of God. Art can be evaluated to assess its merits. And it's only since the mid-20th century with postmodernism, the mass commercialization of a "new and modern way" of thinking after the Second World War in the west has there been a shift towards egalitarianism with the avant-garde movement.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> What if the Count of T'ang uncovered the symphony? Would he regard it as an extraordinary piece of music, assuming he could decipher the notation--extraordinary in a sense other than its obviously alien origin? He might shudder in disgust. And is the 9th greater than the 3rd? If so, how so? Can we tell?


We'd have to know more about the Count. Certainly people have been deeply impressed by the art of cultures not their own, and with a bit of exposure have come to understand how that art exhibits the genius of its creators. Westerners have flocked to India, enchanted by the improvised fantasias of its sitar masters, and Asia has returned the tribute by devoting major ensembles to the performance of Western music. I doubt that Mitsuko Uchida had much difficulty penetrating the secrets of Mozart, Schubert and Debussy. Music may not be "the universal language," but its various languages seem quite easy to learn to understand and appreciate. Maybe because we're all human?

Who can say whether the 9th or the "Eroica" is "greater"? They're both "great," each in its way, each carrying out its own program. Personally, I feel that the 9th may be the bigger achievement, although in relation to what the symphony was before it the "Eroica" might claim that distinction. People who don't like the 9th's finale may incline toward the "Eroica," but when we're dealing with creative acts of this calibre competition for "greatness" seems an idle game.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

^ When you are dining at a 5 star restaurant, all the foods are likely to be delicious ... while you might dislike one or some dishes (or be allergic to them), other people can enjoy those, and it is not by chance that the restaurant has earned 5 stars.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Pat Fairlea said:


> If "artistic evaluation and analysis" were genuinely objective, the world of creative arts would not be taken in by frauds and there would be no argument over the 'greatness' of this or that body of work. But they are and there is. I have yet to hear a long-running argument over the atomic mass of astatine or the 'greatness' of quartz-gabbro.


The idea that art can't be inherently good because people argue about its level of goodness is simply fallacious. There are various reasons why people are taken in by frauds, and there are different criteria different people will bring, _a priori, _to any experience. Meanwhile the magnificent Rembrandt and Vermeer wait patiently for the air to clear.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> ^ When you are dining at a 5 star restaurant, all the foods are likely to be delicious ... while you might dislike one or some dishes (or be allergic to them), other people can enjoy those, and it is not by chance that the restaurant has earned 5 stars.


Careful with the food analogies... (I hope S. M. isn't listening.)


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I am aware that Beethoven and Bach are considered "great" composers. And I really enjoy listening to Bach's music, the keyboard works, the cello suites, the solo violin sonatas and partitas, and more. The Beethoven piano sonatas, and string quartets. These works have provided me with many hours of high quality enjoyment.

But to be honest, I can say the same thing about the music of Miles Davis and other non-classical artists.

I do not think that the music of Bach or Beethoven is "greater" or better or of higher artistic quality than the music of Miles Davis. And there is nothing anyone could show me that would convince me otherwise.

I am not sure what good are these debates about "greatness" either objective or subjective; classical vs non-classical music.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> I do not think that the music of Bach or Beethoven is "greater" or better or of higher artistic quality than the music of Miles Davis. And there is nothing anyone could show me that would convince me otherwise.


So you're challenging everyone to prove objectively that Bach is "greater" while beforehand dismissing any evidence. Besides, isn't your statement that Miles Davis is somehow "equal" also an objective statement? You can't be sure either way.

"Miles Davis's music is garbage like the Backstreet Boys." Prove me wrong. Come to think of it, don't bother. Nothing you can demonstrate can demolish the personal subjective truth I just expressed.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Just to stir things up a bit I get the impression that the more eclectic one’s musical taste then the less inclined one is to apply ‘greatness’ when judging different genres of music. I totally agree with SanAntone’s last post.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

consuono said:


> So you're challenging everyone to prove objectively that Bach is "greater" while beforehand dismissing any evidence. Besides, isn't your statement that Miles Davis is somehow "equal" also an objective statement? You can't be sure either way.
> 
> "Miles Davis's music is garbage like the Backstreet Boys." Prove me wrong.


No, it's Bach that is garbage. The Backstreet Boys are terrific. I do believe you are misconstruing what SanAntone is saying. Deliberately or otherwise. So typical of many reactionary classical fans who have this strange superior attitude.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Barbebleu said:


> Just to stir things up a bit I get the impression that the more eclectic one's musical taste then the less inclined one is to apply 'greatness' when judging different genres of music. I totally agree with SanAntone's last post.


Isnt that putting a sort of "great" self-congratulating label on "eclecticism"? I mean it's still a value judgement. The eclectics are just more "enlightened" or something.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

consuono said:


> Isnt that putting a sort of "great" self-congratulating label on "eclecticism"? I mean it's still a value judgement. The eclectics are just more "enlightened" or something.


Absolutely. xxxxxxxxxx


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Barbebleu said:


> No, it's Bach that is garbage. The Backstreet Boys are terrific. I do believe you are misconstruing what SanAntone is saying. Deliberately or otherwise. So typical of many reactionary classical fans who have this strange superior attitude.


No I'm not. I'm applying the flip side of SanAntone's logic. If you don't like it, find a subjective way to do so. You see, this kind of stuff is great if applied to sacred cows that you feel might need to be slaughtered, but a lot of people declaring it their subjective opinion that jazz is garbage -- and convincing others of that -- would probably get your knickers in a twist, I'd imagine.


----------



## cavillor (Aug 6, 2015)

consuono said:


> So you're challenging everyone to prove objectively that Bach is "greater" while beforehand dismissing any evidence. Besides, isn't your statement that Miles Davis is somehow "equal" also an objective statement? You can't be sure either way.
> 
> "Miles Davis's music is garbage like the Backstreet Boys." Prove me wrong.


I think some idea can be had from examining how abstract and imaginative the music is, it is, after all the most abstract of all the arts. And also how many years of difficult study and practice, that reflects the complexity and depth of the music, is required to execute it.

Free form monophonic jazz improvisation can be imaginative, but does it compare to the imagination, effort and accomplishment of creating counterpoint in a string quartet or fugue or a 24 stave orchestral score?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

cavillor said:


> Free form monophonic jazz improvisation can be imaginative, but does it compare to the imagination, effort and accomplishment of creating counterpoint in a string quartet or fugue or a 24 stave orchestral score?


My nephew, who took maybe 3 trumpet lessons and whose playing career lasted about half an hour, leaves Miles Davis in the dust and nothing you can say can convince me otherwise.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> If you don't think you're applying the most appropriate criteria, then why not just flip a coin? Don't you trust your own judgment more than that?
> 
> Coming back to music, would you judge Berg's _Wozzeck_ as "crude" because its music (mostly) lacks tonality? Or _Don Giovanni _"immoral" because it makes a rapist the subject of a comedy? Or Beethoven's late works "crazy" because they juxtapose wildly disparate material and incorporate fugues that don't follow academic notions of what a fugue should sound like? Conceivably you could make such judgments, and some people actually have. But wouldn't they be examples of applying criteria irrelevant to the works in question, and show a simple lack of understanding?


I trust my own judgment plenty and think I'm applying the most appropriate criteria. However, everyone else thinks the same, which makes the idea of some criteria being more appropriate than others silly. I don't agree with any of the conclusions you list, but if someone arrived at them by consistently applying certain criteria then I wouldn't necessarily call those criteria "inappropriate."



cavillor said:


> Free form monophonic jazz improvisation can be imaginative, but does it compare to the imagination, effort and accomplishment of creating counterpoint in a string quartet or fugue or a 24 stave orchestral score?


Yes. Improvisation does a lot of things that classical music can't.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> We don't _quantify_ Beethoven's success in exploiting the potential of his thematic material, and we don't need to in order to know that he was exceptionally brilliant at that aspect of his art.


The question is whether it is an undeniable fact about reality that we should value that aspect of his art.



Woodduck said:


> Relative to - and in the context of - relevant musical idioms and styles, ...


This appears to include the idea that "exploiting the potential of his thematic material" is something we should value.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

science said:


> Yes. Improvisation does a lot of things that classical music can't.


For one thing improvisation was a feature of classical music for centuries. For another, classical can do things that free form jazz can't.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

consuono said:


> So you're challenging everyone to prove objectively that Bach is "greater" while beforehand dismissing any evidence. Besides, isn't your statement that Miles Davis is somehow "equal" also an objective statement? You can't be sure either way.
> 
> "Miles Davis's music is garbage like the Backstreet Boys." Prove me wrong. Come to think of it, don't bother. Nothing you can demonstrate can demolish the personal subjective truth I just expressed.


No, I am not asking for anyone to prove me wrong. That is the last thing I want. I am very happy with my enjoyment of Bach, Beethoven and Miles Davis. And further, any attempt to prove me wrong would fall on deaf ears since I do not buy into the existence of any "objective" proof.

I was simply making a statement about how music from various genres is equal in my appreciation and that this entire discussion has gone nowhere, occurring over several threads, amounting to dozens of pages of posts.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Barbebleu said:


> Just to stir things up a bit I get the impression that the more eclectic one's musical taste then the less inclined one is to apply 'greatness' when judging different genres of music. I totally agree with SanAntone's last post.


How would you show that one's taste is eclectic? Is there an objective way to show me that one's taste is eclectic? Or is it really just that the more you like avant-garde music, the more likely you are to reject objective greantess?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

One puzzling thing though: if Bach and Davis worked in different genres and genres that are so different can't really be compared, how can you say Miles Davis is of the same artistic quality? Is everything of the same artistic quality, period?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

I don’t know why anyone would inject comparisons of different music forms into the discussion. Miles Davis’ counterpoint sucked as did Bach’s horn.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

science said:


> The question is whether it is an undeniable fact about reality that we should value that aspect of his art.
> 
> This appears to include the idea that "exploiting the potential of his thematic material" is something we should value.


There is no implication that anyone should value anything. Beethoven's achievement is extraordinary whether anyone personally values it or not. Many people have, quite predictably, valued it highly - for two centuries now - and will go on valuing it, because of its exceptional qualities.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DaveM said:


> I don't know why anyone would inject comparisons of different music forms into the discussion. Miles Davis' counterpoint sucked as did Bach's horn.


Point succinctly made.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

DaveM said:


> I don't know why anyone would inject comparisons of different music forms into the discussion. Miles Davis' counterpoint sucked as did Bach's horn.


I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised to find out Bach could play a mean valveless trumpet. I think the root of it is just elevating some things by leveling others. Or vice versa. At heart it's a philosophico-politico-something or other.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

consuono said:


> For one thing improvisation was a feature of classical music for centuries. For another, classical can do things that free form jazz can't.


What point are you trying to prove? That the things classical can do that jazz can't are "better" than vice versa?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Portamento said:


> What point are you trying to prove? That the things classical can do that jazz can't are "better" than vice versa?


Why are you asking me? I wasn't the one who dragged jazz into it.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

consuono said:


> Why are you asking me? I wasn't the one who dragged jazz into it.


Me neither lol.

Anyway, I'm done here. I knew none of this would be fruitful, but hey -- it was fun I suppose.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

consuono said:


> One puzzling thing though: if Bach and Davis worked in different genres and genres that are so different can't really be compared, how can you say Miles Davis is of the same artistic quality? Is everything of the same artistic quality, period?


What is so hard to understand: I enjoy them both, equally well.

It doesn't matter whether one is jazz and the other is classical, it's music that I enjoy. I certainly don't try to compare them, wondering if Bach's counterpoint is better than a jazz group's - although the counterpoint in Louis Armstrong's Hot Five and Hot Seven recordings is pretty fantastic. Plus there is a joyous swing in those Armstrong recordings that doesn't exist in Bach or Brahms.

I listen to Bach when I want to hear Bach and then listen to Miles, and Louis Armstrong, then some Hank Williams, Muddy Waters, Brahms, etc.

I enjoy it all, without wondering why.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> The idea that art can't be inherently good because people argue about its level of goodness is simply fallacious. There are various reasons why people are taken in by frauds, and there are different criteria different people will bring, _a priori, _to any experience. Meanwhile the magnificent Rembrandt and Vermeer wait patiently for the air to clear.


That this art or that or any art is inherently good is what is to be demonstrated. Your post assumes _a priori_ that whatever art we're talking about is inherently good. It may be considered good, but can we determine that it is inherently good?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> There is no implication that anyone should value anything. Beethoven's achievement is extraordinary whether anyone personally values it or not. Many people have, quite predictably, valued it highly - for two centuries now - and will go on valuing it, because of its exceptional qualities.


This I find curious. Beethoven's achievement is extraordinary, yet no one need value it. But it is valued because of its extraordinary, exceptional qualities. This smacks of circular reasoning.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> What is so hard to understand: I enjoy them both, equally well.


Some people may not enjoy both. In fact a majority may not enjoy both. A majority may say one or the other is better. I enjoy Looney Tunes and the Three Stooges but I'm not under the illusion that it's on the same artistic level as Shakespeare, and I don't have to try to elevate those by pretending that they're the artistic equal of Shakespeare. Jazz has never been my thing but I enjoy the Beatles and Bowie and Cream and Talking Heads and the Clash and on and on...but no, they're not in the same artistic universe as Bach or Beethoven or Mozart.


> Plus there is a joyous swing in those Armstrong recordings that doesn't exist in Bach or Brahms.
> ...


Maybe you should listen to some more Bach.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

> Beethoven's achievement is extraordinary whether anyone personally values it or not. Many people have, quite predictably, valued it highly - for two centuries now - and will go on valuing it, because of its exceptional qualities.


Music is not a zero sum game.

Whether someone values Beethoven or not is irrelevant. If someone doesn't value Beethoven they aren't missing anything since they value other music. The implication by your post is that a person's life is diminished by not valuing Beethoven.

I simply do not believe that.

Beethoven is one composer writing one kind of classical music. The world is filled with music, something there for everyone to savor and enjoy. Beethoven is not the be-all end-all.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

consuono said:


> Maybe you should listen to some more Bach.


Maybe you should not be presumptuous and look up the concept of the subjective response to music. You obviously have trouble with someone expressing their opinion about Bach, Louis Armstrong, and joyous swing.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I believe in objective greatness in music. Music that meets one objective is good. Music that meets multiple ones at the same time are better. So that is somewhat quantifiable. I believe the ear and/or brain of the listener can process the music and find what objectives they meet. It gets hazy when one musical work meets a different set of objectives than another, which is better. So I wouldn't say Mozart is greater than Stravinsky. If there wasn't any sort of objective greatness, then any composer, even amateurs, can be considered to be on equal ground as the Masters, which is absurd.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> This I find curious. Beethoven's achievement is extraordinary, yet no one need value it. But it is valued because of its extraordinary, exceptional qualities. This smacks of circular reasoning.


Where's the circularity? No one need value anything in particular, but may value what they choose to. There are all sorts of wonderful things in the world that I don't value, except perhaps distantly, glad that they exist to make the world better and more interesting. At the same time, there will be people with the time, knowledge and inclination to value those good things I choose not to bother with. Science asked whether I believed that we "should" value Beethoven just because his music is good. I said no. The existence of good things needn't affect our tastes, preferences and choices. What's circular about that?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> Music is not a zero sum game.
> 
> Whether someone values Beethoven or not is irrelevant. If someone doesn't value Beethoven they aren't missing anything since they value other music. The implication by your post is that a person's life is diminished by not valuing Beethoven.
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone has suggested that music is a zero sum game.

No, I haven't implied that a life without Beethoven is "diminished." As I said to Strange Magic, my life - or yours, or anyone's - is necessarily without all sorts of things, some of them no doubt wonderful. One person's life without Beethoven might be much richer than another person's _with _Beethoven but without something else. What you suggest I believe, but don't, would be a really odd way of looking at life.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> That this art or that or any art is inherently good is what is to be demonstrated. Your post assumes _a priori_ that whatever art we're talking about is inherently good. It may be considered good, but can we determine that it is inherently good?


So you don't think Bach's Brandeburgs or Beethoven's 9th are inherently masterpieces?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> That this art or that or any art is inherently good is what is to be demonstrated. Your post assumes _a priori_ that whatever art we're talking about is inherently good. It may be considered good, but can we determine that it is inherently good?


I mentioned "the magnificent Rembrandt and Vermeer." Can we determine that they are inherently good? My terse but honest response would be, "If you know what you're seeing you can't miss it." I'd also bet that plenty of people who have little idea what they're seeing also don't miss it, which is a testament to art's ability to reach into our subconscious storehouse of perceptions, ideas and emotions while requiring little knowledge and bypassing much conscious analysis.

These are two very well-known and respected artists whose work has been analyzed again and again over centuries. I see no purpose in rehashing it all here (assuming I even could) in order to persuade people who are philosophically opposed to granting artists the distinction their work evidences so unmistakably. That anyone could seriously hold that Vermeer should be called a magnificent painter - a visionary and a wizard in paint - only because some consensus of opinion over four centuries says he is, just leaves me numb with astonishment. It also seems very insulting to humanity's capacity for perception and understanding, and it begs for an answer to the question of why that consensus which you regard so highly exists and persists. The obvious answer is that there are important qualities in the paintings which people around the world and over the centuries recognize as worthy of their esteem, and some of these qualities are evident to any person with a modicum of knowledge and understanding. Do they make Vermeer inherently good? Of course they do. Court cases have been decided on less evidence.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I mentioned "the magnificent Rembrandt and Vermeer." Can we determine that they are inherently good? My terse but honest response would be, "If you know what you're seeing you can't miss it." I might add that plenty of people who have little idea what they're seeing also don't miss it, which is a testament to art's ability to reach into our subconscious storehouse of perceptions while requiring little knowledge and bypassing much conscious analysis.
> 
> These are two very well-known and respected artists whose work has been analyzed again and again over centuries. I see no purpose in rehashing it all here (assuming I even could) in order to persuade people who are philosophically opposed to granting artists the distinction their work evidences so unmistakably. That anyone could seriously hold that Vermeer should be called a magnificent painter - a visionary and a wizard in paint - only because some consensus of opinion over five centuries says he is, just leaves me numb with astonishment. It also seems very insulting to humanity's capacity for perception and understanding, and it begs for an answer to the question of why that consensus which you regard so highly exists and persists.


You're on a slippery slope mentioning artists like Rembrandt and Vermeer. There are one or two here who will rake you over the coals for even daring to call them 'magnificent painters'. Perhaps you remember some time ago when I put up a paintings by Gainsborough and an elephant: a few thought the elephant could be considered on a par with Gainsborough with the only criterion being which painting one liked.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DaveM said:


> You're on a slippery slope mentioning artists like Rembrandt and Vermeer. There are one or two here who will rake you over the coals for even daring to call them 'magnificent painters'. Perhaps you remember some time ago when I put up a painting by an elephant: a few thought the elephant could be considered on a par with Gainsborough with the only criterion being which painting one liked.


Well, if they want to rake me over the coals they'll also be taking on four centuries of my predecessors in praise. That would be interesting. Of course one could bring up the infamous forger Van Meegeren, who fooled a lot of people into thinking they'd discovered a lost "religious period" in Vermeer's career. That was certainly a case of wishful thinking.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Related to the above:
When I use the terms ‘great’ and ‘magnificent as applied to artists whether the result is music or paintings, I am talking about the skill and talent that creates works superior to those trying to accomplish the same thing within the same genre and, in doing so, I am using comparisons that have obvious objective elements. The extreme subjective position almost completely removes skill and talent from the equation because to include them is to inject something that can be compared and thus, a level of objectivity.

Also, I submit that one’s taste or preference is irrelevant when using the term ‘great’ when considering the results of skill and talent. One should be able to appreciate a remarkable artistic creation as the result of obvious skill whether they like it or not.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

This painting ticks all the criteria for great art. It encapsulates craftsmanship, communication and beauty. We don't even need to use the word "great" as anyone with eyes can see.









Likewise, music has its equivalent. Some are more immediate apparent than others. Such is the beauty of art, that it transcends dry scientific approaches to prove, but only with artistic merit that a cultured mind can appreciate upon first instance and or after further study.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Just for interest sakes: is it accepted that Simone Biles is the greatest female gymnast to date? Maybe someone doesn't think jumping and doing multiple twists in the air is all that great a skill. How far will someone's subjective, uneducated opinion be allowed here?
> 
> The scoring by experts raises another interesting analogy with the present discussion: The fact that there are 9 judges infers that there are some subjective differences in evaluating the performance. But all the judges would agree that Biles is among the greatest all-time gymnasts using objective criteria.
> 
> FWIW, I don't mind using the words great and greatest. They are used in books and encyclopedias describing composers. I would hope that people can distinguish the difference between that use and the 'throw-away' use: 'Oh yeah, he's great!'


Let's say yes, Simone Biles is accepted as the greatest female gymnast to date. But I'm not sure about the "objective criteria" bit. Yes, there are fixed criteria by which all gymnasts must be judged, but if we allow that subjectivity is required for judging then I have trouble with the word "objective" (and I acknowledge that at this point we could just be splitting hairs over the meaning of that word, and we're otherwise pretty much in agreement!). Plus also there are 4 specific events in which Simone Biles is judged: why those 4 and not 4 others? Why not the pommel horse or something like it, or trampolining, or doing Buster Keaton-style stunts? This is the bit that represents a major bone of contention in all our arguments over "greatness" - whether music that aims to achieve goals other than the standard ones of "beautiful" melody, counterpoint etc deserves to be considered great, or even music for that matter.

So yes, Simone Biles is the greatest female gymnast to date _in the context of the internationally accepted rules of competitive artistic gymnastics_.

Then I read this on Wikipedia:


> In 2006, the Code of Points and the entire gymnastics scoring system were completely overhauled. The change stemmed from the judging controversy at 2004 Olympics in Athens, which brought the reliability and objectivity of the scoring system into question, and arguments that execution had been sacrificed for difficulty in artistic gymnastics. It follows a similarly radical scoring change in figure skating that also was prompted by irregularities in judging at major events.
> 
> Since its inception in major events in 2006, the Code has faced strong opposition from many prominent coaches, athletes and judges. Proponents of the new system believe it is a necessary step in advancing gymnastics, promoting difficult skills and increasing judging objective. Opponents feel that people outside the gymnastics community will not understand the scoring and will lose interest in the sport, and that, without emphasising artistry, the essence of gymnastics will change. Many opponents of the new scoring system feel that this system, in essence, chooses the winners before competition ever begins.


So now we can say that Simone Biles is the greatest female gymnast to date _in the context of the internationally accepted rules of competitive artistic gymnastics and bearing in mind that the current objective scoring system is completely different to the previous objective scoring system..._

Of course, even for people who know or care nothing about gymnastics scoring, it seems pretty obvious that Simone Biles is a great gymnast. But in order to _prove_ that, there has to be a method of evaluation, and that method inevitably will have a subjectivity that the method of proving that Usain Bolt is a fast runner doesn't have.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> So you don't think Bach's Brandeburgs or Beethoven's 9th are inherently masterpieces?


I really like most of the Brandenburg concertos and parts of Beethoven's 9th. I do not regard any art objects as inherently masterpieces. If I regard some art objects as "masterpieces", it is because I imbue them with my own criteria for a closest approach to matching the template in my head. Do you not think that if there were inherent masterpieces, everybody except the deeply challenged by mental disease or failing sense organs would not perceive them as such? Everyone can watch water boil, stick a thermometer in it at STP, or their hand (bad move!) and experience near-identical reactions.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> How would you show that one's taste is eclectic? Is there an objective way to show me that one's taste is eclectic? Or is it really just that the more you like avant-garde music, the more likely you are to reject objective greantess?


Well that's a poser. I have lots of time for what might be termed avant-garde jazz (Ayler, Shepp, et al) but little or none for avant-garde classical (Stockhausen and those of a similar disposition). I'm not rejecting objective greatness, I'm just waiting to see the criteria that allows one to identify it.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I mentioned "the magnificent Rembrandt and Vermeer." Can we determine that they are inherently good? My terse but honest response would be, "If you know what you're seeing you can't miss it." I'd also bet that plenty of people who have little idea what they're seeing also don't miss it, which is a testament to art's ability to reach into our subconscious storehouse of perceptions, ideas and emotions while requiring little knowledge and bypassing much conscious analysis.
> 
> These are two very well-known and respected artists whose work has been analyzed again and again over centuries. I see no purpose in rehashing it all here (assuming I even could) in order to persuade people who are philosophically opposed to granting artists the distinction their work evidences so unmistakably. That anyone could seriously hold that Vermeer should be called a magnificent painter - a visionary and a wizard in paint - only because some consensus of opinion over four centuries says he is, just leaves me numb with astonishment. It also seems very insulting to humanity's capacity for perception and understanding, and it begs for an answer to the question of why that consensus which you regard so highly exists and persists. The obvious answer is that there are important qualities in the paintings which people around the world and over the centuries recognize as worthy of their esteem, and some of these qualities are evident to any person with a modicum of knowledge and understanding. Do they make Vermeer inherently good? Of course they do. Court cases have been decided on less evidence.


This is an excellent presentation of the argument that Great Art is what the Best People prefer (what they prefer "today", that is.) What would/did people make of Blake and Turner? Ingres and Pierre Cot, then and now?


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> No, because there are no such "objectivists," at least none of my acquaintance. There are always "subjective" (personal) factors present in any act of perception. This does not negate Beethoven's achievement, as judged by appropriate criteria, or negate the general human capacity to appreciate such achievements.


I think Strange magic is correct, he's being consistent.

Its my understanding that for something to be objectively great it doesn't need the affirmation of anyone. I know what that sounds like, but Isn't that what objective means, something remains great regardless off opinion? Because if it is according to opinion then its not objective.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

DaveM said:


> You're on a slippery slope mentioning artists like Rembrandt and Vermeer. There are one or two here who will rake you over the coals for even daring to call them 'magnificent painters'. Perhaps you remember some time ago when I put up a paintings by Gainsborough and an elephant: a few thought the elephant could be considered on a par with Gainsborough with the only criterion being which painting one liked.


I remember that! But Gainsborough was not Rembrandt or Vermeer nor, in my opinion, in their class. I doubt that many would doubt the greatness of Rembrandt or of Vermeer - their achievements were quite simply astonishing - but many might have doubts about the value of many of Gainsborough's paintings. And are you really saying that any of his paintings matched the incredible achievement of the vast majority of R's or V's work? I'm not even sure how I would begin a comparison.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> This is an excellent presentation of the argument that Great Art is what the Best People prefer (what they prefer "today", that is.) What would/did people make of Blake and Turner? Ingres and Pierre Cot, then and now?


I don't find that an attentive or coherent argument to what Woodduck wrote. But, I agree, it is certainly true that a lot of people fail to get the greatness of much art being produced in their time. Still, I for one, am convinced (with Woodduck) that true greatness can be recognised by anyone who cares to take the time. It may not come instantly - in the way that we might respond to a beautiful view (wow!) - but there is so much to find and be inspired by in truly great art and it is worth the effort.

Art appreciation is not scientific. It is subject to argument and analysis which leads not to that illusion, "_objectively _great art" (a term that I think makes no sense aesthetically or psychologically), but to a very rewarding recognition and celebration. You can't reduce that to merely "being rewarded by the enjoyment of things that the best people tell us to appreciate". To suggest that it can suggests chips on shoulders and/or insecurity to me.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> I don't find that an attentive or coherent argument to what Woodduck wrote. But, I agree, it is certainly true that a lot of people fail to get the greatness of much art being produced in their time. Still, I for one, am convinced (with Woodduck) that true greatness can be recognised by anyone who cares to take the time. It may not come instantly - in the way that we might respond to a beautiful view (wow!) - but there is so much to find and be inspired by in truly great art and it is worth the effort.
> 
> Art appreciation is not scientific. It is subject to argument and analysis which leads not to that illusion, "_objectively _great art" (a term that I think makes no sense aesthetically or psychologically), but to a very rewarding recognition and celebration. You can't reduce that to merely "being rewarded by the enjoyment of things that the best people tell us to appreciate". To suggest that it can suggests chips on shoulders and/or insecurity to me.


I see you are not associating yourself--I think--with the notion of "inherent greatness" in art objects. You're right: art appreciation is not scientific; it is subjective and personal, though perhaps in the distant future, probably dystopian, each individual's mind and history will be well enough known to determine exactly what they like and why they do. Your notion that great art can (read: should) be recognized by those putting in sufficient time, is, in fact, a restatement of the best people like the greatest art syllogism.

I like the psychological profiling. Nice touch!


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> I don't find that an attentive or coherent argument to what Woodduck wrote. But, I agree, it is certainly true that a lot of people fail to get the greatness of much art being produced in their time. Still, I for one, am convinced (with Woodduck) that true greatness can be recognised by anyone who cares to take the time. It may not come instantly - in the way that we might respond to a beautiful view (wow!) - but there is so much to find and be inspired by in truly great art and it is worth the effort.
> 
> Art appreciation is not scientific. It is subject to argument and analysis which leads not to that illusion, "_objectively _great art" (a term that I think makes no sense aesthetically or psychologically), but to a very rewarding recognition and celebration. You can't reduce that to merely "being rewarded by the enjoyment of things that the best people tell us to appreciate". To suggest that it can suggests chips on shoulders and/or insecurity to me.


Aren't you contradicting yourself though? If on one hand you say "a lot of people fail to get the greatness of much art" and then on the other hand that "objectively great art" is an "illusion"?

What are the people failing to get if there's nothing objectively great about it? Then they aren't failing to get anything, they're just failing to agree with your opinion.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

What are the consequences of teaching students that all music has equal value for study?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> Your notion that great art can (read: should) be recognized by those putting in sufficient time, is, in fact, a restatement of the best people like the greatest art syllogism.


I meant "can" rather than "should". There is nothing prescriptive in what I am saying. Plenty of people get all the satisfaction they need from work that few would suggest belongs with "the greatest art" and who am I to say they are wrong? They get what they need. But I don't see that what I am saying must lead inevitably to saying that the greatest art is that that is recognised as such by "the best people". Firstly, we might all think of different groups when we read the pejorative description "best people". So you might need to be more specific if I am to understand what you are saying. Secondly, the idea of putting work in to finding all (or much) of what great art can offer does not suggest that other people's views or judgments are involved. I think where other people ("the best people") might be involved is in the short cut of identifying what art is worth putting that work in for.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> What are the consequences of teaching students that all music has equal value for study?


We're living with those consequences! I will always remember my daughter coming home from school when she was around 8 having been convinced that the Jonas Brothers and Mozart were equivalent and of equal value. Her teachers had told her that.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> What are the consequences of teaching students that all music has equal value for study?


Who is saying that "all music has equal value" in this tread?

That said, I do believe that all musical genres include examples which exhibit high artistic achievement and deserve study. I absolutely do not believe that only classical music has music worthy of study.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> We're living with those consequences! I will always remember my daughter coming home from school when she was around 8 having been convinced that the Jonas Brothers and Mozart were equivalent and of equal value. Her teachers had told her that.


That teacher should know more about Mozart.

We're CM fans so we're sensitive people. We want to show that we're sensitive to other cultures and the opinions of other enlightened people.

Further, we agree that everyone should have the freedom to self actualize in the areas of life that they themselves choose for their lives. So, objectivism must be subservient to the modern awarenesses. I don't blame anyone I just worry about the children for their lives and the future of CM.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> We're living with those consequences! I will always remember my daughter coming home from school when she was around 8 having been convinced that the Jonas Brothers and Mozart were equivalent and of equal value. Her teachers had told her that.


Many people only arrive at an appreciation of classical music after being fans of another kind of music. I wouldn't worry too much about what this teacher said. It might have been the first time your daughter heard the name Mozart and was interested because she liked the Jonas Brothers.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> I remember that! But Gainsborough was not Rembrandt or Vermeer nor, in my opinion, in their class. I doubt that many would doubt the greatness of Rembrandt or of Vermeer - their achievements were quite simply astonishing - but many might have doubts about the value of many of Gainsborough's paintings. And are you really saying that any of his paintings matched the incredible achievement of the vast majority of R's or V's work? I'm not even sure how I would begin a comparison.


Sure I would put Rembrandt and Vermeer above Gainsborough, but if you're going to diminish Gainsborough paintings, you'd better tell that to the famous Huntington Library that devotes a very large room to his paintings, not too mention the amount of money spent maintaining Blue Boy. Still, regarding your dismay over my mentioning Gainsborough, imagine my dismay at your preferring the elephant's painting.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> I don't blame anyone I just worry about the children for their lives and the future of CM.


When I read this I was reminded of any number of Christians who think it is their responsibleity to save those who have not been "brought to know Jesus." It also reminded me of a story that John Lomax, or it could have been his son Alan, told about the trips John Lomax and Ruth Crawford Seeger made into Appalachian mountains.

They would pull up to a cabin with their portable audio equipment and play them some classical music. Maybe an opera aria or two, a movement from a symphony or piano work. But found the people notably unimpressed. Finally, one of them said, "you know, we have our music, too" and they commenced to play some fiddle and banjo tunes

John Lomax realized the arrogance of his assumption that these people were ignorant of "good music." And his his life was changed. From then on he devoted his life to documenting and preserving the folk music of the Appalachian people.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> Who is saying that "all music has equal value" in this tread?..


What criteria do you use to decide or conclude that a given music has more value than other music?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Aren't you contradicting yourself though? If on one hand you say "a lot of people fail to get the greatness of much art" and then on the other hand that "objectively great art" is an "illusion"?
> 
> What are the people failing to get if there's nothing objectively great about it? Then they aren't failing to get anything, they're just failing to agree with your opinion.


I'm not sure I get your point. Is there nothing between "objectively great" and "whatever you like is great"? I don't think art appreciation or judgment can be objective. Objectivity is a difficult concept even when applied to something very concrete like the identity of what you see when you see a cup. Objectively, you really respond to reflected light and _interpret _it as a cup - something that nearly everyone with experience of cups would agree with you on. But it would really make sense to describe what they are all seeing as subjectively a cup. That would just be too pedantic and would miss the point. When you start to apply the same understanding to something as complicated as a work of art things can become very complicated.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

SanAntone said:


> Many people only arrive at an appreciation of classical music after being fans of another kind of music. I wouldn't worry too much about what this teacher said. It might have been the first time your daughter heard the name Mozart and was interested because she liked the Jonas Brothers.


I don't and didn't worry about what the teacher said as far as its affect on my daughter is concerned. I worry because the teacher was teaching what she was supposed to teach. All valuing is a subjective matter based on instant gratification. It leads to seeing a love of classical music as elitist, something that toffs enjoy rather than a right for all. And it leads to so-called "high art" getting far less respect from the media and funding agencies. Popularity is all that matters and our heritage is consigned to the dustbin. And obesity is endemic!

And BTW my daughter had heard of Mozart (living in our house she had no choice about that) even though she felt it wasn't for her. And she never enjoyed the Jonas Brothers. Her taste, even then, was for pop/rock music that was a little more hip.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Luchesi said:


> What are the consequences of teaching students that all music has equal value for study?


Losing their trust.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

DaveM said:


> What criteria do you use to decide or conclude that a given music has more value than other music?


That's the thing...when you follow through these ideas to their logical conclusions then there's backtracking and "I don't mean _that_, obviously..."

Either all music is of equal inherent value or it isn't. If it is, then there's absolutely no reason at all that "Lady Gaga's _Chromatica_ is an artistic achievement equal to the St Matthew Passion" would be an incorrect statement.



Enthusiast said:


> I'm not sure I get your point. Is there nothing between "objectively great" and "whatever you like is great"? ...


When you say that "I don't think art appreciation or judgment can be objective", then no, there isn't.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

consuono said:


> Either all music is of equal inherent value or it isn't.


Third option: no music has inherent value. But we can still say that all music has inherent _properties_ to which we _assign_ value. And, depending on who's involved in the discussion, we might very well agree that some music is way more valuable _to us_ than some other music.

Also, you're clouding the issue by first talking about "value" and then "achievement", which aren't the same thing.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

consuono said:


> Either all music is of equal inherent value or it isn't.


Obviously there is no human individual or community capable of valuing all music equally.

Equally obvious, there is no individual or community who values exactly the same music exactly as much as any other individual or community.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Nereffid said:


> Third option: no music has inherent value. But we can still say that all music has inherent _properties_ to which we _assign_ value. ....


Which would ultimately be the same thing. Those properties would be "value". We value aspirin for its property as a pain-reliever.


> Also, you're clouding the issue by first talking about "value" and then "achievement", which aren't the same thing.


"Achievement" is a positive value term. I think we would agree that the Art of Fugue is an achievement in a way that my noodling around at the piano for an hour isn't. Or given the subjective mindset, maybe it would be.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DaveM said:


> What criteria do you use to decide or conclude that a given music has more value than other music?


One can generate libraries of _ex post facto_ rationalizations for why any one of us likes what we do. I have done that, with some vague success, with analyzing my very favorite Rock songs. But it remains primarily a key-and-lock phenomenon wherein people listen to a piece of whatever sort of music for X amount of time and repetitions, and the key either fits the lock or it doesn't. Then we begin the process of telling ourselves why, all along, there was an inexorable cause-and-effect preordaining that we must like--think it's great--the music. Everyone's neurology and personal history is so unique in its granularity that we can only make broad, mushy, wobbly statements about what, specifically, people are going to value in the arts.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> What are the consequences of teaching students that all music has equal value for study?


i had not one but two college general music textbooks, and they covered not just CM but The Blues, Jazz, several other genres. I do not feel I was harmed by them, but several posters wedded solely to CM might have other views.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

consuono said:


> Which would ultimately be the same thing. Those properties would be "value". We value aspirin for its property as a pain-reliever.


True, we do value aspirin for this property. But people with different levels of pain will value it differently! And also aspirin has other properties: for some people, taking aspirin regularly can reduce the risk of a heart attack. But not for everyone, so not everyone gives its "reduces the risk of a heart attack" property the same value either. To take your musical example, people who like Lady Gaga's music may assign the Bach passion a low value because it lacks the properties they value, whereas people who like Baroque vocal music will presumably assign the Bach passion a high value because it's chock-full of the properties that they value. It has inherent properties but these are valued differently by different people, so I can't see how this is the same as saying it has inherent value.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

consuono said:


> Either all music is of equal inherent value or it isn't.


Actually this is a bit to reductive.

I find value in specific attributes of a piece of music, and some pieces of music have a abundance of the attributes that I value as opposed to other pieces of music which lack them. Hence I will place the former piece on my list of works I enjoy and not be interested in the latter.

I certainly do not value all pieces of music equally. And I think the process I described above is similar for many music lovers.

I don't think any of us on the subjective side have ever said that we value all pieces of music equally. This is simply one of the strawman arguments you and others on the objective side have trotted out.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Not to make this any kind of proof of anything (though it might suggest _something)_, but I find it interesting that of all the music that could have been used here (The Shawshank Redemption), this wonderful Mozart duet was chosen. Looking at the wonderment in the eyes of all the prisoners in the prison yard, one assumes that the music was chosen as something whose beauty would be immediately appreciated by these men who were unlikely to be familiar with classical music let alone opera. And then there are these spoken lines by one of the characters:

_I don't know what those 2 Italian ladies were singing about. I don't wish to know. Some things are best left unsaid, but I like to think they were singing about something so beautiful, it can't be expressed in words and makes your heart ache because of it._


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> True, we do value aspirin for this property. But people with different levels of pain will value it differently! And also aspirin has other properties: for some people, taking aspirin regularly can reduce the risk of a heart attack. But not for everyone, so not everyone gives its "reduces the risk of a heart attack" property the same value either. To take your musical example, people who like Lady Gaga's music may assign the Bach passion a low value because it lacks the properties they value, whereas people who like Baroque vocal music will presumably assign the Bach passion a high value because it's chock-full of the properties that they value. It has inherent properties but these are valued differently by different people, so I can't see how this is the same as saying it has inherent value.


And, be it noted, some individuals can appreciate both Bach and Lady Gaga! Not everything by either, mind you, but each can have value for those individuals so constructed.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> i had not one but two college general music textbooks, and they covered not just CM but The Blues, Jazz, several other genres. I do not feel I was harmed by them, but several posters wedded solely to CM might have other views.


You've seen the anti-intellectualism and the creeping relativism.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DaveM said:


> Not to make this any kind of proof of anything, but I find it interesting that of all the music that could have been used here (The Shawshank Redemption), this wonderful Mozart duet was chosen. Looking at the wonderment in the eyes of all the prisoners in the prison yard, one assumes that the music was chosen as something whose beauty would be immediately appreciated by these men who were unlikely to be familiar with classical music let alone opera. And then there are these spoken lines by one of the characters:
> 
> _I don't know what those 2 Italian ladies were singing about. I don't wish to know. Some things are best left unsaid, but I like to think they were singing about something so beautiful, it can't be expressed in words and makes your heart ache because of it._


The power of music to move people is both amazing and most welcome. Glad all agree there wholeheartedly!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Not to make this any kind of proof of anything, but I find it interesting that of all the music that could have been used here (The Shawshank Redemption), this wonderful Mozart duet was chosen. Looking at the wonderment in the eyes of all the prisoners in the prison yard, one assumes that the music was chosen as something whose beauty would be immediately appreciated by these men who were unlikely to be familiar with classical music let alone opera. And then there are these spoken lines by one of the characters:
> 
> _I don't know what those 2 Italian ladies were singing about. I don't wish to know. Some things are best left unsaid, but I like to think they were singing about something so beautiful, it can't be expressed in words and makes your heart ache because of it._


I love that film and that scene, but on the other hand when the film _1917_ wants to depict a moment of beautiful peace within a hellish experience, it goes for "Wayfaring Stranger", so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> You've seen the anti-intellectualism and the creeping relativism.


Was it in the textbooks? I don't recall anti-intellectualism and the creeping relativism, but maybe I was too far gone.....


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

objectively great must be things of high quality, exclusive in their content, unique in their nature, and grand in size, besides being adressed to those who possess some knowledge and skills, i.e. not ordinary people.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> Do you not think that if there were inherent masterpieces, everybody except the deeply challenged by mental disease or failing sense organs would not perceive them as such? Everyone can watch water boil, stick a thermometer in it at STP, or their hand (bad move!) and experience near-identical reactions.


This is a fallacy that keeps getting repeated over and over. It assumes its own conclusion: that artistic quality must be considered purely subjective unless every normal human being, everywhere and forever, can perceive it in every work of art ever produced. What possible justification can you offer for this assumption? I mean, cripey, have you never heard of learning? Broadening and deepening one's knowledge? Cultivating one's faculties? Refining one's perceptions? Growing as a human being? What are we? Earthworms? Sea turtles? Rocks?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Zhdanov said:


> objectively great must be things of high quality, exclusive in their content, unique in their nature, and grand in size, besides being adressed to those who possess some knowledge and skills, i.e. not ordinary people.


I agree, and we're not being condescending or elitist by sharing such serious descriptions.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Maybe it's like hairstyles. It takes a while to acquire the acuity to sense what's going on in a great hairdo. All that complexity and subtlety and balance which connoisseurs can sense, is what makes a hairstyle great. And of course, the greats are timeless classics, they belong to a venerable tradition



> Some of these men's haircuts go back centuries, others decades. Each one is effortlessly appealing and certifiably fresh, even if it's been around for ages. That's arguably what makes it a true men's haircut, since if something's not broken there's no need to fix it.
> 
> Sure, you can roll the dice on some flash-in-the-pan hairstyle ripped off the pages of a hipster website, or you can head into the barbershop and ask for a cut that always works. Should you prefer the latter, allow our definitive list of the 10 best haircuts and hairstyles for men to be your guide.


https://manofmany.com/fashion/mens-hairstyles/definitive-10-best-haircuts-hairstyles-for-men


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> I love that film and that scene, but on the other hand when the film _1917_ wants to depict a moment of beautiful peace within a hellish experience, it goes for "Wayfaring Stranger", so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Perhaps they would have preferred the Mozart duet, but it had already been used..


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Was it in the textbooks? I don't recall anti-intellectualism and the creeping relativism, but maybe I was too far gone.....


You were too young to sense what was shaping your brain far into the future about this question.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> Actually this is a bit to reductive.


Actually it's following the subjectivist doctrine to its logical conclusion. If that's unpleasant, running for that trusty strawman refuge won't help.


> I find value in specific attributes of a piece of music, and some pieces of music have a abundance of the attributes that I value as opposed to other pieces of music which lack them. Hence I will place the former piece on my list of works I enjoy and not be interested in the latter.


That's nice. Means nothing. Next.


Nereffid said:


> True, we do value aspirin for this property. But people with different levels of pain will value it differently! And also aspirin has other properties: for some people, taking aspirin regularly can reduce the risk of a heart attack. But not for everyone, so not everyone gives its "reduces the risk of a heart attack" property the same value either.


Which leaves us with the only objective qualities of aspirin being "small round white tablet".


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> Maybe it's like hairstyles. It takes a while to acquire the acuity to sense what's going on in a great hairdo. All that complexity and subtlety and balance which connoisseurs can sense, is what makes a hairstyle great. And of course, the greats are timeless classics, they belong to a venerable tradition
> 
> https://manofmany.com/fashion/mens-hairstyles/definitive-10-best-haircuts-hairstyles-for-men


I'm quite sure that I wouldn't have invested all these years in learning and teaching and performing and interpreting HAIRSTYLES.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> True, we do value aspirin for this property. But people with different levels of pain will value it differently! And also aspirin has other properties: for some people, taking aspirin regularly can reduce the risk of a heart attack. But not for everyone, so not everyone gives its "reduces the risk of a heart attack" property the same value either.


I don't think aspirin is a good example of subjectivity. There is plenty of objective evidence of it as a pain reliever (for well over a hundred years) for most people and as a platelet inhibitor (for reducing heart attacks). There will always be a few exceptions.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

Zhdanov said:


> objectively great must be things of high quality, exclusive in their content, unique in their nature, and grand in size, besides being adressed to those who possess some knowledge and skills, i.e. not ordinary people.


I think some people need a dictionary more than anything else.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Total Subjectivism began by comparing Bach and Brahms to flavors of ice cream, and has progressed to men's hairstyles and aspirin tablets.

It's good to see that progress in thinking about art has kept pace with progress in classical music. Are we now in the Post-post-postmodern era, or is there more deconstruction to come?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> This is a fallacy that keeps getting repeated over and over. It assumes its own conclusion: that artistic quality must be considered purely subjective unless every normal human being, everywhere and forever, can perceive it in every work of art ever produced. What possible justification can you offer for this assumption? I mean, cripey, have you never heard of learning? Broadening and deepening one's knowledge? Cultivating one's faculties? Refining one's perceptions? Growing as a human being? What are we? Earthworms? Sea turtles? Rocks?


Your assertion that it is a fallacy does not make it so. I expect art objects that are innately--innately! (new adjective)--imbued with the stuff of greatness to be very robustly made indeed, and thus to display themselves clearly to the meanest intelligence, irrespective of time, place, history, or station in life. Inherent greatness--being an (obvious?) Masterpiece--should be made of stern stuff indeed, and not have to rely upon broadened and deepened knowledge though broadened and deepened knowledge are excellent things--Great Art Indeed as attested to by the Best People.

P.S. I like your purple!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DaveM said:


> I don't think aspirin is a good example of subjectivity. There is plenty of objective evidence of it as a pain reliever (for well over a hundred years) for most people and as a platelet inhibitor (for reducing heart attacks). There will always be a few exceptions.


Fever reducer also.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> You were too young to sense what was shaping your brain far into the future about this question.


I'll bet the music textbooks in Texas don't inculcate creeping relativism!


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

consuono said:


> Actually it's following the subjectivist doctrine to its logical conclusion.


There is no single "logical conclusion." The definition of subjectivity is that each person has an individual response, we all employ subjectivity differently - that is the whole point. Someone somewhere may take subjectivity to the absurd degree you describe, but most people do not. Certainly I do not and I don't think anyone posting here does.

Each of us creates our own personal rating system for the music we like and dislike.

You can of course ignore this and continue mischaracterizing the views of those of us in this thread who espouse a subjective approach to evaluating music - but your posts will become increasing moot.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Luchesi said:


> I'm quite sure that I wouldn't have invested all these years in learning and teaching and performing and interpreting HAIRSTYLES.


Well, music and hairstyles are the same sort of thing as far as I can see, they are both just decorations.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> I'm quite sure that I wouldn't have invested all these years in learning and teaching and performing and interpreting HAIRSTYLES.


No, but someone who is pursuing a career as a stylist would.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Well, music and hairstyles are the same sort of thing as far as I can see, they are both just decorations.


No, for those who care about either, they are important. As is the tasting and judging of Fine Wines. Can I use the expression Fine Wines on Steroids to describe the more rarified yet intense aspects of esthetic discussion?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

consuono said:


> Which leaves us with the only objective qualities of aspirin being "small round white tablet".





DaveM said:


> I don't think aspirin is a good example of subjectivity. There is plenty of objective evidence of it as a pain reliever (for well over a hundred years) for most people and as a platelet inhibitor (for reducing heart attacks). There will always be a few exceptions.


I agree, aspirin isn't a great example, but seeing as consuono brought it up I followed through. There seems to be a comprehension issue here, so maybe a different example might work: alcohol.

Alcohol has various properties, both the short-term effects that cause drunkenness, and the long-term effects on the body. These are objective properties, or inherent properties, whichever you prefer to call them. But we have different ideas of the value of alcohol: some people like getting drunk, some people don't, some people like getting drunk but avoid it because of the hangover, some people avoid alcohol because of addiction issues, we vary in how much we care about the potential long-term effects, etc etc. These are subjective values. Alcohol doesn't have objective, inherent values.

Similarly music. Any given piece of music has objective properties - the key, the melody, the rhythm, whether there's counterpoint, etc etc. But how valuable each of those properties is to us depends on our individual preferences, so the value of those objective properties is subjective.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> No, for those who care about either, they are important. ?


Important decorations. They both cost money. They both say something about your social affinities. And a great hairdo, like great music, makes you feel sensational.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> music and hairstyles are the same sort of thing as far as I can see, they are both just decorations.


music is no decoration, music is information.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> Your assertion that it is a fallacy does not make it so. I expect art objects that are innately--innately! (new adjective)--imbued with the stuff of greatness to be very robustly made indeed, and thus to display themselves clearly to the meanest intelligence, irrespective of time, place, history, or station in life. Inherent greatness--being an (obvious?) Masterpiece--should be made of stern stuff indeed, and not have to rely upon broadened and deepened knowledge though broadened and deepened knowledge are excellent things--Great Art Indeed as attested to by the Best People.
> 
> P.S. I like your purple!


"Innately imbued with the stuff of greatness"? Heh heh. I do like a good joke. Trouble is, it appears identical to your serious statements on the subject.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> There is no single "logical conclusion." The definition of subjectivity is that each person has an individual response, we all employ subjectivity differently - that is the whole point. Someone somewhere may take subjectivity to the absurd degree you describe, but most people do not. Certainly I do not and I don't think anyone posting here does.
> 
> Each of us creates our own personal rating system for the music we like and dislike.
> 
> You can of course ignore this and continue mischaracterizing the views of those of us in this thread who espouse a subjective approach to evaluating music - but your posts will become increasing moot.


I get a kick out of people whose watchwords are seemingly "subjective" and "relative" state things with such finality. There is no logical conclusion? If there is no inherent value in any music then its all of equal -- no -- real value. That's the logical conclusion. Why is it so hard to accept?


Nereffid said:


> I agree, aspirin isn't a great example, but seeing as consuono brought it up I followed through. There seems to be a comprehension issue here, so maybe a different example might work: alcohol.


 Correction: yes it was my example. One loses track in this tail-chasing stuff.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> Well, music and hairstyles are the same sort of thing as far as I can see, they are both just decorations.


You have to look at both fields objectively.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> "Innately imbued with the stuff of greatness"? Heh heh. I do like a good joke. Trouble is, it appears identical to your serious statements on the subject.


I, for one, am glad then that we both reject the notion of "greatness" being an innate, inherent, intrinsic, embedded property of a piece of music. Greatness, "value", is read into/onto the otherwise inert art object by the action/reaction of the perceiver. Or do I misread your position?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> I'll bet the music textbooks in Texas don't inculcate creeping relativism!


Texas swing music. They have devolved, but they don't know it.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> Fever reducer also.


Yes and as an anti inflammatory. Also, fwiw, a study out of Israel suggests that a single daily 75-81mg of ASA appears to reduce susceptibility to and severity of Covid-19. As I'm fully vaccinated and taking two 81mg tabs a day, I'm feeling objectively ready for the outside world.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> No, but someone who is pursuing a career as a stylist would.


You're equating the two. You have a very open mind.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

consuono said:


> I get a kick out of people whose watchwords are seemingly "subjective" and "relative" state things with such finality. There is no logical conclusion? If there is no inherent value in any music then its all of equal -- no -- real value. That's the logical conclusion. Why is it so hard to accept?


I think you're too hung up on equating "inherent" value with "real" value. Off the top of my head, an analogy: we're all born naked, none of us are "inherently clothed"... and yet clothes are real! We all assign particular value to music: what's valuable to me might not be valuable to you, but the value I assign it is real. "It's all of equal value" misses the point somewhat.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

consuono said:


> If there is no inherent value in any music then its all of equal -- no -- real value. That's the logical conclusion.


Again, the repeated difficulty in grasping that each individual assigns and is free to assign value to any sort of music. You are free to do so, and powerful. I am free to do so. Dick and Jane are free to do so. How one draws the conclusion then that all music is of no real value is mysterious indeed.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> Again, the repeated difficulty in grasping that each individual assigns and is free to assign value to any sort of music. You are free to do so, and powerful. I am free to do so. Dick and Jane are free to do so. How one draws the conclusion then that all music is of no real value is mysterious indeed.


So then again Lady Gaga's _Chromatica_ is inherently no better or worse than the St Matthew Passion. Correct?


> How one draws the conclusion then that all music is of no real value is mysterious indeed.


Because if everything is of equal value there's no such thing as "value".


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> You're equating the two. You have a very open mind.


Yes. I don't accept the idea of 'high art" and "low art." I evaluate art/music based on how well it appears to be executed and if it touches me in some way.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

consuono said:


> So then again Lady Gaga's _Chromatica_ is inherently no better or worse than the St Matthew Passion. Correct?


That is correct. Neither has _inherent_ value. Their value to a host of listeners may vary wildly. Which is the "best" ice cream?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> Yes. I don't accept the idea of 'high art" and "low art." I evaluate art/music based on how well it appears to be executed and if it touches me in some way.


Yes, me, me, me.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> Texas swing music. They have devolved, but they don't know it.


It is not the fans of Texas swing music (of which I am one) that have bad taste and are ignorant.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> Yes. I don't accept the idea of 'high art" and "low art." I evaluate art/music based on how well it appears to be executed and if it touches me in some way.


So _King Lear_ is on the same artistic plane as _Plan 9 from Outer Space_. It all depends on the person you're asking.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

SanAntone said:


> I don't accept the idea of 'high art" and "low art."


that's because you are into the latter and not into the former.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> Yes. I don't accept the idea of 'high art" and "low art." I evaluate art/music based on how well it appears to be executed and if it touches me in some way.


All the arts are rife with works skillfully executed and yet, for many perceivers, utterly dead. Returning to painting, the French Academy art of the late 19th century was masterfully painted, with enormous skill lavished upon, to my mind, trash.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> That is correct. Neither has _inherent_ value. Their value to a host of listeners may vary wildly. Which is the "best" ice cream?


The best ice cream is probably the best-made. First you have to define what "ice cream" is. If you put a little dog poop in it is it still ice cream?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> That is correct. Neither has _inherent_ value. Their value to a host of listeners may vary wildly. Which is the "best" ice cream?


The best ice cream is whichever anyone likes? Then there's no meaning to best. You need another adjective.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> It is not the fans of Texas swing music (of which I am one) that have bad taste and are ignorant.


We can think anything, because it's all just subjective.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> So _King Lear_ is on the same artistic plane as _Plan 9 from Outer Space_. It all depends on the person you're asking.


Yep. There are objective differences between the two but the differences can't be objectively qualified. You're proposing that either of them have value outside of human perception; like some kind of cosmic objective standard?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> All the arts are rife with works skillfully executed and yet, for many perceivers, utterly dead. ...


But what if for the vast majority who do encounter it, the work is extremely alive? What if so many subjective judgements point in the same direction?


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Luchesi said:


> The best ice cream is whichever anyone likes? Then there's no meaning to best. You need another adjective.


You are missing the point. The best ice cream is which ever one you personally enjoy the most. Who cares about what other people think is the "best" ice cream.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> the French Academy art of the late 19th century was masterfully painted, with enormous skill lavished upon, to my mind, trash.


at least, they had skills, unlike the 'impressionists' who had only trash.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> All the arts are rife with works skillfully executed and yet, for many perceivers, utterly dead. Returning to painting, the French Academy art of the late 19th century was masterfully painted, with enormous skill lavished upon, to my mind, trash.


Yeah, we don't need objective analyses. lol


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> Yes, me, me, me.


Well, I am not out to please someone else by liking a piece of music.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> Yep. There are objective differences between the two but the differences can't be objectively qualified. You're proposing that either of them have value outside of human perception; like some kind of cosmic objective standard?


That human perception would be the cosmic standard, right? So, most human perception right now would probably be more engaged by Ed Wood than Shakespeare. That means that Shakespeare is actually not all that valuable at all.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> But what if for the vast majority who do encounter it, the work is extremely alive? What if so many subjective judgements point in the same direction?


Then so be it. No one is forced to enjoy something even if everyone else does. An opinion is still an opinion even if 99% of people share that opinion.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> That human perception would be the cosmic standard, right?


....That would be the opposite of a cosmic standard. That would be human subjective opinion. Not sure what you are getting at here.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

consuono said:


> So _King Lear_ is on the same artistic plane as _Plan 9 from Outer Space_. It all depends on the person you're asking.


You will find very few people who hold that King Lear and Plan 9 are on the same plane. You might find some. Most people will place them, as they choose, on different planes. But it is up to the individual. You could place them on very different planes also: you have the power.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> Then so be it. No one is forced to enjoy something even if everyone else does. An opinion is still an opinion even if 99% of people share that opinion.


What does it say about the work?


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

chu42 said:


> The best ice cream is which ever one you personally enjoy the most.


that has nothing to do with the notion of 'best'.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> You will find very few people who hold that King Lear and Plan 9 are on the same plane. You might find some. ...


No, you'll find quite a few. Maybe even the majority.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

chu42 said:


> You are missing the point. The best ice cream is which ever one you personally enjoy the most. Who cares about what other people think is the "best" ice cream.


Yes, it seems paradoxical that these two grand defenses from opposite sides of this debate are so close in our thinking processes.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

consuono said:


> The best ice cream is probably the best-made. First you have to define what "ice cream" is. If you put a little dog poop in it is it still ice cream?


Yes. It's called ice cream with dog poop in it. Few will be pleased with it. We're having fun here, aren't we!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Nereffid said:


> Any given piece of music has objective properties - the key, the melody, the rhythm, whether there's counterpoint, etc etc. But how valuable each of those properties is to us depends on our individual preferences,


If this were all that people were arguing, all would be well.



> so the value of those objective properties is subjective.


Alas, the meaning of "value" is expanded to imply that there are no differences in quality between works of art, that "quality" is only whatever an individual or group happens to like, and that judgments of quality are no more than personal feelings or socially inculcated ideas. Most people have always known this not to be true, but modern people are afraid to affirm the validity of any experience or phenomenon that can't be "proved" by mathematical equations or experiments in chemistry and physics (and Newtonian physics at that). Why they place so much faith in disciplines that stand helpless in the face of the most important and certain phenomenon of all - consciousness - is as much a mystery to me as art is to them.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> You are missing the point. The best ice cream is which ever one you personally enjoy the most. Who cares about what other people think is the "best" ice cream.


And if someone enjoys inflicting pain, then that's the "best" behavior, and if they get away with it, so be it.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> What does it say about the work?


It says that people like it. Change the people and they might not like it.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

consuono said:


> No, you'll find quite a few. Maybe even the majority.


Here on TC? Or polling the Earth's 8 billion? More fun, more games!


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

> You will find very few people who hold that King Lear and Plan 9 are on the same plane. You might find some. Most people will place them, as they choose, on different planes. But it is up to the individual. You could place them on very different planes also: you have the power.





consuono said:


> No, you'll find quite a few. Maybe even the majority.


????

Again, not sure what you're getting at here.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> Yes. It's called ice cream with dog poop in it. Few will be pleased with it. We're having fun here, aren't we!


Oh you never know how tastes evolve.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> We can think anything, because it's all just subjective.


You are free to de-value Texas swing music; free to think it is not as good as any piece of classical music. And you are even free to think that classical music is on a higher artistic level than Texas swing music.

But you are not defining Texas swing music for anyone else but you.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> Here on TC? Or polling the Earth's 8 billion? More fun, more games!


All tastes being equal, well then all of them, obviously.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> that has nothing to do with the notion of 'best'.


Since we're in a playful mood, what is the best flavor of ice cream?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Since we're in a playful mood, what is the best flavor of ice cream?


https://www.sbs.com.au/food/recipes/heston-blumenthals-bacon-and-egg-ice-cream


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

consuono said:


> And if someone enjoys inflicting pain, then that's the "best" behavior, and if they get away with it, so be it.


by the relativists - yes, indeedy.

such is the ideology of satanism promoted these days.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

consuono said:


> All tastes being equal, well then all of them, obviously.


But all tastes vary, and can vary wildly. See our friend Zhdanov's posts, for example. More fun, more games.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> And if someone enjoys inflicting pain, then that's the "best" behavior, and if they get away with it, so be it.


The scientific explanation is this:

The primary evolutionary drive for any organism is survival. Almost all of our moralistic behavior stems from a desire to survive and work together as a civilization; so people who hurt others are deemed bad because it goes against the primary evolutionary drive in some shape or form.

If you want to argue for a cosmic standard of "goodness", then you will have to do so from a religious perspective, in which no one will get very far.

Furthermore, the difference between morality and ice cream preference is very obvious; one affects the lives of others and the other does not.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> Since we're in a playful mood, what is the best flavor of ice cream?


Sorbet is better. But also the peanut butter that I mix with some crushed ice is the best because I say so and yes that means it's really ice cream.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> The scientific explanation is this:
> 
> The primary evolutionary drive for any organism is survival. Almost all of our moralistic behavior stems from a desire to survive and work together as a civilization; so people who hurt others are deemed bad because it goes against the primary evolutionary drive in some shape or form.
> 
> ...


What's the scientific explanation of a human right?

If the primary goal of everything is survival, why is there such a thing as imaginative cruelty and self-destruction .. enabled in large part by a higher intelligence that a sea slug does quite well without.

In terms of explaining morality, you won't get very far with science.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Zhdanov said:


> that has nothing to do with the notion of 'best'.


Why should anyone care about what is the "best" ice cream if it is not the one that they personally enjoy the most? Is the "best" ice cream derived from a poll?


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> What's the scientific explanation of a human right?


I...literally just explained it to you.



> The primary evolutionary drive for any organism is survival. Almost all of our moralistic behavior stems from a desire to survive and work together as a civilization; so people who hurt others are deemed bad because it goes against the primary evolutionary drive in some shape or form.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I have not had the time to read through every post.

My experience with the objectivity debate is that it was started by those who want to prove older music is better than contemporary music.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> I...literally just explained it to you.


"Becauth...thienth, thilly!!!!" :lol:


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> "Becauth...thienth, thilly!!!!" :lol:


A lisp doesn't make what I said any less true. Embarrassing debate tactics, really.

Let's get down to it:

Do disagree with science and instead believe that humans are driven by a cosmic force for good?

If so, then we are very soon about to have a religious discussion.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

chu42 said:


> Why should anyone care about what is the "best" ice cream


as far as analogies go, i suggest we use more obvious examples, like 'man' vs 'ape', i did before.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> I, for one, am glad then that we both reject the notion of "greatness" being an innate, inherent, intrinsic, embedded property of a piece of music. Greatness, "value", is read into/onto the otherwise inert art object by the action/reaction of the perceiver. Or do I misread your position?


Words are deceptive things. "Value" has more than one meaning, like "greatness" and most of the abstract terms people here throw around. Take care not to miss the difference between our beliefs as you float about in a sea of abstractions. Art may be metaphorically "inert," but it is the act of an artist who thinks and speaks through it.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Zhdanov said:


> as far as analogies go, i suggest we use more obvious examples, like 'man' vs 'ape', i did before.


Dear Zhdanov: Frankly, I have found not one of your many analogies or comments in general to have even the most minute amount of syllogistic relevance.

I won't bother debating with you and I won't even associate any of your arguments as representing objectivists, as there are others who are at least _attempting_ to have rational discussion.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

chu42 said:


> I won't bother debating with you


is man better than ape? reply quickly will you?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Things were so much easier when culture was transmitted top-down from a small group at the top of the pyramid. When you were given art, you took it and liked it.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

> If the primary goal of everything is survival, why is there such a thing as imaginative cruelty and self-destruction .. enabled in large part by a higher intelligence that a sea slug does quite well without.
> 
> In terms of explaining morality, you won't get very far with science.


In short, you're trying to prove the objective existence of a non-scientific moral standard.

Since I'm not an atheist, I am not inclined to say that it does not _exist_. But it is certainly non-provable.

The fact is, it's not something that is very interesting to discuss because it essentially boils down to what religious beliefs one might have.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Zhdanov said:


> is man better than ape? reply quickly will you?


On one hand, man has created art.

On the other hand, man has tortured and killed millions of beings.

So what you assume to be a rhetorical question is really quite a subjective one.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

None of these analogies are relevant for a comparative discussion regarding our responses to art or music. 

Can we just keep the discussion about music and not leap from ice cream to apes and morality?


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

chu42 said:


> what you assume to be a rhetorical question is really quite a subjective one.


ape is better than man then ?


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Zhdanov said:


> ape is better than man then ?


If you wish. Who cares.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> You are free to de-value Texas swing music; free to think it is not as good as any piece of classical music. And you are even free to think that classical music is on a higher artistic level than Texas swing music.
> 
> But what you are not defining Texas swing music for anyone else but you.


We're left with the fact that a subjectivist can't de-value any music or any art. Weird!


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

One last note: There's a famous passage from “The Grand Inquisitor” section of Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov in which Ivan Karamazov claims that if God does not exist, then everything is permitted. If there is no God, then there are no rules to live by, no moral law we must follow; we can do whatever we want.

But the same doesn't hold true for music. There is nothing at stake if we do not agree about what is good music, not like what's at stake if we disagree about murder.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> We're left with the fact that a subjectivist can't de-value any music or any art. Weird!


Yes, for themselves only. Subjectivists are not defining what is good music, they are identifying which music they prefer over other music. For themselves. Not for everyone in the world.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

chu42 said:


> If you wish. Who cares.


so ape is above man now ?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> Things were so much easier when culture was transmitted top-down from a small group at the top of the pyramid. When you were given art, you took it and liked it.


That CM culture didn't develop from relativism. But maybe some members have that opinion.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> Yes, for themselves only. Subjectivists are not defining what is good music, they are identifying which music they prefer over other music. For themselves. Not for everyone in the world.


Yes, we know. It's not helpful for students or for the future of CM (or for the audiences or for all those jobs).


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

^Classical music written for several hundred years were written for beauty, emotional expression, artistic gratification concurrently with the other criteria rather than for its own sake, glorification of religion, rulers, patrons and for making money. It was only with postmodernism now about half a century old, that reductivism and relativism showed up.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> We're left with the fact that a subjectivist can't de-value any music or any art. Weird!


Are we left with that? As individuals, we can each and all value and devalue--and we all do, every day!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Luchesi said:


> We're left with the fact that a subjectivist can't de-value any music or any art. Weird!


You don't need to evaluate music -- I mean what's the point of that?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> so ape is above man now ?


I posted somewhere several hundred pages back that the study of the social behavior of bonobos may help us construct a theory of evolved morality, which, along with the maternal bond and the development of empathy, will help us understand and explain why we have mental templates for how we (people) should behave socially. In certain ways, humans are an intermediate species between chimps and bonobos and share behaviors with both.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Are we left with that? As individuals, we can each and all value and devalue--and we all do, every day!


We learn at a very young age that everyones tastes are different. But now we to need to know how a field of study should be categorized by importance and taught. According to someone's preferences?

corrected
I think "everyones" is possessive - not "everyone's"


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> We learn at a very young age that everyone's tastes are different. But now we to need to know how a field of study should be categorized by importance and taught. According to someone's preferences?


A curriculum for teaching classical music appreciation is a specialized area. We need not concern ourselves on TC with devising and teaching this kind of course of study. We are here to discuss the music that interests us.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Imagine a society where the people have the same capacities for perception as us, they can see everything in the world that we can see, but they have no concept of _great._

That is possible IMO.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Imagine a society where the people have the same capacities for perception as us, they can see everything in the world that we can see, but they have no concept of _great._
> That is possible IMO.


If they have the same capacities for perception as us and a can see everything we see then an incapacity to make comparisons seems unlikely. But what's the point of going far into the weeds on theoreticals?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> Imagine a society where the people have the same capacities for perception as us, they can see everything in the world that we can see, but they have no concept of _great._
> 
> That is possible IMO.


I would imagine then they'd be very familiar with "mediocre".


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DaveM said:


> If they have the same capacities for perception as us and a can see everything we see then an incapacity to make comparisons seems unlikely. But what's the point of going far into the weeds on theoreticals?


Because if it is a coherent possibility it would suggest that there is a sense of objective which doesn't apply to greatness. Greatness is not, as it were, "in the world." maybe

I'm not sure about this. And there may be other senses of objective.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

We are *hear* to discuss the music that interests us.

I like the sound of that..


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> The scientific explanation is this:
> 
> The primary evolutionary drive for any organism is survival. Almost all of our moralistic behavior stems from a desire to survive and work together as a civilization; so people who hurt others are deemed bad because it goes against the primary evolutionary drive in some shape or form.
> 
> ...


By the way, chu42, I would call that a possible explanation or a rationalization or speculation. It's not empirically objectively proven so it's just as subjective as "John Cage is the greatest evah!!!!"


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> I posted somewhere several hundred pages back that the study of the social behavior of bonobos may help us construct a theory of evolved morality, which, along with the maternal bond and the development of empathy, will help us understand and explain why we have mental templates for how we (people) should behave socially. In certain ways, humans are an intermediate species between chimps and bonobos and share behaviors with both.


Oh, so I can't discuss philosophy, but you can discuss the discipline a couple of doors down, anthropology? :lol:


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

If I choose a fugue subject of Bach's at random and then combine it with a random theme from Chopin, it will almost surely sound awkward and dissonant in an artless way. An actual counter melody by Bach will sound appropriate in some way, whether you personally enjoy it or not. This will be because of the way Bach's material engages our ears' natural expectations.


If those seeming universal expectations that allow music theory to exist at all don't correspond to some sort of wiring in our brain, where do they come from? If they do and can be called an objective thing, could we not also say that Bach's counter melody objectively exhibits a greater sense of appropriateness?

I am not going to use nuclear words like better or greater, because I understand that there are some contexts in which seemingly unrelated, concurrent melodies that sound chaotic can be deliberate and effective, like in free jazz or whatever. But even in these genres there is a hidden method to the madness, such that just pushing play on two random tracks from separate jazz albums is not a valid way to replicate late Coltrane, despite whatever jokes you could make to the contrary.

Can we clear even the absolute lowest possible bar of objectivity by saying that music deliberately composed to sound musical at all objectively has a different and real effect on our brain called musicality, that a random chopin nocturne played over a random bach fugue does not?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> But even in these genres there is a hidden method to the madness, such that just pushing play on two random tracks from separate jazz albums is not a valid way to replicate late Coltrane, despite whatever jokes you could make to the contrary.


Well before you come to that conclusion try it with this, people do

https://www.discogs.com/AMM-The-Crypt-12th-June-1968/release/229672


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> If I choose a fugue subject of Bach's at random and then combine it with a random theme from Chopin, it will almost surely sound awkward and dissonant in an artless way. An actual counter melody by Bach will sound appropriate in some way, whether you personally enjoy it or not. This will be because of the way Bach's material engages our ears' natural expectations.
> 
> If those seeming universal expectations that allow music theory to exist at all don't correspond to some sort of wiring in our brain, where do they come from? If they do and can be called an objective thing, could we not also say that Bach's counter melody objectively exhibits a greater sense of appropriateness?
> 
> ...


Every counterpoint student is taught the conventions of Bach's music and exercises are devised for the student to complete, to the best of his ability in the stye of Bach. It won't matter that this student is doing all of the things Bach has done, his solution to the exercise will not sound like Bach's work.

Identifying conventions, operations, contrapuntal "rules" is easily done. But they are not like elements and operations in a mathematical equation, which will always produce the same result if solved correctly. The conventions and rules of good counterpoint are not objective laws which will always produce the same result.

Herein lies the difficulty with those trying to argue for an objective basis for great music. There is more there than meets the eye, or ear.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> Every counterpoint student is taught the conventions of Bach's music and exercises are devised for the student to complete, to the best of his ability in the stye of Bach. It won't matter that this student is doing all of the things Bach has done, his solution to the exercise will not sound like Bach's work.
> 
> Identifying conventions, operations, contrapuntal "rules" is easily done. But they are not like elements and operations in a mathematical equation, which will always produce the same result if solved correctly. *The conventions and rules of good counterpoint are not objective laws which will always produce the same result.*
> 
> Herein lies the difficulty with those trying to argue for an objective basis for great music. There is more there than meets the eye, or ear.


This is not the point I was setting up. I am trying to clarify what one would even mean when they say a work is "objectively" good.

I am a layman, but my understanding has always been that the "rules" of harmony and counterpoint clarify the natural expectations of the ear so that a composer can decide when and when not to satisfy or frustrate them, to whatever effect they desire. I know they do not tell a composer which notes are objectively good or bad. But the very existence of these rules corresponds to something in our wiring, I would think, and that means we can say any counter melody, by Bach or no, that exhibits more appropriateness than the random Chopin theme does so in an objective way, objectively sounds less random or dissonant. Whether one likes or dislikes the amusical counter melody, can you at least say that the pleasing (I mean pleasing like ending on the tonic key, or whatever you call it, not pleasing as in "I personally enjoy this music,") quality present in the one and not in the other is rooted in neurology to some degree, that the phenomenon of musicality itself that emerges is objective, is a real thing present in the one and not the other?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> If those seeming universal expectations that allow music theory to exist at all don't correspond to some sort of wiring in our brain, where do they come from? If they do and can be called an objective thing, could we not also say that Bach's counter melody objectively exhibits a greater sense of appropriateness?
> 
> .....................
> 
> Can we clear even the absolute lowest possible bar of objectivity by saying that music deliberately composed to sound musical at all objectively has a different and real effect on our brain called musicality, that a random chopin nocturne played over a random bach fugue does not?


You may already know Meyer's work, but Leonard Meyer, in two rather dense books, _Emotion and Meaning in Music_ and _Music, The Arts, and Ideas_ spelled out much of what makes music work in terms of expectations fulfilled and thwarted (and much else). He did almost nothing on what he called the sensual aspect of music, but much has been teased out about that aspect in neurology studies. These factors are pretty well established, or getting there, as "objective" data. The situation becomes far less predictive on the granular level of personal, individual reactions, neurology, history, so that perhaps gross generalizations can be made about what more or less appeals to people _en masse_, it becomes less and less predictive for individuals. And that's what listeners are.

I recommend _Music, The Arts, and Ideas_ especially, as one gets, as a huge bonus, Meyer on the New Stasis in the arts, a Very Powerful tool for understanding art in the world today, IMHO.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> I posted somewhere several hundred pages back that the study of the social behavior of bonobos may help us construct a theory of evolved morality, which, along with the maternal bond and the development of empathy, will help us understand and explain why we have mental templates for how we (people) should behave socially. In certain ways, humans are an intermediate species between chimps and bonobos and share behaviors with both.


Yes, bonobos are a revelation to human males. Are we 'intermediate'? I like that.

But sadly, human females have different concerns within societies.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> By the way, chu42, I would call that a possible explanation or a rationalization or speculation. It's not empirically objectively proven so it's just as subjective as "John Cage is the greatest evah!!!!"


Ok. Scientific explanations on morality are subjective; and so is value judgment in music. I'm glad we can finally agree.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Well here's a genuine question and I'll bow out on discussions of the topic, since it really goes nowhere. But frequently there will be a composer or work that so-and-so doesn't particularly care for. Others will say "well you have to give X a chance and see what X is doing here..." That's actually happened recently with me regarding Bruckner, whose work I had heard but was apathetic about. Now I'm a big Bruckner fan. So, when you ask someone to give X a chance, are you appealing to someone to change their subjective tastes, or are you saying that there's some objective quality to this work or composer that perhaps is being missed or overlooked?



chu42 said:


> Ok. Scientific explanations on morality are subjective; and so is value judgment in music. I'm glad we can finally agree.


Well, could be, but it could also simply be self-evident, just as human rights and dignity are not scientifically measurable but most of us know they exist...and maybe not just as survival strategies (survival of what, the individual? The group? Which group?). Some things we think of now as moral aberrations like slavery must've also developed as survival mechanisms. That convenient catch-all is just too pat for my subjective tastes.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

chu42 said:


> Ok. Scientific explanations on morality are subjective; and so is value judgment in music. I'm glad we can finally agree.


It is debatable whether morality is scientific truth or not. I do not think it is. Morality is something that is socially and culturally defined. Much like art, you need to use its own criteria.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> humans are an intermediate species between chimps and bonobos and share behaviors with both.


that is a lie the satanists propagate... however, while man is godlike, he might share a mutual ancestor with ape, but man stands tall and true to his divine forefather, whereas ape transmutated and degenerated to now be a disgrace.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

It looks like this thread has run its course, and is now taking a detour into totally different subjects. If people insist on continuing the objectivity/subjectivity debate, there are still a number of other threads open. This one is pining for the fjords.


----------

