# Great avant-garde music vs. Average/Mediocre avant-garde music



## hammeredklavier

Is there a line (standard of quality) differentiating between the two? What are some examples of "masterpieces" by John Cage, and "less successful/valuable works" by him, for example? What are the individual elements or traits that determine "quality" in those works?

Here's an example of "standard of quality" in common practice music":
*Malcolm Bilson: Taste in Mozart and Chopin




 (3:02~5:40)*

Is there a similar method of reasoning for avant-garde music, in distinguishing the great stuff from the average/mediocre stuff?


----------



## consuono

It's all good, dude. You know that.


----------



## SONNET CLV

hammeredklavier said:


> ... What are some examples of "masterpieces" by John Cage, and "less successful/valuable works" by him, for example? What are the individual elements or traits that determine "quality" in those works?
> 
> ...


With Cage it's rather easy. If you don't hear any musical sounds you are likely listening to his masterpiece. If you do hear musical sounds it's likely a lesser Cage work, or something by someone else, maybe Mozart or Beethoven or some other composer.

Music of today often seems lame in comparison to music of the past, but music of today is often moreso a visual art form than an aural one. Think of the foremost pop divas and superstars. Almost all of them are associated with visual effects -- dancing, hair and clothing styles, pyrotechnic and light show performances, all kinds of antics that have nothing to do with music.

In the "old days" I expected that a recording I could listen to in the dark of my listening room was what the music was. If I attempt to listen to much of today's music in the dark (that is, without the accompanying video and visuals) I miss a lot.

Cage seems to have been ahead of his time in terms of realizing the shift in music messaging. His 4'33" depends heavily upon the visual. I have a couple of recordings of the music, but they aren't as interesting as the couple of videos I've seen of performance of the work. You could say that for Cage, the moment of performance of the musical work is important, sometimes more important than the actual sounds that are produced. Cage was much for chance operations (musicians making their own spontaneous selections of what to play or not to play, what sounds to produce or not to produce, and when and for how long, etc.) and if outside sources produced extraneous sounds that overpowered those produced by the musician on display that was okay too.


----------



## Portamento

How do you expect me to respond to this seriously when you link to a PragerU video?


----------



## Lisztian

Portamento said:


> How do you expect me to respond to this seriously when you link to a PragerU video?


Yeah. That graph at 1:52 is hilarious.

As for the OP, well avant-garde music comes in many different forms. Different works are distinguished by different things. For me, personally, it usually just comes down to whether it sounds good and whether I find the musical material/discourse to be engaging. Yesterday I listened to a CD with Berio's Eindrucke and his Sinfonia. I find the former to be pretty repetitive, uninteresting, boring (this could very well be my problem at this point). The Sinfonia, however, is one of my favourite works of all time. The music is sensual and engaging, the arch structure is very well handled, the finale concludes the whole work magnificently, and the whole thing just bursts with invention and colour. What more do I need to point out other than these subjective reactions?


----------



## consuono

Portamento said:


> How do you expect me to respond to this seriously when you link to a PragerU video?


Look this up: "argumentum ad hominem" and "genetic fallacy".


Lisztian said:


> ... What more do I need to point out other than these subjective reactions?


Who are some of the weaker avant garde composers in your opinion, in terms of their overall style and body of work?


----------



## Mandryka

hammeredklavier said:


> Is there a line (standard of quality) differentiating between the two? What are some examples of "masterpieces" by John Cage, and "less successful/valuable works" by him, for example? What are the individual elements or traits that determine "quality" in those works?
> 
> Here's an example of "standard of quality" in common practice music":
> *Malcolm Bilson: Taste in Mozart and Chopin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (3:02~5:40)*
> 
> Is there a similar method of reasoning for avant-garde music, in distinguishing the great stuff from the average/mediocre stuff?


I don't have an answer to this question, but I want to suggest a way of answering it. There are festivals of contemporary art music in Europe and no doubt elsewhere. The Borealis Festival, Darmstädter Ferienkursen, Donaueschinger Musiktage, Wittener Tage für neue Kammermusik, Musica Viva, Festival d'Automne, London Contemporary Music, Ultima, Wien Modern, the events at The Pompidou Centre, The Huddersfield festival, Cafe Oto, Tate music events and more. I think that to answer your question we should look at the music these festivals have promoted under different curatorships over the past few decades, since 1989 say. The criteria being deployed would start to give us a handle on what's going on.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> Who are some of the weaker avant garde composers in your opinion, in terms of their overall style and body of work?


I'll mention an avant garde composer who I feel strongly is not very good, but I'm not sure why I have this strong belief. Just a feeling, inarticulate. Henryk Görecki.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

I'm glad Hammeredklavier made this thread, as it's something I've always been curious about. Coming from someone who greatly enjoys AV-G music, form my experience I've definitely heard some AV-G that struck me ultimately lacking in substance and hiding behind some pretentious aura of "it's avant-garde, you just don't get it" (subjective impressions though - I think we should attempt to view the artist's intentions as genuine, otherwise you're going to be categorically closed-minded to the art).

I'm typically inclined to not like a piece if it fails to develop on tangible ideas (even if this wasn't the goal the piece set out to accomplish in the first place). I like the disorder of free jazz and appreciates sounds just in themselves (river noises, bird tweeting, car traffic "when you listen to Beethoven it's always the same, the traffic on Fifth Avenue is always different"), but note-soup with no sense of direction or development made by contemporary composers has no appeal to me, or rarely.


----------



## Mandryka

And I'll give you an example of music which I have a strong intuition is very good, a masterpiece. And I'll try to say why.

Peter Ablinger's _Piano and Record_ is the sound of an empty LP transcribed for piano. Example here, love it.

https://ablinger.mur.at/i+r_pno+rec.html

The transcription has made something out of nothing. Ontological bliss. Alchemy. And what a revelation that music is there in something which previously we thought was just a void. There's a moral lesson, a lesson for life, in there.


----------



## George P Smackers

The outstanding avant garde works are easy to spot. They are the most influential, the most inspiring to audiences and other composers, the most discussed, the most performed and recorded.

So yes, 4'33 is a great work, because people discuss it, perform it, find it interesting to think about. To my mind, it's more like a piece of conceptual art than "music" in the traditional sense, but conceptual art can be inspiring. And I do think it has enough musical elements-it's organized sound (sort of) performed in a delimited time (with a vengeance) and space. I find the newness and audacity of 4'33 exciting.

In the same way, Stockhausen has attained a big reputation because listeners find his works moving and interesting and, among them, pieces like _Stimmung_ and _Gruppen_ get singled out as particularly successful.

The less successful avant-garde stuff is derivative, boring, covering old ground, etc. Much like mediocre music from the pre-20th century "classical music" tradition.

But I'm not sure what you'd call "avant garde." Second Viennese School? I certainly love listening to Webern. Or how about _Le Sacre du Printemps_? That set a lot of the bourgeoisie on edge, as intended. Or are you limiting the term to post-WWII art music?

Anyway, it sort of seems like there's something behind your question. An implicit value judgment? If not, I apologize, but if so, you should come out and say it.


----------



## calvinpv

For me, there are definitely pieces of avant-garde music that I don't care for, but also many that I love. I don't have extensive knowledge of classical music (traditional or avant-garde), but one thing that I have picked up on is that, when it comes to avant-garde music, you cannot use the same criteria in evaluating their worth. Not because there's no single universal aesthetic criteria (although, disclaimer, I do personally believe there's no such thing), but because every composer is "reinventing the wheel", so to speak, with their own philosophical positions on art and with wildly different techniques in play. I know enough to say that there are more nuanced way to categorize and speak about music than just "tonal" and "atonal". Sure, if by "atonal" we mean that avant-garde composers de-emphasize traditional tonal harmonies when constructing music in favor of other parameters, then yes, most avant-garde composers are atonal. But that's not a very useful definition to go by because it doesn't allow for further breakdown into more specific categories. In my opinion, you have to understand the music on a case-by-case basis and evaluate every piece by _its own criteria_ (in other words, by the ideas that piece is exploring and whether it succeeds in doing so). When I say that every piece is evaluated on its own terms, that is _not_ the same as saying that there are no criteria whatsoever. It only means the criteria is constantly changing. I think this is especially true of music from the last 30 years or so (it's probably a little less true of the post-war serialist movement because, although, no doubt, the serialist techniques were used differently by different composers, they all, nevertheless, shared the same commitment to avoiding tonal centers in their music; but I could be wrong).

Here's an example. I've been listening on and off the last few weeks to all of Simon Steen-Andersen's music to create a list of best works for Trout's contemporary music list (I also think Steen-Andersen is a very creative composer). One of his works, _TRIO_, for orchestra, big band, choir and video installation, is probably one of the best classical works written in the last 5-10 years (in my opinion). Why? Because it explores so many different and interesting musical ideas and is able to integrate them so seamlessly.

Some of the ideas:

--It takes video samples (and their corresponding audio) and splices them into the live orchestra (you'll notice video and live orchestra alternating back-and-forth). This is really cool because you end up hearing these two components together as a continuous flow in a single voice as opposed to separately as two contrapuntal voices in conflict. You'll also notice that Steen-Andersen uses a rather regular rhythm. That is probably by design: an irregular rhythm in this case would mean video samples of different and constantly changing durations and would undermine this sense of a single continuous voice (that's not to say irregular rhythms are bad in every piece, just in this particular case and for this particular reason).

--The samples he uses are repeated. Also by design: whenever we hear any traditional music that uses the 12 notes of the chromatic scale, it's not like we hear those notes once and never again. All 12 notes are repeated many many times throughout a work and serve as the basic building blocks for complex forms. Well, the same idea is in play here, except it's not the 12 chromatic notes that are building blocks but the video samples. You'll notice the samples inform the live orchestra in that the latter often imitates what is heard on the video projection. But also these samples are arranged into a "scale" of sorts at the end of the piece. The larger point Steen-Andersen is making is that complex video/audio samples can be treated as simple units and enter onto an equal playing field with the gestures we make on regular instruments.

--This one is hard to describe but Steen-Andersen does the same with the "background noises" that go into making a sound. If you press a key on the piano, in addition to the intended note, you also hear (very faintly) the sound of the key pressed and lifted. Same thing with sliding and lifting a bow on a string, or blowing and releasing your mouth from a mouthpiece, etc. Steen-Andersen likes taking these little sounds and isolating them just enough so that they serve as yet another building block for the continuous flow and rhythm. This idea isn't explored as fully here as in other works by Steen-Andersen (e.g. his _Piano Concerto_ or _Pretty Sound_), so maybe that's a knock against this piece. But starting at 2:09:30, the video samples are cut so short that you no longer hear their contents but a static noise from cutting to and from each sample. The static, however, makes up a beat in the rhythm that develops.

--There is a level of self-awareness in the piece in that it recognizes itself as the product of a specific time and place and for a specific purpose. For a great example of this, starting around 2:14:00, an image of a phonograph pops up, then the live orchestra and choir start imitating an old record. While this self-congratulatory sounding music is playing, you see archival footage from the SWR radio station about the making of tape music, the legacy of the SWR radio station, and even about the SWR archives themselves -- which is exactly why and how the piece was made, by splicing SWR archival footage into a "tape". Maybe I just haven't had enough exposure to contemporary music, but I don't remember any piece of music that can sustain a level of self-awareness for 50 whole minutes.

Notice that I made no reference to "atonality" and a single, very indirect one to "tonality", but I instead talked about the music on its own terms, the terms being set by what Steen-Andersen himself has said in interviews, in CD liner notes, in a couple free articles I found on the internet, and just thinking through the music with what I learned. Again, it's quite possible to talk about contemporary avant-garde music in great detail and make judgments about them. If I was more knowledgeable about music, I could probably talk even longer.

Piece starts 1:39:00 and goes to the end.






Now for a piece that I didn't particularly care for. Steen-Andersen wrote a piece called _in spite of, and maybe even therefore_. The piece explores the first three ideas I wrote about above (there's no self-awareness here) and explores them pretty well. The problem is in the structure of the piece. The gist of the piece (which can be read in the program note if you pause the video below at 00:19) is that one group of instruments has as its material a 7-bar sequence that loops over and over (individual bars will also loop several times at once). But you never hear the full sequence uninterrupted and in fact the interruptions increase in frequency and length as time goes on. What interrupts the sequence is the other group playing longer and longer fragments of a Beethoven bagatelle. But every time this second group plays, the musicians have to take apart their instruments and play the bagatelle with what's left of their instruments. Therefore, neither group gets to play their part unimpeded.

I think that's a cool idea, but the problem is that for the second group, I think Steen-Andersen makes the musicians take apart their instruments way too early. I think it should have been established -- at least, for a minute or two -- that a Beethoven bagatelle was being played and then subsequently deconstructed. Without hearing the bagatelle as a point of reference, Steen-Andersen might as well have written the title of any piece in the program note. This mistake is simple, yet fatal.


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> I'll mention an avant garde composer who I feel strongly is not very good, but I'm not sure why I have this strong belief. Just a feeling, inarticulate. Henryk Görecki.


Is Gorecki avant garde? Maybe you have that feeling because that's what Boulez thought.


> But every time this second group plays, the musicians have to take apart their instruments and play the bagatelle with what's left of their instruments.


That's a gimmick substituting for musical substance, and even there Beethoven has to be invoked.


----------



## Simon Moon

Not being a Cage fan, I don't believe Cage has any masterpiece. He's only a minor composer of the 20th century, IMO.

There are plenty of composers that might be considered avant-garde by many here, that I do feel have masterpieces, though.

Carter, Maderna, Wuorinen, Lindberg, Sessions, Birtwistle, just to name a few.


----------



## Simon Moon

And let me add, that I find it predictable on Talk Classical, that the go to composer used by the anti modernists to deride avant-garde and modern classical is Cage. 

He's like the poster child for anti modernists to point at, in order to dismiss all modern and avant-garde classical.


----------



## calvinpv

consuono said:


> Is Gorecki avant garde? Maybe you have the feeling because that's what Boulez thought.


I don't know too many by Gorecki but I've always liked this one. Reminds me a bit of Peteris Vasks' 4th SQ. Maybe Mandryka should try this.








consuono said:


> That's a gimmick substituting for musical substance, and even there Beethoven has to be invoked.


In theory it didn't have to be Beethoven. It could've been the music of any composer, hell, it could've been a fragment of music Steen-Andersen wrote himself. But my criticism would be the same. In the piece, you're not supposed to direct your ears to the ways in which Steen-Andersen transforms the Beethoven fragment (because there are no transformations) but to the "transformations" of the instruments playing the Beethoven and the resulting timbral changes. And my criticism is that it starts too early; we're not really given an indication as to what kind of fragment receives a timbral transformation.


----------



## Handelian

Simon Moon said:


> And let me add, that I find it predictable on Talk Classical, that the go to composer used by the anti modernists to deride avant-garde and modern classical is Cage.
> 
> He's like the poster child for anti modernists to point at, in order to dismiss all modern and avant-garde classical.


You don't need Cage as an excuse not to like some of the dreadful stuff that purports to be music.


----------



## Mandryka

Simon Moon said:


> He's like the poster child for anti modernists to point at, in order to dismiss all modern and avant-garde classical.


Re Cage I don't entirely agree with you. I think he is probably the greatest composer since Perotin. And I think that 4.33 is the single most important musical work for the past 1000 years. 4.33 opened our eyes to previously unimagined possibilities. But it will have to wait till tomorrow for me to explain why, if it's not obvious.


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> And I think that 4.33 is the single most important musical work for the past 1000 years.


Sorry, but this is the sort of thing that discourages taking the avant garde very seriously.


calvinpv said:


> ...
> In theory it didn't have to be Beethoven. It could've been the music of any composer, hell, it could've been a fragment of music Steen-Andersen wrote himself. ...


Sure, but it was Beethoven. You seem to see that quite a bit in a.g. music, allusions to great music of the past here and there to try to maintain some tenuous link to it or glomming from it even while repudiating it.


----------



## Haydn man

Looks like we are in danger (yet again) of entering the black hole that is Cage and 4.33.


----------



## janxharris

Does anyone know where 4′33″ is on the most highly recommended list? Does not seem to be a quick way to search for specific works.


----------



## janxharris

After the premiere in 1952 Cage said:

_'They missed the point. There's no such thing as silence. What they thought was silence, because they didn't know how to listen, was full of accidental sounds. You could hear the wind stirring outside during the first movement. During the second, raindrops began patterning the roof, and during the third the people themselves made all kinds of interesting sounds as they talked or walked out.'_


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> Sorry, but this is the sort of thing that discourages taking the avant garde very seriously.


Here are two of the reasons I believe that 4.33 is such an important piece of music.

1. A performance incites the audience to rethink, in a fundamental way, the relationship between composition, performance and listening. In 4.33 the whole concert hall is the subject of attention, not just the the performers on the stage.

2. Cage's own emotions, discernment, associations and tastes aren't present in a performance of 4.33. The listener's focus is directed towards the behaviour of the sounds themselves under the circumstances, rather than on the decisions or expressivity of the composer. This enriches the listener's subjective experience, because the listener's own thoughts and experiences become primary.


----------



## SanAntone

Mandryka said:


> Here are two of the reasons I believe that 4.33 is such an important piece of music.
> 
> 1. A performance incites the audience to rethink, in a fundamental way, the relationship between composition, performance and listening. In 4.33 the whole concert hall is the subject of attention, not just the the performers on the stage.
> 
> 2. Cage's own emotions, discernment, associations and tastes aren't present in a performance of 4.33. The listener's focus is directed towards the behaviour of the sounds themselves under the circumstances, rather than on the decisions or expressivity of the composer. This enriches the listener's subjective experience, because the listener's own thoughts and experiences become primary.


Nice. (ignore this text)


----------



## SanAntone

"A wise man will see Nirvana at once in the ordinary things of life; a fool will philosophize about it and think of it as something else, yet -

'An old pine tree preaches wisdom
And a wild bird is crying out Truth'

and when master Tung-shan was asked, 'What is the Buddha?' he replied 'Three pounds of flax.' The whole technique of Zen was to jolt people out of their ruts and their conventional morality."

Alan Watts. _The Spirit of Zen_. p. 30-31.


----------



## HenryPenfold

I'm thinking of downloading 5.24, the one with the exposition repeats.


----------



## SanAntone

I think it was Stephen Sondheim when asked about the experience of working in the theater as opposed to working on movies, said that movies are a frozen performance, and are there forever, never changing. But the theater is alive, each performance is different, but is ephemeral. 

This is also true of recordings and live concerts. For me, music only really comes alive in a live performance and recordings are a snapshot, a dead document of a performance.

One thing that I find sad about TC and other classical music forums is a veneration, a fetishizing, of the recording, the product. Comparing them, collecting them, it seems to encourage a tendency to lapse into treating the composers themselves as products to collect. 

I think John Cage's entire career was an attempt to jar us out of this kind of thinking.


----------



## HenryPenfold

SanAntone said:


> One thing that I find sad about TC and other classical music forums is a veneration, a fetishizing, of the recording, the product. Comparing them, collecting them, it seems to encourage a tendency to lapse into treating the composers themselves as products to collect.


It's what I've done my whole life. I feel so silly now


----------



## Mandryka

SanAntone said:


> I think it was Stephen Sondheim when asked about the experience of working in the theater as opposed to working on movies, said that movies are a frozen performance, and are there forever, never changing. But the theater is alive, each performance is different, but is ephemeral.
> 
> This is also true of recordings and live concerts. For me, music only really comes alive in a live performance and recordings are a snapshot, a dead document of a performance.
> 
> One thing that I find sad about TC and other classical music forums is a veneration, a fetishizing, of the recording, the product. Comparing them, collecting them, it seems to encourage a tendency to lapse into treating the composers themselves as products to collect.
> 
> I think John Cage's entire career was an attempt to jar us out of this kind of thinking.


And yet, ironically, Wandelweisser, whose aesthetic ideas are allegedly indebted to Cage's, promote the CD as fetish object quite actively I think. This is an interesting area IMO.


----------



## SanAntone

> consuono: Sorry, but this is the sort of thing that discourages taking the avant garde very seriously.


You don't need any encouragement to not take John Cage seriously, you are a one-trick pony.

The thread asking for the best ten year period of CM got me thinking. Members offered up periods from the past, but I decided the *best ten year period is the next ten years*, and will always be the next ten years. New music is intrinsically interesting and listening to it is a constantly reinvigorating experience.

The title of this thread, "Great avant-garde music vs. Average/Mediocre avant-garde music" is based on a flawed premise. Each composer and work (across all periods) is a singularity, unique to itself and cannot be compared to another work/composer, except using artificial and arbitrary criteria, usually our own subjective perception.

So, don't take Cage seriously, don't take avant-garde music seriously. Keep ranting against it. It won't change a thing.


----------



## consuono

> You don't need any encouragement to not take John Cage seriously, you are a one-trick pony.


Awwww. And it's always the poor avant garde fans who are insulted. Btw I wouldve said the same thing about a Chopin fan who proposed the Preludes or whatever, so you're the one making everything about Cage. 


> One thing that I find sad about TC and other classical music forums is a veneration, a fetishizing, of the recording, the product. Comparing them, collecting them, it seems to encourage a tendency to lapse into treating the composers themselves as products to collect.


Is that Record Envy because a.g. recordings aren't flying off the shelf at the same rate? And it's true, a lot of CP composers are venerated, whereas a g. ones are more often ignored. That's not the fault of Beethoven fans or audiophiles.



> but I decided the best ten year period is the next ten years,


Sounds like a greeting card.


Mandryka said:


> Here are two of the reasons I believe that 4.33 is such an important piece of music.
> 
> 1. A performance incites the audience to rethink, in a fundamental way, the relationship between composition, performance and listening. In 4.33 the whole concert hall is the subject of attention, not just the the performers on the stage.
> 
> 2. Cage's own emotions, discernment, associations and tastes aren't present in a performance of 4.33. The listener's focus is directed towards the behaviour of the sounds themselves under the circumstances, rather than on the decisions or expressivity of the composer. This enriches the listener's subjective experience, because the listener's own thoughts and experiences become primary.


So what's so great and earth-shattering about all of that? It's one philosophical stance among a multitude, and I don't discern any kind of lasting influence.


----------



## SanAntone

Is this avant-garde music?

*Morton Feldman - For John Cage*
by Darragh Morgan / John Tilbury









To me it is just music.

No labels.



> Composed in 1982 and described by the composer as "a little piece for violin and piano [that] doesn't quite quit", you may well find yourself wishing it hadn't finished when this spell-binding performance by Irish violinist Darragh Morgan and Feldman authority John Tilbury on piano finally reaches its evaporating, atomised conclusion.


----------



## consuono

> To me it is just music.
> 
> No labels.


Give me a break. You spent half a thread on the concert piece-film score dichotomy.


> Morton Feldman - For John Cage


I looked that up btw and listened to it a little. But at an hour and twenty minutes it's longer than a Bruckner symphony. My initial reaction is "meh".


----------



## DaveM

Mandryka said:


> Here are two of the reasons I believe that 4.33 is such an important piece of music.
> 
> 1. A performance incites the audience to rethink, in a fundamental way, the relationship between composition, performance and listening. In 4.33 the whole concert hall is the subject of attention, not just the the performers on the stage.
> 
> 2. Cage's own emotions, discernment, associations and tastes aren't present in a performance of 4.33. The listener's focus is directed towards the behaviour of the sounds themselves under the circumstances, rather than on the decisions or expressivity of the composer. This enriches the listener's subjective experience, because the listener's own thoughts and experiences become primary.


A concept? Yes. Getting in touch with the world around us? Certainly. A relaxation/meditation technique? Sure. A form of cognitive therapy? Perhaps.

But, Music? No. A performance? No. Something that has been given far more profound meaning/importance than Cage ever intended? Yes!


----------



## janxharris

FWIW 4'33'' is currently on tier 86 of the most highly recommended. (You can search any work on the TC list by using CTRL + F (or command + F on a Mac) and typing in the box).


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> So what's so great and earth-shattering about all of that? It's one philosophical stance among a multitude, and I don't discern any kind of lasting influence.


Here's one example of its influence






For at least part of his career, Taku Sugimoto took the idea that music is a combination of sound and silence seriously. He believes that the silences can have a character as interesting as the pitches, the character being determined not only by their duration, but also by their context. He wants us to listen to the silences with the same sort of attention as we listen to the notes. An example is in the youtube above -- his guitar quartet Stay IV.


----------



## Mandryka

And here's another

Bernhard Gunter's Whiteout is very quiet. There is no pulse; no melody; no determinate pitch. It is so quiet you sometimes don't know whether what you hear is in the music or whether it's part of your environment. It erodes the barrier between music and life.






The recording is here, but mine is a different edition and I'm not totally sure where Whiteout starts on the youtube. Maybe at 9 minutes. But no matter, you'll get the idea.


----------



## SanAntone

Mandryka said:


> Here's one example of its influence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For at least part of his career, Taku Sugimoto took the idea that music is a combination of sound and silence seriously. He believes that the silences can have a character as interesting as the pitches, the character being determined not only by their duration, but also by their context. He wants us to listen to the silences with the same sort of attention as we listen to the notes. An example is in the youtube above -- his guitar quartet Stay IV.


New composer for me. Nice.


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> Here's one example of its influence


Key word is "lasting". Lady GaGa was influenced by Madonna, too.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> Key word is "lasting". Lady GaGa was influenced by Madonna, too.


Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.


----------



## consuono

Selbst ein Narr sollte das Offensichtliche sehen.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> Selbst ein Narr sollte das Offensichtliche sehen.


That's what was widely said about Van Gough in his lifetime. He had to give his stuff away.


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> That's what was widely said about Van Gough in his lifetime. He had to give his stuff away.


Marketing, nicht wahr?


----------



## regenmusic

There is a difference between conceptual art that involves sound and music.

Some bad avant garde "music" might better be called "soundtracks for bad movies you play in your mind" or "soundtracks for empowering yourself in odd ways." 

Some really just is a novel artistic concept that involves sound. That's why there is so a great difference between all pre-20th Century music and bad avant garde "music." 

Real music needs champions today, with all the commercially driven pop/youth "music," gangster rap, and the lack of understanding the difference between conceptual art that involves sound and real music. 

No one said Conceptual Art (which is a movement) had to just involve text.


----------



## DaveM

Mandryka said:


> That's what was widely said about Van Gough in his lifetime. He had to give his stuff away.


Van Gogh's popularity began to spike in a major way 24 years after he died. After 50+ years, we're still waiting for an Avant-garde breakout.


----------



## SanAntone

regenmusic said:


> There is a difference between conceptual art that involves sound and music.
> 
> Some bad avant garde "music" might better be called "soundtracks for bad movies you play in your mind" or "soundtracks for empowering yourself in odd ways."
> 
> Some really just is a novel artistic concept that involves sound. That's why there is so a great difference between all pre-20th Century music and bad avant garde "music."
> 
> Real music needs champions today, with all the commercially driven pop/youth "music," gangster rap, and the lack of understanding the difference between conceptual art that involves sound and real music.
> 
> No one said Conceptual Art (which is a movement) had to just involve text.


What you consider "bad avant-garde music" I might consider interesting and enjoyable. For the record, I don't classify any music as good or bad; just that music which I enjoy and that which I do not find enjoyable.



DaveM said:


> Van Gogh's popularity began to spike in a major way 24 years after he died. After 50+ years, we're still waiting for an Avant-garde breakout.


Who's waiting? I'm not waiting, I am listening to new music as I find it.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> Who's waiting? I'm not waiting, I am listening to new music as I find it.


You missed the point. Still, I'm so happy for you.


----------



## John O

Why 4’33” might be interesting, groundbreaking, influential but in the end not really music.

To the average listener or musician , any description of a piece of music not heard before is entirely inadequate to understand the experience of listening to it ; be it Monteverdi, Mozart, Ligeti or Birtwistle. To a talented musician reading the score might be a substitute. 

The astute listener can accurately imagine listening to 4’33 without having experienced it. Same could be said of Ligeti’s Poeme Symphonique for 100 metronomes.The difference is that Ligeti reputation is not based on that piece.


----------



## consuono

DaveM said:


> You missed the point. Still, I'm so happy for you.


The point I think is that you can see copies of Sunflowers or The Starry Night in dentist offices whereas I don't think Stockhausen or Steve Reich (as examples) are ever going to have that kind of appeal. Pärt, Glass and Adams are a little more successful in that regard (Pärt is actually one of my favorite composers). Yes, a lot of composers that we regard as more or less "mainstream" today were considered avant garde in their time, like Stravinsky and Bartók. Some like Webern are "mainstream" but still don't have a broad listener base.
The problem is you can take being edgy, "different" and "progressive" only so far before that too becomes either a formless mess or as repetitive as copying Rachmaninoff over and over.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> You missed the point. Still, I'm so happy for you.


I didn't miss the point, I just don't think it is a point worth making.


----------



## consuono

> For the record, I don't classify any music as good or bad; just that music which I enjoy and that which I do not find enjoyable.


A distinction without a difference.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> A distinction without a difference.


I recognize that if even I don't enjoy a piece of music it still does not mean the music is bad, and I won't say it is "bad" since someone else may find it enjoyable. That is the difference.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> I recognize that if even I don't enjoy a piece of music it still does not mean the music is bad, and I won't say it is "bad" since someone else may find it enjoyable. That is the difference.


If it's good music I will be able to enjoy it at some level. I'm not a Tchaikovsky fan, but I can enjoy his skill at orchestration and forming a melodic line. It isn't "bad music", it's just not among my first choices for listening. Sitting through a Tchaikovsky symphony wouldn't be mind-numbing for me. Sitting through Ferneyhough's Time and Motion Study II is.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> I didn't miss the point, I just don't think it is a point worth making.


Don't tell me. Tell the poster who brought up the subject of Van Gogh not being popular in his lifetime.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> Don't tell me. Tell the poster who brought up the subject of Van Gogh not being popular in his lifetime.


Point taken. :tiphat:


----------



## arpeggio

Between my experiences here and the old Amazon Classical Music Forum I have been been involved in this debate for over a decade without any satisfactory resolution.

For example the legacy of John Cage. In all of that time no one who dislikes Cage has convinced a person who admires Cage that Cage was a charlatan.


----------



## John O

I think Cage is overrated but I don’t think he was a charlatan. I do wish this thread on Great vs Average Avante-Garde composers wasn’t mainly about Cage.


----------



## Mandryka

regenmusic said:


> There is a difference between conceptual art that involves sound and music.
> 
> Some bad avant garde "music" might better be called "soundtracks for bad movies you play in your mind" or "soundtracks for empowering yourself in odd ways."
> 
> Some really just is a novel artistic concept that involves sound. That's why there is so a great difference between all pre-20th Century music and bad avant garde "music."
> 
> Real music needs champions today, with all the commercially driven pop/youth "music," gangster rap, and the lack of understanding the difference between conceptual art that involves sound and real music.
> 
> No one said Conceptual Art (which is a movement) had to just involve text.





John O said:


> Why 4'33" might be interesting, groundbreaking, influential but in the end not really music.


You two should explore music by Wolfgang Rihm, maybe his string quartets or his songs. Michael Finnissy too.


----------



## Mandryka

,Ma,mxnnxxmnw,xs,nS


----------



## consuono

arpeggio said:


> Between my experiences here and the old Amazon Classical Music Forum I have been been involved in this debate for over a decade without any satisfactory resolution.
> 
> For example the legacy of John Cage. In all of that time no one who dislikes Cage has convinced a person who admires Cage that Cage was a charlatan.


In the first place I don't think he was a charlatan. I think he was quite sincere, like most in the avant garde, But sincerity doesn't equal talent. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything about Cage or anyone else, just stating my opinion. But the question is how many are converted to viewing Cage and the avant garde in general favorably.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> In the first place I don't think he was a charlatan. I think he was quite sincere, like most in the avant garde, But sincerity doesn't equal talent. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything about Cage or anyone else, just stating my opinion. But the question is how many are converted to viewing Cage and the avant garde in general favorably.


No one is convinced to like or dislike any music by an argument - it might cause them to investigate on their own. I am convinced that it is only by listening to the music that we find out about the music.

It is correct that there is nothing anyone can say against Cage that would change my opinion of his music or his ideas. All I hope is that as consequence of these discussions, someone who doesn't know his music might listen and find out for themselves if his music interests them. For me that is the best purpose of TC - a place for people to discover music new to them.

Re: Discovering John Cage

I wouldn't suggest 4'33" as the place to start - unless they have an opportunity to go to a live concert of it (I consider recordings of it irrelevant). I'd suggest the _Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano_, maybe - or the any of the *Number Pieces* from the last creative period of his life. _Ryoanji_ is another wonderful Cage work that usually comes off well on recordings.

Also his book _Silence_ offers a keyhole into his philosophy and ideas about music and composing if one is interesting in pursuing that aspect of his career.


----------



## SanAntone

Addendum to my post above, regarding 4'33". I've been reminded of this from the John Cage Trust -



> 4'33" App for iPhoneTM
> 
> 4'33" was John Cage's most famous and disruptive composition, and now it can be performed by you! Cage's work, which teaches us that there's no such thing as 'silence' (and that there's joy to be found in paying close attention to the sounds around), is available in this official release from the John Cage Trust and Cage's long-time publisher, C.F. Peters.
> 
> Users are able to capture a three-movement 'performance' of the ambient sounds in their environment, and then upload and share that performance with the world. They're also able to listen to the performances of others, and to explore a worldwide map of ever-growing performance locations.
> 
> As a bonus, the 4'33" app features a recording of the ambient sounds at play in John Cage's last New York apartment, which he found a source of constant surprise, inspiration, and delight.
> 
> The map below shows performances that have been posted to date. To hear them, and create your own, just download the app!


----------



## janxharris

SanAntone said:


> Addendum to my post above, regarding 4'33". I've been reminded of this from the John Cage Trust -
> 
> 4'33" App for iPhoneTM
> 
> 4'33" was John Cage's most famous and disruptive composition, and now it can be performed by you! Cage's work, which teaches us that there's no such thing as 'silence' (and that there's joy to be found in paying close attention to the sounds around), is available in this official release from the John Cage Trust and Cage's long-time publisher, C.F. Peters.
> 
> Users are able to capture a three-movement 'performance' of the ambient sounds in their environment, and then upload and share that performance with the world. They're also able to listen to the performances of others, and to explore a worldwide map of ever-growing performance locations.
> 
> As a bonus, the 4'33" app features a recording of the ambient sounds at play in John Cage's last New York apartment, which he found a source of constant surprise, inspiration, and delight.
> 
> The map below shows performances that have been posted to date. To hear them, and create your own, just download the app!


Just to be clear SanAntone - you are being serious? (No offence intended).


----------



## SanAntone

janxharris said:


> Just to be clear SanAntone - you are being serious? (No offence intended).


This app does exist; I haven't downloaded it and have never used it - but millions of people have done so worldwide.


----------



## janxharris

SanAntone said:


> This app does exist; I haven't downloaded it and have never used it - but millions of people have done so worldwide.


Right - but I wasn't focusing on the app - rather, that anyone needs encouragement to listen to ambient sounds. We all do this without prompting don't we?

I don't understand.


----------



## SanAntone

janxharris said:


> Right - but I wasn't focusing on the app - rather, that anyone needs encouragement to listen to ambient sounds. We all do this without prompting don't we?
> 
> I don't understand.


The point of _4'33"_ (as I understand it) is not just to "listen to ambient sounds" but to frame a period of time as a "performance" of your environment with a beginning, middle and end. This app allows a user to capture a performance and share it with others.

As a listener we become involved in creating the performance.


----------



## janxharris

SanAntone said:


> The point of _4'33"_ (as I understand it) is not just to "listen to ambient sounds" but to frame a period of time as a "performance" of your environment with a beginning, middle and end. This app allows a user to capture a performance and share it with others.


Okay - I respect that you find this of interest.


----------



## George P Smackers

janxharris said:


> Right - but I wasn't focusing on the app - rather, that anyone needs encouragement to listen to ambient sounds. We all do this without prompting don't we?
> 
> I don't understand.


Now it's my turn not to understand. Of course we need encouragement.

Maybe I should say "many of us." We live distracted from distraction by distraction. We're constantly flittering between anticipation and retrospect. We impatiently wait for the "show to start," wondering what will happen, or "Is this it?"-shift in our chairs, check our phones and watches, etc.

I experienced 4'33 once. And the experience was interesting, in part because it didn't actually lead me to attend to ambient sounds very much: instead I just got a heightened awareness of how distracted I am! It made me very self-conscious.

But we all knew what was happening, or at one level "supposed" to be happening. It was interesting to watch other audience-members "perform" their experience of "just being in the moment listening," for the rest of us.

So in one sense, the piece was like an earnest "mindfulness" exercise, but in another, it was social satire.

Like so many other artworks, the experience of it is complex, and its complexity comes in part from what each of us brings to it.


----------



## janxharris

George P Smackers said:


> Now it's my turn not to understand. Of course we need encouragement.
> 
> Maybe I should say "many of us." We live distracted from distraction by distraction. We're constantly flittering between anticipation and retrospect. We impatiently wait for the "show to start," wondering what will happen, or "Is this it?"-shift in our chairs, check our phones and watches, etc.
> 
> I experienced 4'33 once. And the experience was interesting, in part because it didn't actually lead me to attend to ambient sounds very much: instead I just got a heightened awareness of how distracted I am! It made me very self-conscious.
> 
> But we all knew what was happening, or at one level "supposed" to be happening. It was interesting to watch other audience-members "perform" their experience of "just being in the moment listening," for the rest of us.
> 
> So in one sense, the piece was like an earnest "mindfulness" exercise, but in another, it was social satire.
> 
> Like so many other artworks, the experience of it is complex, and its complexity comes in part from what each of us brings to it.


I can only speak for myself re ambient sounds.

Your experience is your experience; I remain confused as to what is of interest.
Social satire?


----------



## George P Smackers

janxharris said:


> I can only speak for myself re ambient sounds.
> 
> Your experience is your experience; I remain confused as to what is of interest.
> Social satire?


Fair enough. I believe Cage perceived that many people don't pay very close attention to ambient sounds. You're obviously not one of the people he had in mind.

Complete sentences would help though. What are you asking about social satire?


----------



## janxharris

George P Smackers said:


> Fair enough. I believe Cage perceived that many people don't pay very close attention to ambient sounds. You're obviously not one of the people he had in mind.
> 
> Complete sentences would help though. What are you asking about social satire?


I didn't say I don't pay close attention. edit - i misunderstood you...sorry.

I'm wondering what the social satire is/was?


----------



## SanAntone

It goes without saying that each of us responds to some music more than other music; this is how we create our collections of what we like to listen to. I don't listen to Ralph Vaughan Williams or Elgar or Bax or any of the 20th century symphonists because I don't find the sound of the music interesting. I have listened to some of their chamber music and have enjoyed it.

I have a bias against orchestral music. I don't resent others for enjoying it; among classical music listeners orchestral music is probably the most listened to kind. I try not to post in those threads weighing in with my negative opinion. I am disappointed with my posts in the John Williams threads and regret them. One negative comment is okay in a larger discussion but to go on and on arguing with someone I think is overly negative and distracts the thread from its purpose, IMO.

I do enjoy listening to new music and avant-garde music in general. I don't make a big deal out of it and don't obsessively listen to it all or most of the time. But I do regularly listen to a work here and there and enjoy it. I am curious about new music. 

I don't enjoy arguing about it, explaining why I like it, what's good about it, etc. But I take part in these discussions for the sole purpose of possibly causing someone to step out of their normal path and try something new. I have no illusions of changing someone's mind if they are dead set against Cage or other avant-garde composers.


----------



## George P Smackers

janxharris said:


> I didn't say I don't pay close attention.
> 
> I'm wondering what the social satire is/was?


No, I know you didn't say that. I was saying that I believe you, that you _do_ pay close attention. I also said that Cage thought _many people_ don't pay close attention. This category would not include you, because you do pay close attention. I hope that makes sense. (We seem to be having basic communication problems.)

As for the piece's potential for social satire, I will say that, based on my experience, the audience of 4'33 felt to me extremely aware of itself _as an audience_, in an unusual way. Various social types emerged: the grim-faced avant-gardists, the gung-ho enthusiasts, the boyfriends irritated at being dragged along to this, the benignly beaming academics, and (forgive me) the deliberately obtuse.

The way we listened together said a lot about us, how we listened collectively to the ambient sounds-it wasn't just about the sounds themselves.

I hope this makes sense.


----------



## janxharris

George P Smackers said:


> No, I know you didn't say that. I was saying that I believe you, that you _do_ pay close attention. I also said that Cage thought _many people_ don't pay close attention. This category would not include you, because you do pay close attention. I hope that makes sense. (We seem to be having basic communication problems.)


Indeed - I realised and edited but too late.



> As for the piece's potential for social satire, I will say that, based on my experience, the audience of 4'33 felt to me extremely aware of itself _as an audience_, in an unusual way. Various social types emerged: the grim-faced avant-gardists, the gung-ho enthusiasts, the boyfriends irritated at being dragged along to this, the benignly beaming academics, and (forgive me) the deliberately obtuse.
> 
> The way we listened together said a lot about us, how we listened collectively to the ambient sounds-it wasn't just about the sounds themselves.
> 
> I hope this makes sense.


This sounds equivalent to those silent or near silent moments that occur in concerts even when Cage's piece isn't on the bill.


----------



## arpeggio

consuono said:


> But the question is how many are converted to viewing Cage and the avant garde in general favorably.


I am one.

I started to appreciate some avant garde music in my fifties. One of the reasons is that musicians today do a better job of performing it, particularly the chamber music.

I began to appreciate Cage as a result of reading the many attacks on his music. Anyone who generates this much hostility must be on to something.


----------



## George P Smackers

janxharris said:


> This sounds equivalent to those silent or near silent moments that occur in concerts even when Cage's piece isn't on the bill.


We agree! I think audiences are extremely interesting phenomena in their own right. They are part of the point of any performance, though often a tacit one.

I would say "comparable," though, not "equivalent." The role of the audience differs markedly in different performance traditions and historical settings. In some, the audience is meant to sit very still and quietly and not draw attention to itself. This expectation has prevailed in the classical-music world, though it wasn't always the case. Some performance traditions make the audience about as important as the show.

With 4'33, you have an interesting hybrid of this. You have a mid-20th-century classical audience trained to sit still and reverently. (I wonder if it has ever happened that an audience member at a performance of 4'33 has started to shout or sing loudly.) But since the performer isn't doing anything, attention gets turned back onto the audience itself, the noises they make and how they hear them, their impatience with or acceptance of the "performance." The piece longer and more deliberately constructed than the usual pauses in a performance.

By "social satire," I didn't mean to say just that the audience gets turned into an array of comic types. The idea is also that the audience is led to reflect on itself as a socially constituted body-by concert-hall etiquette, among other things-in a somewhat new way.


----------



## janxharris

complete with brow-wiping conductor.


----------



## George P Smackers

janxharris said:


> complete with brow-wiping conductor.


Can't see it "in my country." What happens? Audience disruption?


----------



## janxharris

George P Smackers said:


> Can't see it "in my country." What happens? Audience disruption?


between first and second movement the conductor wipes his brow with his handkerchief and the audience chuckles.


----------



## consuono

arpeggio said:


> I am one.
> 
> I started to appreciate some avant garde music in my fifties. One of the reasons is that musicians today do a better job of performing it, particularly the chamber music.
> 
> I began to appreciate Cage as a result of reading the many attacks on his music. Anyone who generates this much hostility must be on to something.


That's fine, and you like what you like and I have no problem with that. But following someone's work just because of the hostility it generates is no different from following because "everybody" loves him/her.


----------



## Simon Moon

arpeggio said:


> I am one.
> 
> I started to appreciate some avant garde music in my fifties. One of the reasons is that musicians today do a better job of performing it, particularly the chamber music.
> 
> I began to appreciate Cage as a result of reading the many attacks on his music. Anyone who generates this much hostility must be on to something.


Count me as another, also in my fifties.

I'm still not completely sold on Cage, but other avantgarde, I am a fan.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

I personally think of 4'33'' as more of a concept and message than an actual piece of music. The message goes deeper than just listening to ambient sounds and taking notice of them, but finding the inherent interesting quality in sounds of themselves and taking notice of the subtle things happening around you that are quite beautiful but would ordinarily go unnoticed if your mind is not attuned to it. While the technical definition of music is "organized sound" the sound itself does not have to be organized to be aesthetically appreciated. I love the sound of the woods, for instance, and make recordings of birdcalls and rivers flowing and the overall atmosphere of sound so I can go back and listen to them later. Every little sound has its unique timbre and quality and there's something to be appreciated about it.


----------



## arpeggio

All of the obnoxiousness on my part aside, I do not know of any objective criteria that one can use distinguish weak avant-garde music from great avant-garde music.

I have mentioned this before in other threads, it seems to me that some avant-garde music is more theater than music


----------



## RogerWaters

Roger Scruton distinguishes between music and sound, and argues that high-modernism and avant-garde music is more concerned with the latter at the expense of the former.

I wonder what others think of this distinction?

In Scruton's theory, music is not just organised sound. Music is sound organised in a particular way. In other words, organisation is a necessary but not sufficient condition of music:



> Sounds become music as a result of organisation, and this organisation is something that we perceive and whose absence we immediately notice, regardless of whether we take pleasure in the result. This organisation is not just an aesthetic matter - it is not simply a style. It is more like a grammar, in being the precondition of our response to the result as music. We must therefore acknowledge that tonal music has something like a syntax - a rule-guided process linking each episode to its neighbours, which we grasp in the act of hearing, and the absence of which leads to a sense of discomfort or incongruity.
> 
> Of course there are things called music which do not share this syntax - modernist experiments, African drum music, music employing scales that defy harmonic ordering, and so on. But from mediaeval plainsong to modern jazz we observe a remarkable constancy, in rhythmical, melodic and harmonic organisation, so much so that one extended part of this tradition has been singled out as 'the common practice' whose principles are taught as a matter of course in classes of music appreciation. This phenomenon demands an explanation.


"This phenomenon demands an explanation". On the one hand, one might argue that the historically and geographically-extended phenomena of common practice tonality reflects some essential metaphysical standard of aesthetic Goodness. On the other hand, the post-modern relativist might simply argue that the common practice is an arbitrary result of history (and so power, these two terms being almost synonymous to post-modernists).

I would think the truth lies somewhere in between. The prevalence and success of common practice tonality, demolished by much of the avant-garde, is the result of the kind of organisms we are. The 'syntax' of tonality is hitting on, and has been so successful in the process that is human cultural evolution, because it is isomorphic to some degree to human cognitive structures. As such, tonality is not 'objective', as the essentialist thinks; but neither is it completely relative, as the post-modernist thinks. We could say that tonality is 'intersubjective'.

If it is accepted that tonal music maps onto human cognitive structures, and is in this sense 'natural' or 'true', the interesting question then becomes, what, on earth, is responsible for the cultural ascendance of atonal and avante-garde music?! How could a form of expression that so explicitly _violates_ human cognitive structures gain (some amount of) cultural predominance.

Ironically, I suspect that institutional power might explain _this_ more than it explains the historical ascendancy of tonal music!


----------



## ArtMusic

hammeredklavier said:


> Is there a line (standard of quality) differentiating between the two? What are some examples of "masterpieces" by John Cage, and "less successful/valuable works" by him, for example? What are the individual elements or traits that determine "quality" in those works?
> 
> Here's an example of "standard of quality" in common practice music":
> *Malcolm Bilson: Taste in Mozart and Chopin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (3:02~5:40)*
> 
> Is there a similar method of reasoning for avant-garde music, in distinguishing the great stuff from the average/mediocre stuff?


Unfortunately there isn't because there isn't meant to be when it comes to avant-garde music. It's about what the composer felt and wanted to express, a point he wanted to make. That's why there is no standard. Everything is great, including _4'33"_.


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> The prevalence and success of common practice tonality, demolished by much of the avant-garde, is the result of the kind of organisms we are. The 'syntax' of tonality is hitting on, and has been so successful in the process that is human cultural evolution, because it is isomorphic to some degree to human cognitive structures. As such, tonality is not 'objective', as the essentialist thinks; but neither is it completely relative, as the post-modernist thinks. We could say that tonality is 'intersubjective'.
> 
> *If it is accepted that tonal music maps onto human cognitive structures, and is in this sense 'natural' or 'true', the interesting question then becomes, what, on earth, is responsible for the cultural ascendance of atonal and avante-garde music?! How could a form of expression that so explicitly violates human cognitive structures gain (some amount of) cultural predominance.*


I'd say that tonal music, broadly defined (to include more than "common practice") maps onto both cognitive structures and the forms of emotional experience, and even onto observed patterns in the physical world. Its capacity for complex and often specific emotional expression is inexplicable otherwise. I'm not sure, though, that it's right to think of non-tonal music as _violating_ cognitive structures. There is no rule defining which, or how many, such structures must be represented in the structure of music. Human cognitive functioning and emotional experience are extremely diverse, and some experiences negate or preclude others. The great diversity of the world's musics should caution us against assuming too much about our own music's (admittedly impressive) ability to represent, or appeal to, the human mind.


----------



## Mandryka

Woodduck said:


> I'd say that tonal music, broadly defined (to include more than "common practice") maps onto both cognitive structures and the forms of emotional experience, and even onto observed patterns in the physical world. Its capacity for complex and often specific emotional expression is inexplicable otherwise. I'm not sure, though, that it's right to think of non-tonal music as _violating_ cognitive structures. There is no rule defining which, or how many, such structures must be represented in the structure of music. Human cognitive functioning and emotional experience are extremely diverse, and some experiences negate or preclude others. The great diversity of the world's musics should caution us against assuming too much about our own music's (admittedly impressive) ability to represent, or appeal to, the human mind.


One reason I suspect you're not totally right about tonality is that the limitation to semitones seems arbitrary and limiting. Is there a good reason for having 12 intervals in an octave? I feel the same about the way tonal music is so dominated by sounds with definite pitch.


----------



## mikeh375

RogerWaters said:


> Roger Scruton distinguishes between music and sound, and argues that high-modernism and avant-garde music is more concerned with the latter at the expense of the former.
> 
> I wonder what others think of this distinction?
> 
> In Scruton's theory, music is not just organised sound. Music is sound organised in a particular way. In other words, organisation is a necessary but not sufficient condition of music:
> 
> "This phenomenon demands an explanation". On the one hand, one might argue that the historically and geographically-extended phenomena of common practice tonality reflects some essential metaphysical standard of aesthetic Goodness. On the other hand, the post-modern relativist might simply argue that the common practice is an arbitrary result of history (and so power, these two terms being almost synonymous to post-modernists).
> 
> I would think the truth lies somewhere in between. The prevalence and success of common practice tonality, demolished by much of the avant-garde, is the result of the kind of organisms we are. The 'syntax' of tonality is hitting on, and has been so successful in the process that is human cultural evolution, because it is isomorphic to some degree to human cognitive structures. As such, tonality is not 'objective', as the essentialist thinks; but neither is it completely relative, as the post-modernist thinks. We could say that tonality is 'intersubjective'.
> 
> If it is accepted that tonal music maps onto human cognitive structures, and is in this sense 'natural' or 'true', the interesting question then becomes, what, on earth, is responsible for the cultural ascendance of atonal and avante-garde music?! How could a form of expression that so explicitly _violates_ human cognitive structures gain (some amount of) cultural predominance.
> 
> *Ironically, I suspect that institutional power might explain this more than it explains the historical ascendancy of tonal music!*


A good, thought provoking post Roger.

I disagree with your last sentence however. Many a composer will tell you that the seductive creative lure of atonality and the resulting music is, perhaps somewhat ironically, simply an inevitable extension or expansion of tonal musical thinking and technique. Atonalities development occurred outside of institutions and is in my view, a _natural_ crossroad for a composer with an enquiring artistic mind to come to. It is not so much an institutional decree as it is an essential phase in the development of a composer who potentially has something worthy to say. The composer has to confront atonality imv and come to terms with its implications- to accept, adapt or reject them. Atonality was inevitable and is part of the recent tradition with which a composer has to contend.

That the artist is prepared to sacrifice immediate listener comprehension for the sake of self-discovery and expression by wandering down less familiar roads (not just Atonal Avenue) is what keeps the art alive. I suggest that it is also proof enough that atonality is an acquirable aesthetic for the mind.

That said, I can't help but agree that sound manipulation, or sound design as it is known in media, is now an artistic paradigm and imv a valid technique for self expression in its own right. I also believe it is one that the composer can still 'feel' with whilst manipulating, therefore creating a logical and personal narrative.

In my own humble way, I have experienced the sense of inevitability in sound and how it can be achieved, whilst ignoring more formal devices that normally dictate the narrative. I've had to create sound design based music in my media work. This is only possible within a computer unless live players are involved of course and yet it's quite remarkable how one can intuitively 'feel' if the manipulation of sound and its appropriateness and continuation in a timeline has an inevitable sense to it.

From my experience, I can see many parallels between creativity today and in the past. The biggest difference between now and what was (and the most exciting imv), is the minute dissecting and manipulating of all formal elements in music and the opening up of the acoustic and timbral spectrum over the last 100 years or so. If one includes electronics and technology as well, then a vast resource for creativity is available.


----------



## consuono

RogerWaters said:


> Roger Scruton distinguishes between music and sound, and argues that high-modernism and avant-garde music is more concerned with the latter at the expense of the former.


I think that's right. When an avant garde piece is praised, it's more often than not in terms of the "soundscape" or the "tonal world" that's created. Compared to analyzing and evaluating the CP masters, that's like concentrating on elements of grammar or individual phonemes rather than the plays of Shakespeare. The "medium becomes the message" in a way.


RogerWaters said:


> If it is accepted that tonal music maps onto human cognitive structures, and is in this sense 'natural' or 'true', the interesting question then becomes, what, on earth, is responsible for the cultural ascendance of atonal and avante-garde music?! How could a form of expression that so explicitly violates human cognitive structures gain (some amount of) cultural predominance.


My own opinion is that CP with, in particular, the Big Three had reached a plateau that was insurmountable. So then there was an artistic dilemma: keep doing not much else than essentially riffing in some way on the old masters, or go off in a new direction entirely? I don't think the dilemma has ever really been resolved, which is probably why some feel that the avant garde and "classical music" are totally different things. Maybe the CP well had run dry. And now I think maybe the avant garde type of music is in the shape. The strength of the avant garde seems to have been the ability to jolt and shock, but it's not as easy anymore to jolt and shock an audience. We've seen and heard too much.


----------



## Mandryka

The spectral composers were interested in sound certainly. However you can’t generalise. You know, anyone who says that the Stockhausen of Mantra or the Dusapin of the string quartets are more interested in sound than musical form just hasn’t thought about it!


----------



## Kilgore Trout

Mandryka said:


> The spectral composers were interested in sound certainly. However you can't generalise. You know, anyone who says that the Stockhausen of Mantra or the Dusapin of the string quartets or are more interested in sound than musical form just hasn't thought about it!


Stockhausen and Dusapin aren't "spectral composers".


----------



## Mandryka

Kilgore Trout said:


> Stockhausen and Dusapin aren't "spectral composers".


That's my point, and even among the spectral composers I think it's probably a nonsense to say that the effect is not achieved partly through the form - for example in Horacio Radulescu's big quartets like op 33. That being said, it's a long time since I last explored his music so I could be wrong.


----------



## Woodduck

Mandryka said:


> One reason I suspect you're not totally right about tonality is that the limitation to semitones seems arbitrary and limiting. Is there a good reason for having 12 intervals in an octave? I feel the same about the way tonal music is so dominated by sounds with definite pitch.


I'm not sure which of my statements you're disputing.


----------



## hammeredklavier

mikeh375 said:


> That the artist is prepared to sacrifice immediate listener comprehension for the sake of self-discovery and expression by wandering down less familiar roads (not just Atonal Avenue) is what keeps the art alive. I suggest that it is also proof enough that atonality is an acquirable aesthetic for the mind.


But a lot of avant-garde music effects are suitable as horror film soundtracks, aren't they? The music just needs to be played in the right context of film in order to be "understood" by "ordinary people". How come nobody of this age ever complains _"I don't like that horror movie because the soundtracks are too hard to understand"_?
And it's still questionable much talent/skills/inspiration is really required to produce "effects" like that, if there are no "standards of quality" that "separate the wheat from the chaff".


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> That the artist is prepared to sacrifice immediate listener comprehension for the sake of self-discovery and expression by wandering down less familiar roads (not just Atonal Avenue) is what keeps the art alive. I suggest that it is also proof enough that atonality is an acquirable aesthetic for the mind. ...


Isn't that exactly what that chart in that video that was snickered at because it comes from some conservative source said?


----------



## calvinpv

hammeredklavier said:


> But a lot of avant-garde music effects are suitable as horror film soundtracks, aren't they? The music just needs to be played in the right context of film in order to be "understood" by "ordinary people". How come nobody of this age ever complains _"I don't like that horror movie because the soundtracks are too hard to understand"_?
> And it's still questionable much talent/skills/inspiration is really required to produce "effects" like that, if there are no "standards of quality" that "separate the wheat from the chaff".


Go listen to the piece I posted at the beginning of this thread (TRIO by Simon Steen-Andersen). Hardly a piece for a horror film.

Or how about these pieces? Just for starters:


----------



## mikeh375

consuono said:


> Isn't that exactly what that chart in that video that was snickered at because it comes from some conservative source said?


I don't know the video you refer to and tbh don't wish to. I know that there is a clear reasoning and truth in what I wrote. If a similar opinion has been mocked elsewhere or even here, it doesn't bother me in the slightest.


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> I don't know the video you refer to and tbh don't wish to. I feel that there is a clear reasoning and truth in what I wrote. If a similar opinion has been mocked elsewhere or even here, it doesn't bother me in the slightest.


No, I think the mockery was to indicate that what was in the video was a misrepresentation. The difference is that you think strictly individual standards are fine, whereas the video would say that it's led to "bad art".


----------



## mikeh375

consuono said:


> No, I think the mockery was to indicate that what was in the video was a misrepresentation. The difference is that you think strictly individual standards are fine, whereas the video would say that it's led to "bad art".


Bad and good art that should be, right? But as we are into subjective qualities it's irrelevant imv at least. What I wrote still holds even though we may agree aesthetically regarding the more extreme forms of the AG.


----------



## mikeh375

hammeredklavier said:


> But a lot of avant-garde music effects are suitable as horror film soundtracks, aren't they? The music just needs to be played in the right context of film in order to be "understood" by "ordinary people". How come nobody of this age ever complains _"I don't like that horror movie because the soundtracks are too hard to understand"_?
> And it's still questionable much talent/skills/inspiration is really required to produce "effects" like that, if there are no "standards of quality" that "separate the wheat from the chaff".


Film and media in general are notorious for conscripting, manipulating and plagiarising music and often self-references itself in tried, tested and money making ways. This results more often than not, in a formulaic approach, be that visually, in terms of script and of music. After all, film is as much a business as an art form. Nobody complains about atonality in a film because the on-screen is more important and holds all of the attention. The immediacy of the effect of dissonance on ears used to popular music is very useful. This does not invalidate atonality as a means of expression, it merely cheapens it, it's what exploitation does.

We may be talking about different musics here but I do know that whatever you may think of the resulting sound, there is much skill and dedication required to learn extended compositional and instrumental techniques and as much talent and vision is required to write with them well. The minimum requirement of competent ability regarding these techniques is not questionable at all, but is professionally at least, a given, which from someone like me has a lot of respect.

Inspiration is not only a superficial and aurally obvious trait to me in music neither. In fact some inspired moments will be missed by the listener I would bet, but would mean everything to the continuation of and resulting work from a composer's perspective, irrespective of the language used. Music as art has more to offer than pretty tunes.

As always, YMMV, especially if you like your music to be enjoyed or comprehended without too much effort. As I said before, I believe one can acquire a liking for music that travels less well known paths and still be able to reap many aesthetic rewards from it.


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> As always, YMMV, especially if you like your music to be enjoyed or comprehended without too much effort.


Which takes more effort to comprehend fully: The Art of Fugue or anything by Cage or Boulez?


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

mikeh375 said:


> Film and media in general are notorious for conscripting, manipulating and plagiarising music and often self-references itself in tried, tested and money making ways. This results more often than not, in a formulaic approach, be that visually, in terms of script and of music. After all, film is as much a business as an art form. Nobody complains about atonality in a film because the on-screen is more important and holds all of the attention. The immediacy of the effect of dissonance on ears used to popular music is very useful. This does not invalidate atonality as a means of expression, it merely cheapens it, it's what exploitation does.
> 
> We may be talking about different musics here but I do know that whatever you may think of the resulting sound, there is much skill and dedication required to learn extended compositional and instrumental techniques and as much talent and vision is required to write with them well. The minimum requirement of competent ability regarding these techniques is not questionable at all, but is professionally at least, a given, which from someone like me has a lot of respect.
> 
> Inspiration is not only a superficial and aurally obvious trait to me in music neither. In fact some inspired moments will be missed by the listener I would bet, but would mean everything to the continuation of and resulting work from a composer's perspective, irrespective of the language used. Music as art has more to offer than pretty tunes.
> 
> As always, YMMV, especially if you like your music to be enjoyed or comprehended without too much effort. As I said before, I believe one can acquire a liking for music that travels less well known paths and still be able to reap many aesthetic rewards from it.


I've come to similiar conclusions myself that music that is atonal or dissonant becomes psychologically associated with a 'creepy' factor in an artificial way through horror movies and such, partially speaking (a lot of atonal music genuinely is creepy and unsettling IMO, but not inherently just because its atonal. The human brain is physically wired to find tonal music more harmonious and pleasurable so its not like the cultural connotations of atonality are coming out of nowhere, but again far from inherently 'creepy'. I find a lot of atonal quite peaceful and relaxing personally.

I also agree with your second paragraph that in order to be able to write atonal music, you need years of dedication, skill, talent, whole 9 yards. Now before anyone misunderstands me, I'm not saying that Beethoven or Bach applied less skill or talent because they composed within the realm of tonality, or even insinuating the atonal composition is somehow superior, but I think it's easier to write tonal music than atonal and you need a lot less compositionally know-how to just write something and make it sound good.

Looking at from a macroscopic lens, it's actually pretty damn easy to make pretty sounds. It's not impressive or special that you can do it. Otherwise would we have a gigantic surplus of music and bands and garage bands that are everywhere? I can go into Spotify and occupy my time with hundreds of thousands of artists who made music that sounds good, not eating or sleeping or going to work for a month, and still have only cracked the tip of the iceberg. I don't say you have to reinvent the wheel to be worth listening to (a lot of the rock music I like hardly blazes any trails) but to compose atonally and do it well is a different skill set that indeed takes years of grinding and busting your @ss to get there.

The level of craftsmanship is what separates the men from the boys, which goes for both tonal and atonal. Brahms and the noodling I do with my cello and loop pedal might both be tonal and sound good, but no one's fooled as to which one is clearly superior.


----------



## regenmusic

SanAntone said:


> What you consider "bad avant-garde music" I might consider interesting and enjoyable. For the record, I don't classify any music as good or bad; just that music which I enjoy and that which I do not find enjoyable.
> Who's waiting? I'm not waiting, I am listening to new music as I find it.


I love Schnittke and Rautavaara. They are composers that don't make un-listenable physiological painful noise, to my ears.

There is a difference from one "avant-garde" to the next. I tried to lay out some ground rules for that in my post.

Some people think that by having a good concept that translates into "music." Music has been studied through the ages and it is something specific. Dada-influenced art of course has been studied also and it has a sound element. Dada was a lot more influential than many people might imagine as many arts had their birth in it, their forms exist in embryo there and then.

There is a book, The Secret Power of Music by David Tame, that goes into the historical analysis of what real music is verses "bad music." I haven't read it much but it seems to be well thought out and accepted and has cross cultural references.

He doesn't seem to like much rock music. I do think rock music has created a bad ethos and most people really aren't able to deconstruct it. They just allow people to die from the lack of choices that a bad music zeitgeist as well as a bad Hollywood zeitgeist creates. Witness all the comedians who have died young, as well as of course all the rock stars who have.

I look at the more educated artists as the tail that wags the dog of culture and even academia.


----------



## DaveM

From what I’m reading in some of the above posts, various avant-garde works are neither good or bad. Which infers that composers of said works are neither good or bad. IMO, that doesn’t speak well for the skill of those who compose these works and raises the question as to just what defines avant-garde music. Perhaps this is the inevitable result when one removes almost all of the components of the classical music of the past.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> From what I'm reading in some of the above posts, various avant-garde works are neither good or bad. Which infers that composers of said works are neither good or bad. IMO, that doesn't speak well for the skill of those who compose these works and raises the question as to just what defines avant-garde music. Perhaps this is the inevitable result when one removes almost all of the components of the classical music of the past.


Speaking solely for myself, good music (any music, traditional, avant-garde) is the music that I enjoy. I think the appreciation of music to be entirely subjective.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

DaveM said:


> From what I'm reading in some of the above posts, various avant-garde works are neither good or bad. Which infers that composers of said works are neither good or bad. IMO, that doesn't speak well for the skill of those who compose these works and raises the question as to just what defines avant-garde music. Perhaps this is the inevitable result when one removes almost all of the components of the classical music of the past.


It's harder to make clear-cut judgement calls as you can with common practice music. I feel like I've heard AV-G pieces that are pretty lacking in substance, but I don't feel like I'm in a place to judge it as objectively good or bad.

The piece that's been getting used as the _Paradebeispiel_ is Crimson by Rebecca Saunders. I tend to side with people arguing for the merits of the avant-garde, but man...that piece sounds like nothing but absolute pretentious crap to my ears. I actually like other pieces from Rebecca Saunders too. I can explain why I personally dislike it but not why it's objectively bad, and the criteria to discern good from bad does get wishy-washy sometimes when dealing with AV-G

To get to the root of it, I think the topic of value judgements in general leads to interesting discussions but it's ultimately fruitless if you're trying to yield tangible results because, to repeat a banality that goes without saying "music is subjective".


----------



## DaveM

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> It's harder to make clear-cut judgement calls as you can with common practice music. I feel like I've heard AV-G pieces that are pretty lacking in substance, but I don't feel like I'm in a place to judge it as objectively good or bad.
> 
> The piece that's been getting used as the _Paradebeispiel_ is Crimson by Rebecca Saunders. I tend to side with people arguing for the merits of the avant-garde, but man...that piece sounds like nothing but absolute pretentious crap to my ears. I actually like other pieces from Rebecca Saunders too. I can explain why I personally dislike it but not why it's objectively bad, and the criteria to discern good from bad does get wishy-washy sometimes when dealing with AV-G
> 
> To get to the root of it, I think the topic of value judgements in general leads to interesting discussions but it's ultimately fruitless if you're trying to yield tangible results because, to repeat a banality that goes without saying "music is subjective".


(Probably repeating myself) My guess is that the difficulty of discerning good from bad AV-G is directly due to how much has been removed from what constituted CM and replaced with elements (often) such as extreme dissonance.

I continue to believe that when _'music is subjective'_ is taken to an extreme as it is by some here, there is no such thing as good or bad music and thereby no good or bad composers. That may well apply to AV-G, but it doesn't apply very well or at all to 'traditional' CM, considering the reality of composers such as Bach, Mozart and Beethoven.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

DaveM said:


> (Probably repeating myself) My guess is that the difficulty of discerning good from bad AV-G is directly due to how much has been removed from what constituted CM and replaced with elements (often) such as extreme dissonance.
> 
> I continue to believe that when _'music is subjective'_ is taken to an extreme as it is by some here, there is no such thing as good or bad music and thereby no good or bad composers. That may well apply to AV-G, but it doesn't apply very well or at all to 'traditional' CM, considering the reality of composers such as Bach, Mozart and Beethoven.


I agree that you do have to draw the line somehwere, otherwise everyone gets a participation trophy.

Avant-garde carries the connotation of extreme dissonance and just dissonance and dissonance just for its own sake, sometimes (not putting the words in your mouth) but therr's a lot good counterexamples to that like Crumb's Vox Ballanae, for imstance.

The absence of common practice conventions is what creates that no mans land, that fuzziness and wishywashyness. You can tell a mediocre Classical work from a great one, but in the avant-garde, how, exception with subjective perceptions? To be fair I guess thats the point of this thread


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> (Probably repeating myself) My guess is that the difficulty of discerning good from bad AV-G is directly due to how much has been removed from what constituted CM and replaced with elements (often) such as extreme dissonance.
> 
> I continue to believe that when _'music is subjective'_ is taken to an extreme as it is by some here, there is no such thing as good or bad music and thereby no good or bad composers. That may well apply to AV-G, but it doesn't apply very well or at all to 'traditional' CM, considering the reality of composers such as Bach, Mozart and Beethoven.


I don't concern myself with whether music is good or bad. There is plenty of music which is said to be good, Mahler, Wagner, Bruckner, Sibelius, Vaughan Williams, Mendelssohn, Dvorak, and many other classical composers, whose music does not interest me. My only concern about music is do I enjoy listening to it.

I have never heard an argument defining objective criteria for judging music, good or bad. The so called test of time is the only standard that appears to be somewhat objective. But even so, if a composer is considered great according to the test of time, but I do not enjoy his music, I will not force myself to listen to it.

Why do so many of you obsess about whether music is considered "good" or "bad"? It seems obvious to me that what is important is rather, do I like listening to it.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

SanAntone said:


> Why do so many of you obsess about whether music is considered "good" or "bad"? It seems obvious to me that what is important is rather, do I like listening to it.


I think while (i mentioned briefly earlier) discussions of 'good' and 'bad' are fruitless if you're trying to actually get to the bottom of an objective truth, I think it also leads to interesting discussion on both sides of the argument (as long as it stays constructive and people remember they're just on an online forum about classical music  ) Why do you think it's great? Why do you think it's crap? I find the reasoning incredibly interesting.

I also think its important to draw the line somewhere when it comes to quality. Why is that important to me personally? Not totally sure. I think it's a natural inclination, but also I just like the idea of having principles and standards, even though music is totally subjective: not even just opinions on the music, but the actual listening experience itself.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> ...
> Why do so many of you obsess about whether music is considered "good" or "bad"? It seems obvious to me that what is important is rather, do I like listening to it.


Because like food, cars, buildings, poetry, or boats, music is not all created equal. To be blunt about it, many people find most a.g.music so off-putting that they wonder what in the world is "enjoyable" about it.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> I don't concern myself with whether music is good or bad. There is plenty of music which is said to be good, Mahler, Wagner, Bruckner, Sibelius, Vaughan Williams, Mendelssohn, Dvorak, and many other classical composers, whose music does not interest me. My only concern about music is do I enjoy listening to it.
> 
> I have never heard an argument defining objective criteria for judging music, good or bad. The so called test of time is the only standard that appears to be somewhat objective. But even so, if a composer is considered great according to the test of time, but I do not enjoy his music, I will not force myself to listen to it.
> 
> Why do so many of you obsess about whether music is considered "good" or "bad"? It seems obvious to me that what is important is rather, do I like listening to it.


What you call it obsessing is in actuality the fact that I don't accept simplistic reasoning any more than I accept that the earth is flat. More importantly, the premise that all music is neither good or bad means that all composers are neither good or bad which removes the element of skill which would make little or no sense to most, if not all, accomplished composers, musicians and musicologists.

Think of the major orchestras across the western world and now in virtually all Asian countries and think of all their musicians and conductors. Now think of the CM that gave rise to these orchestras and solo musicians and keeps them in business. (Hint: It isn't the super-niche Avant-garde). Think of the composers that composed the music they rely on and think of the millions of people drawn to that same music over centuries and even to this day.

The fact is that there is no argument that you will accept as proof of objectivity. You only get away with pushing this extreme reasoning because you're on a forum on certain threads where you get little or no pushback. Try floating your premise by the great living conductors and musicians and, if you could, the long-dead composers that composed the music that keeps the backbone of CM alive and the composers, conductors and musicians that followed and revered those that they followed and see the reaction you would get.

Finally, if you can't think of any reasons why some composers are greater than others, consider that there would likely be no classical music genre if not for the great composers and there wouldn't be any TC.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> What you call it obsessing is in actuality the fact that I don't accept simplistic reasoning any more than I accept that the earth is flat. More importantly, the premise that all music is neither good or bad means that all composers are neither good or bad which removes the element of skill which would make little or no sense to most, if not all, accomplished composers, musicians and musicologists.
> 
> Think of the major orchestras across the western world and now in virtually all Asian countries and think of all their musicians and conductors. Now think of the CM that gave rise to these orchestras and solo musicians and keeps them in business. (Hint: It isn't the super-niche Avant-garde). Think of the composers that composed the music they rely on and think of the millions of people drawn to that same music over centuries and even to this day.
> 
> The fact is that there is no argument that you will accept as proof of objectivity. You only get away with pushing this extreme reasoning because you're on a forum on certain threads where you get little or no pushback. Try floating your premise by the great living conductors and musicians and, if you could, the long-dead composers that composed the music that keeps the backbone of CM alive and the composers, conductors and musicians that followed and revered those that they followed and see the reaction you would get.
> 
> Finally, if you can't think of any reasons why some composers are greater than others, consider that there would likely be no classical music genre if not for the great composers and there wouldn't be any TC.


I am not saying that "all music is neither good or bad." It is just that I don't concern myself with that question; maybe you or others can debate that issue, proposing objective standards for judging the quality of a work. That's not for me; I am not a philosopher.

I am only interested in listening to the music, all kinds of music from the 9th century up to the music written last week.

If I enjoy what I hear, then for my purposes, it is good music.


----------



## arpeggio

I participate in another classical music forum.

I have noticed am interesting difference between that forum and this.

There are many threads here which are discussions of what is the best whatever.

In the other forum one rarely finds what are the best discussions.

Instead there are plenty of what are your_ favorite_ discussions.


----------



## arpeggio

*Elliot Carter*

Would Elliot Carter be considered an avant-garde composer?


----------



## starthrower

arpeggio said:


> I participate in another classical music forum.


Nice to see you pop in here on occasion.


----------



## arpeggio

starthrower said:


> Nice to see you pop in here on occasion.


Thanks...............


----------



## consuono

arpeggio said:


> Would Elliot Carter be considered an avant-garde composer?


What makes him "mainstream"?


> Instead there are plenty of what are your favorite discussions.


Doesn't that turn out to be pretty much the same? If a work is a consensus favorite, then maybe it's "great".


----------



## arpeggio

*How the hell should I know.*



consuono said:


> What makes him "mainstream"?
> Doesn't that turn out to be pretty much the same? If a work is a consensus favorite, then maybe it's "great".


Between here and the Amazon forum I have been down this path and I have tried to answer these questions many times during the past decade. One can do a search of my posts and find my many attempts. As a result I am totally burned out. This is one of the reasons I rarely participate in most of the discussions here. How many times do I have to say that I am not a scholar and I do not know. I have some expertise concerning band music and that is it.

I was asking if Carter was considered to be an avant-garde composer. I do not know.

I have no idea whether or not he is "mainstream". You tell me.


----------



## ArtMusic

arpeggio said:


> I participate in another classical music forum.
> 
> I have noticed am interesting difference between that forum and this.
> 
> There are many threads here which are discussions of what is the best whatever.
> 
> In the other forum one rarely finds what are the best discussions.
> 
> Instead there are plenty of what are your_ favorite_ discussions.


Clearly then, I would say TalkClassical is therefore the best.


----------



## science

SanAntone said:


> So, don't take Cage seriously, don't take avant-garde music seriously. Keep ranting against it. It won't change a thing.


Actually, it will just draw yet more attention to the works against which they rant.

It's a zen situation. If they just ignored it, a lot more of it would go away, but since they can't help raging against it, they simply draw more and more attention to it.

With enemies like that, who needs friends?


----------



## mikeh375

arpeggio said:


> Would Elliot Carter be considered an avant-garde composer?


No, not by my reckoning. If one looks at his scores, it's easy to discern links with tradition.


----------



## hammeredklavier

science said:


> Actually, it will just draw yet more attention to the works against which they rant.


Let's not pretend we (classical music enthusiasts) are the only ones who've ranted. Avant-garde music enthusiasts have also judged classical music composers by their standards. I'm only reminding us classical music and avant-garde are like oil and water and cannot reconcile, just like how jazz and prog rock can't. Why not separate ourselves into different communities? That way, classical music enthusiasts won't judge avant-garde music by their standards, and avant-garde music enthusiasts won't judge classical music by theirs. -It's for the good of all of us. (And as I said, I also respect avant-garde music enthusiasts' preferences, I won't call any of the stuff they enjoy "crap").


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> Let's not pretend we (classical music enthusiasts) are the only ones who've ranted. Avant-garde music enthusiasts have also judged classical music composers by their standards. I'm only reminding us classical music and avant-garde are like oil and water and cannot reconcile, just like how jazz and prog rock can't. Why not separate ourselves into different communities? That way, classical music enthusiasts won't judge avant-garde music by their standards, and avant-garde music enthusiasts won't judge classical music by theirs. -It's for the good of all of us. (And as I said, I also respect avant-garde music enthusiasts' preferences, I won't call any of the stuff they enjoy "crap").


Go ahead - separate yourself. But I doubt many will follow you. Most people are not that bothered by some of us listening to avant-garde music and occasionally posting about it on TC.

But if you wish to start a new thread for just the kind of classical music you approve of, be my guest.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> many people find most a.g.music so off-putting that they wonder what in the world is "enjoyable" about it.


It also has its uses/applications in modern culture, just like many other types of music. (When you're walking along in a mall, you would want to hear something like 



 right?) Likewise, I would want to hear this sort of avant-garde music in the background:



calvinpv said:


> Go listen to the piece I posted at the beginning of this thread (TRIO by Simon Steen-Andersen). Hardly a piece for a horror film.
> Or how about these pieces? Just for starters:


instead of anything by Bach when I'm watching a horror film, because I need to feel "grotesque feelings" appropriate for the scenes. And the particular style of dissonance achieves it for me.


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> Why not separate ourselves into different communities?


Inclusion not your bag?


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Let's not pretend we (classical music enthusiasts) are the only ones who've ranted. Avant-garde music enthusiasts have also judged classical music composers by their standards. I'm only reminding us classical music and avant-garde are like oil and water and cannot reconcile, just like how jazz and prog rock can't. Why not separate ourselves into different communities? That way, classical music enthusiasts won't judge avant-garde music by their standards, and avant-garde music enthusiasts won't judge classical music by theirs. -It's for the good of all of us. (And as I said, I also respect avant-garde music enthusiasts' preferences, I won't call any of the stuff they enjoy "crap").


Au contraire, mein guter Herr! A "safe space" for "modernists" would impoverish us all. I see much value in having people try to explain why the music they like is worth hearing, even - and maybe especially - if I don't care for it myself. We can profit from, and even enjoy, the ideas people come up with when confronted by music they either have no sympathy for or simply don't understand. As long as we can remember not to be personally offended, and can merely be amused by or take pity on what we're convinced is philistinean ignorance, gross insensitivity, and lousy taste, it's all forum-worthy. The only thing that isn't forum-worthy is obsessive criticism and trolling - the deliberate attempt to annoy by constantly denigrating things, which, admittedly, we've seen our share of here.


----------



## regenmusic

Cage occasionally actually has some of the most listenable avant-garde music. His prepared piano works, a couple of his chamber works, and HPSCHD are listenable and pleasant to my ears. I would say that about Spectral music. But there isn't much of this John Cage music. He seemed to want to take a break from the chaos at times that something like "Bird Cage" shows. I mean, that's not even pleasant use of bird samples. He did try peaceful things at times like Postcard from Heaven but I don't find that very serene or uplifting. It's actually kind of dissonant and jarring.


----------



## Mandryka

mikeh375 said:


> No, not by my reckoning. If one looks at his scores, it's easy to discern links with tradition.


I don't know about Carter but that's true of Lachenmann for example. Forging links with tradition was a major part of his research. It's pretty well ubiquitous in his work, in Tanzsuite mit Deitschlandlied for example -- which uses the dance forms of a baroque suite.


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> No, not by my reckoning. If one looks at his scores, it's easy to discern links with tradition.


Could you elaborate a little on that with some examples?


science said:


> Actually, it will just draw yet more attention to the works against which they rant.
> 
> It's a zen situation. If they just ignored it, a lot more of it would go away, but since they can't help raging against it, they simply draw more and more attention to it.
> 
> With enemies like that, who needs friends?


To be honest I couldn't care less if Cage is popular or not. Or Bach, for that matter. Musically they still are what they are regardless. This is yet another one if those "épater le bourgeois" sentiments. Lady GaGa will always be more popular than both. So what?


----------



## Mandryka

I'm going to use the thread here to ask a question. Is this "tonal"? Is it "avant garde"?


----------



## FastkeinBrahms

I don't know, but it's just great.


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> I'm going to use the thread here to ask a question. Is this "tonal"? Is it "avant garde"?


In spots it sounds a little like late Liszt. Ligeti is one of those composers who aren't always stylistically consistent. Is it great music? I don't feel particularly compelled to learn it.


----------



## RICK RIEKERT

I would say that _Automne a Varsovie_ is both reminiscent of past music while being strangely alien to it. It's not a continuation of Ligeti's earlier avant garde style but seems to be a synthesis of earlier styles of music using his own established, idiosyncratic techniques. Ligeti's style was always evolving, and the reclaiming of the past, of harmony, melody, and finally form, is a process that began in the 1960s and continued into his later music. Ligeti was always preoccupied with maintaining his musical individuality. Or as he said, "By rejecting both the 'retro' and the former avant-garde, I declare for myself a modernism of today."


----------



## Fabulin

I have an amusing anecdote by Ernest Korngold:

"My father [Erich W. Korngold] was always glad to see Schoenberg because, although he didn't agree with his principles, he enjoyed the stimulus of discussion and respected him. I remember once when Schoenberg, my father, and Otto Klemperer were all in deep conversation about serial music. My father would not accept Schoenberg's theory that if you wrote a series of notes and then reversed the series, the theme remained the same. Finally, Schoenberg took out a pencil and held it up and said, "Erich, what is this in my hand?" and my father said,"It's obvious, it's a pencil." Schoenberg turned it upside down with the eraser at the bottom and said, ''Now what is it?" and my father replied, "It's still a pencil but now you can't write with it !""

from Brendan C. Carroll's Korngold biography


----------



## hammeredklavier

Mandryka said:


> I'm going to use the thread here to ask a question. Is this "tonal"? Is it "avant garde"?


I wouldn't categorize guys like Schoenberg, Ligeti, Messiaen in the same group as Cage, Xenakis, Babbitt, Boulez, Stockhausen. I think in order for a composer to be objectively regarded as being part of "classical music", he has to show by words and actions that he belongs in it, and not indulge in anti-classical, avant-garde philosophies like "noise is music", "everything we do is music", "who cares if you listen".


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> I wouldn't categorize guys like Schoenberg, Ligeti, Messiaen in the same group as Cage, Xenakis, Babbitt, Boulez, Stockhausen. I think in order for a composer to be objectively regarded as being part of "classical music", he has to show by words and actions that he belongs in it, and not indulge in anti-classical, avant-garde philosophies like "noise is music", "everything we do is music", "who cares if you listen".


You can have your opinion, but you are not in control of how these composers are thought of and treated.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> You can have your opinion, but you are not in control of how these composers are thought of and treated.


We've talked about this many times already



hammeredklavier said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cage
> John Milton Cage Jr. (September 5, 1912 - August 12, 1992) was an American composer, music theorist, artist, and philosopher. A pioneer of indeterminacy in music, electroacoustic music, and non-standard use of musical instruments, Cage was one of the leading figures of the post-war avant-garde.
> 
> "Yuhki Kuramoto is a Japanese pianist and composer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuhki_Kuramoto
> At school, he studied Rachmaninoff and performed as a part-time soloist in orchestras.
> Kuramoto's style of music shows influence from a variety of composers from different periods. Most notably, by Rachmaninoff, Chopin and Ravel.
> https://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/yuhki-kuramoto.html
> He was considered an heir to Rachmaninoff and Chopin."
> 
> Which one seems more like a "classical music composer"?





hammeredklavier said:


> Maybe I should start submitting stuff like these in for TC's List of Most Recommended Works:





hammeredklavier said:


> "I know Williams has written some classical works, concertos and other things. But his reputation is based on his film work, and that is how I place him." -SanAntone
> 
> ^This is like saying " I know John Cage has written some avant-garde music, pieces for prepared piano and other things. But his reputation is based on 4'33" and the philosophy that "everything we do is music", which is not found even in de facto non-classical genres such as jazz or prog rock "


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> We've talked about this many times already


You and a few others here think that by repeating your claim that the avant-garde is not part of classical music it will magically change reality.

You and your anti-AG friends are simply suffering under a delusion. And it is a tired and redundant cycle that leads nowhere.


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> You and a few others here think that by repeating your claim that the avant-garde is not part of classical music it will magically change reality.
> 
> You and your anti-AG friends are simply suffering under a delusion. And it is a tired and redundant cycle that leads nowhere.


hammeredklavier has stated many times that he thinks avant-garde music shouldn't be classified as classical music as it is now; implicit in his argument is his recognition that it currently is considered classical music. He recognises the current state of affairs but thinks it somehow superior to do things differently.

I'm not going to post anymore, because I'm sure he'll speak for himself, but wanted to clarify that some posters do carefully read others opinions.


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> hammeredklavier has stated many times that he thinks avant-garde music shouldn't be classified as classical music as it is now; implicit in his argument is his recognition that it currently is considered classical music. He recognises the current state of affairs but thinks it somehow superior to do things differently.
> 
> I'm not going to post anymore, because I'm sure he'll speak for himself, but wanted to clarify that some posters do carefully read others opinions.


I know he thinks that, and he and others have repeated this again and again. It doesn't take careful reading of his posts to understand his intolerance of avant-garde works. Repeating his opinion only serves to bother those posters who enjoy avant-garde works and composers. Is this the purpose of this forum?

I suggested that he create a thread for classical music which would exclude avant-garde works as he defines them. Or he can simply ignore the posts about avant-garde works, as the rest of do with posts about music that we don't care for.


----------



## Mandryka

SanAntone said:


> You can have your opinion, but you are not in control of how these composers are thought of and treated.


As far as I can see he's exactly like Beckmesser - he thinks that the preislied cannot be admitted by the maestersingers because it or its composer does not respect the venerable rules. He is a defensive reactionary conservative. Only time will tell whether such people will influence the way people think.


----------



## ArtMusic

This is an example of great avant-garde music, truly great.


----------



## SanAntone

ArtMusic said:


> This is an example of great avant-garde music, truly great.


No one is forcing you to listen to it. I reject the idea that because you don't like some avant-garde music, you should ostracize those who do. In my way of thinking, if you don't like something, the obligation is on you to not listen to it. Not try to segregate those who do enjoy it.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> You and a few others here think that by repeating your claim that the avant-garde is not part of classical music it will magically change reality.
> 
> You and your anti-AG friends are simply suffering under a delusion. And it is a tired and redundant cycle that leads nowhere.


But it does present a problem, to me anyway: how is the a.g. a part of a tradition that it seeks to subvert?


----------



## SanAntone

This is an issue for the administrators. It is up to them if they want to segregate avant-garde music. 

Or we could do a poll:

Should avant-garde music be prohibited in the General Classical Music discussion and relegated to its own forum? Yes or No.

But I think this has been discussed enough so that everyone knows where we all stand.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> But it does present a problem, to me anyway: how is the a.g. a part of a tradition that it seeks to subvert?


AG is not trying to subvert the traditional classical tradition. AG composers are creating the music they wish to compose for the audience that is receptive to it.

No one is forcing you listen to it. You can ignore it and your classical music will be untouched.


----------



## arpeggio

This is a debate that has been going on since the day I joined this forum. It also messed up the Amazon classical music forum.

There are many members who have been driven out of this forum because they defended avant-garde music.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

SanAntone said:


> This is an issue for the administrators. It is up to them if they want to segregate avant-garde music.
> 
> Or we could do a poll:
> 
> Should avant-garde music be prohibited in the General Classical Music discussion and relegated to its own forum? Yes or No.
> 
> But I think this has been discussed enough so that everyone knows where we all stand.


I think it's a good idea to make a separate sub-forum, NOT for the purpose of dividing the TC community into ideological sects, rather because it is a logical and practical move to make. There's subforums for chamber music, instrument families, theory, popular music, opera, ballet, etc etc etc etc. Why not Avant-Garde? It sounds totally logical to me


----------



## ArtMusic

SanAntone said:


> No one is forcing you to listen to it. I reject the idea that because you don't like some avant-garde music, you should ostracize those who do. In my way of thinking, if you don't like something, the obligation is on you to not listen to it. Not try to segregate those who do enjoy it.


I am not segregating. I strongly suggest you withdraw your post attacking me. My post did not comment on any listeners, whereas yours did.


----------



## ArtMusic

SanAntone said:


> AG is not trying to subvert the traditional classical tradition. AG composers are creating the music they wish to compose for the audience that is receptive to it.
> 
> No one is forcing you listen to it. You can ignore it and your classical music will be untouched.


It's not about my classical music; it's about the future and the current state of "new" classical music, that the creativity of subversion is actually one of perversion the art of composed music.


----------



## Lisztian

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I think it's a good idea to make a separate sub-forum, NOT for the purpose of dividing the TC community into ideological sects, rather because it is a logical and practical move to make. There's subforums for chamber music, instrument families, theory, popular music, opera, ballet, etc etc etc etc. Why not Avant-Garde? It sounds totally logical to me


Because it's the same thing as making sub-forums for the 'Music of the Future of the Romantic era,' or 'the Ars Nova of the Medieval,' etc. Why haven't we done that? Opera, ballet, and chamber music are sub-categories of classical music that composers of all stripes composed, including many 'Avant-Garde' composers.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Lisztian said:


> Because it's the same thing as making sub-forums for the 'Music of the Future of the Romantic era,' or 'the Ars Nova of the Medieval,' etc. Why haven't we done that? Opera, ballet, and chamber music are sub-categories of classical music that composers of all stripes composed, including many 'Avant-Garde' composers.


I see your point, because opera and ballet are mediums and _not _ styles or eras, and e.g a lot of opera has been done by the avant-garde, but I think avant-garde and contemporary is enough of a niche here that a separate subforum can actually promote and enrichen discussion for it

The debate's long become a broken record that's going nowhere fast, and each party is rehashing the same arguments and going around in circles leading to the same dead ends.

Sure, it's not threatening world peace if the debate continues (which it has been for years and years, apparently having previously caused some biblical mass exodus from the forum for conservative or contemporary listeners, doesn't really matter who), but I think a separate sub-forum wouldn't do any harm either. Again, it'll promote good discussion by concentrating the avant-garde niche to that area. It's only a segregation if you view it that way.


----------



## mikeh375

consuono said:


> Could you elaborate a little on that with some examples?


Fortunately a quick search saved me a few long paragraphs and so the article linked below will give you an excellent sense of his work from early to late. It charts a natural course of enquiry for an inquisitive and ever searching composer whose genius left the art and artifice all the richer. If you don't wish to read it then here is the last paragraph, which sums him up far more informatively, succinctly and eloquently than I could ever do.

_Looking over the composer's compositions as a whole, it can be seen that those phases labeled neoclassical and expressionist are not set aside but subsumed into the mature phase, if by the former is meant a concern with structure and by the latter with drama. Of course it is not unusual for a composer to maintain a consistency of artistic outlook throughout his musical production. What is rare is for him to do so in ever new ways. Because of his exceptional creativity Carter can be likened to such composers as Josquin, Bach, Beethoven and Mahler, and not only because of his creativity but also because of his deep contacts with the traditions of Western music since the Renaissance. He is perhaps the only composer of his generation to maintain his contacts with the past and also to renew them. While many composers were surrendering their compositional control to mathematics or to chance, he reasserted his freedom to choose, and his choice was intimately related to those fundamental characteristics mentioned above: structure and drama. The Western composer's concern with structure stems from the fact that his music is polyphonic. This presents problems of unity and variety not often found in other cultures. Carter begins with the underlying concept of distinguishing between the simultaneous musical lines and carries it to the furthest possible point with cross rhythms and differing and changing tempos. When the counterpoint of individual lines was exhausted, he moved to a counterpoint of movements. The other touchstone of his style-drama-is just as basic to Western music. It is a music of events, simultaneous and successive, and a music which tries to affect human emotions. It was Carter's realization that this drama is bound up with the individuality of the musical gestures-complex clusters of intervals, rhythm, tempo, and articulation-that enabled him to abandon traditional formal procedures. Intelligibility can simply come from the interplay of audible musical characters, characters rooted in the nature of their sounding medium. The composer has shown us possibilities in our tradition that many might have thought no longer existed.
_

Here's the link to the full article..

https://symposium.music.org/index.php/22/item/1923-the-music-of-elliott-carter

And finally some aural evidence that a modernist _could_ produce music with more than tangible links to the canon. That he chose not to be so overt, or decided to reject tradition in mature works because of his artistic proclivities, was simply the inevitable result of gradual development and enquiry. His work was powered by full technical and aesthetic control along with a finely tuned sense of heritage and his relation to it.

The honest and diligent provenance and progression in Carter's music is imv, a good antidote to the insinuation implied in the thread's title. Carter was on a journey, one follows him or not which is fine. To those who may disparage the likes of his oeuvre because there is no immediately discernible way in, I recommend this symphony below as an easy introduction to the man. Perhaps some might then be inclined to follow further and see where else he travelled, it's a fascinating and rewarding trip.


----------



## consuono

arpeggio said:


> This is a debate that has been going on since the day I joined this forum. It also messed up the Amazon classical music forum.
> 
> There are many members who have been driven out of this forum because they defended avant-garde music.


Driven out by opposing views? Maybe they should grow a thicker skin.


mikeh375 said:


> Fortunately a quick search saved me a few long paragraphs and so the article linked below will give you an excellent sense of his work from early to late. It charts a natural course of enquiry for an inquisitive and ever searching composer whose genius left the art and artifice all the richer. If you don't wish to read it then here is the last paragraph, which sums him up far more informatively, succinctly and eloquently than I could ever do.


Thanks, I'll read more of that and look into more of Carter's work. That first symphony sounds accessible; however, I don't think the following is. I find something like this to be unlistenable after a minute or two or three. I don't see or hear the connection with any CP masters except maybe the use of a piano. (edit).. well, maybe late Scriabin, of which I'm not a big fan either:


----------



## mikeh375

consuono said:


> Driven out by opposing views? Maybe they should grow a thicker skin.
> Thanks, I'll read more of that and look into more of Carter's work. That first symphony sounds accessible; however, I don't think the following is. I find something like this to be unlistenable after a minute or two or three. I don't see or hear the connection with any CP masters except maybe the use of a piano. (edit).. well, maybe late Scriabin, of which I'm not a big fan either:


Perhaps it is the expressionist sentiment overall you don't like, one undoubtedly exacerbated by irregular pulse.
Iirc, you have said you like Messiaen right? Do you like/know this fugue below? This is not expressionist as one might define it, but neither is there any real difference in the level of dissonance between the Messiaen and your linked Carter.

There are more discernible links in the Messiaen with tradition so perhaps what repels you from the mature Carter is not so much the dissonance, but the unpredictability of pulse, the wide ranging lyricism and abrupt mood shifts...maybe??? Or you might even hate the Messiaen too.


----------



## SanAntone

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I see your point, because opera and ballet are mediums and _not _ styles or eras, and e.g a lot of opera has been done by the avant-garde, but I think avant-garde and contemporary is enough of a niche here that a separate subforum can actually promote and enrichen discussion for it
> 
> The debate's long become a broken record that's going nowhere fast, and each party is rehashing the same arguments and going around in circles leading to the same dead ends.
> 
> Sure, it's not threatening world peace if the debate continues (which it has been for years and years, apparently having previously caused some biblical mass exodus from the forum for conservative or contemporary listeners, doesn't really matter who), but I think a separate sub-forum wouldn't do any harm either. Again, it'll promote good discussion by concentrating the avant-garde niche to that area. It's only a segregation if you view it that way.


Who decides what's avant-garde? Do you really want to have the anti-AG members tell us where we can post and where we can't post? It's really only a few, but loud and persistent, members. For the life of me I don't know how they are hurt by my posting about John Cage in the Classical Music Discussion.

Also, if we who enjoy AG are supposed to "grow thicker skin" why can't those who complain do the same thing. I have created separate threads specifically for 21st and 20th century works, some in the Chamber Music sub-forum and some in the Classical Music Forum.

But the number of posts about AG in the general CM discussion are actually few. These arguments break out only when the anti-AG members begin their attacks on AG music and composers.


----------



## Mandryka

One musical antecedent of Night Fantasies is maybe Stravinsky, the symphonies, Agon: no resolution, constant motion, fragmentation yet continuity. Interesting to see it described as expressionist above, I remember describing it as _im_pressionist - as if Debussy wrote a prelude which was "about" a bad night's sleep!

Anyway nice to be reminded of it, I haven't heard it for years and it's been a great pleasure to play it this morning.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> In spots it sounds a little like late Liszt.


Yes, I see what you mean.


----------



## Mandryka

mikeh375 said:


> Perhaps it is the expressionist sentiment overall you don't like, one undoubtedly exacerbated by irregular pulse.
> Iirc, you have said you like Messiaen right? Do you like/know this fugue below? This is not expressionist as one might define it, but neither is there any real difference in the level of dissonance between the Messiaen and your linked Carter.
> 
> There are more discernible links in the Messiaen with tradition so perhaps what repels you from the mature Carter is not so much the dissonance, but the unpredictability of pulse, the wide ranging lyricism and abrupt mood shifts...maybe??? Or you might even hate the Messiaen too.


Yes, the strange thing is that because you mentioned Messiaen when I just heard Night Fantasies I started to hear little passages which seemed to have the sort of textures you sometimes find in Messiaen, I'm probably too suggestible - I hope I never meet a hypnotist!


----------



## Bulldog

The recommendation that avant-garde music have its own subforum is based on the notion that *it is not classical music*. It's definitely a segregationist and toxic proposal that I trust reasonable members will not get sucked into.


----------



## janxharris

The motivic development of this piece is easily discernable imo - especially in the first half. It's link with such methods employed by LVB et al is clear to me. It has been my gateway into AG music.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> But the number of posts about AG in the general CM discussion are actually few. These arguments break out only when the anti-AG members begin their attacks on AG music and composers.


I'll remind you that a lot of this round of talk about avant garde began when you "attacked" John Williams as a composer of film scores, period, quote unquote. What's an "attack"? "I don't like that...it doesn't sound like music to me" is an attack to some people. If you want to sit in judgement on some music or composers, don't get butthurt when your own faves are targeted.


mikeh375 said:


> Perhaps it is the expressionist sentiment overall you don't like, one undoubtedly exacerbated by irregular pulse.
> Iirc, you have said you like Messiaen right? Do you like/know this fugue below? This is not expressionist as one might define it, but neither is there any real difference in the level of dissonance between the Messiaen and your linked Carter.


Thanks, I do like the Messiaen a lot better as there seems to be more of a discernible structure there.


Bulldog said:


> The recommendation that avant-garde music have its own subforum is based on the notion that *it is not classical music*. It's definitely a segregationist and toxic proposal that I trust reasonable members will not get sucked into.


I agree, but then the avant garde fans generally have their own subforum anyway consisting of modern music/avant garde threads in which criticism from non-fans of the same is not allowed...that's "trolling", of course...and I for one generally stay away from them. To rephrase a little, if a.g. fans want to express *any* negative feeling about any other kind of music, maybe they should be more prepared to accept that same kind of negative judgement when their own favored genre is discussed. In a thread on Mozart there's no requirement to maintain a reverential tone at all times. I don't see why there should be that kind of requirement when discussing more modern music.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> Thanks, I do like the Messiaen a lot better as there seems to be more of a discernible structure there.
> 
> .


We ought to have a whole thread about this thought. Have you read this?

http://www.kim-cohen.com/Assets/CourseAssets/Texts/Adorno_Vers une musique informelle.pdf


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bulldog said:


> The recommendation that avant-garde music have its own subforum is based on the notion that *it is not classical music*. It's definitely a segregationist and toxic proposal that I trust reasonable members will not get sucked into.


It's not any more "segregationist and toxic" than these:

[ "Blah, blah, blah - John Williams writes movie soundtracks. Period." -SanAntone
"I used the word in reference to the level of quality in your Classical Music, which I think would be lowered, or cheapened, by excluding Cage but including composers like Williams and Kuramoto." -SanAntone
"While I agree that film composers have mined Wagnerisms for their scores, I don't consider film composers relevant to a discussion of classical music." -SanAntone ]

You must be imagining some kind of "utopia" where everyone appreciates everything from a 500-year period. In reality, this is impossible. When there's simply "too much variety", there needs to be some "subdivisions" to separate them. It's why jazz and prog rock don't share the same community.
Let me ask you -how come the piano song cycles of Yiruma and Einaudi can't be genuine topics for debate in the main forum? How come they're not allowed in the List of Most Recommended Works?


----------



## SanAntone

Mandryka said:


> We ought to have a whole thread about this thought. Have you read this?
> 
> http://www.kim-cohen.com/Assets/CourseAssets/Texts/Adorno_Vers une musique informelle.pdf


I don't think I am going to read over 100 paragraphs from 1961 about why some people have trouble accepting new music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> I don't think I am going to read over 100 paragraphs from 1961 about why some people have trouble accepting new music.


The avant-garde movement has been around for a century, it's not something new. I would say the "new ideas" John Williams has come up with are more significant and substantial than many of the avant-gardists'.


----------



## Mandryka

SanAntone said:


> I don't think I am going to read over 100 paragraphs from 1961 about why some people have trouble accepting new music.


It's not about why some people have trouble accepting new music, it's about the reasons for the form, the structure, of some new music.


----------



## SanAntone

Mandryka said:


> It's not about why some people have trouble accepting new music, it's about the reasons for the form, the structure, of some new music.


I only read the first couple of pages and it seemed to describe how some people react to new music. In any event it is a very long article from 50 years ago that I don't think is worth the time to read and discuss. Just my two cents. This whole discussion about avant-garde music being difficult for some people to accept is boring to me and has been over examined on TC.


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> Let me ask you -how come the piano song cycles of Yiruma and Einaudi can't be genuine topics for debate in the main forum? How come they're not allowed in the List of Most Recommended Works?


I'm not in charge around here, and I have not advocated for or against the musicians mentioned above. Why are they important to you?


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> Let me ask you -how come the piano song cycles of Yiruma and Einaudi can't be genuine topics for debate in the main forum?


Ludovico Einaudi


----------



## Mandryka

SanAntone said:


> I only read the first couple of pages and it seemed to describe how some people react to new music. In any event it is a very long article from 50 years ago that I don't think is worth the time to read and discuss. Just my two cents. This whole discussion about avant-garde music being difficult for some people to accept is boring to me and has been over examined on TC.


Well to be honest I think you're being a bit unsympathetic to that chap who said he couldn't manage _Night Fantasies_, especially because his comment about the Messaien thing having a more clear form gives us a clue about what his problem is. We chould all be a bit more clubbable.

That Adorno paper about _Musique Informelle_ is a way of understanding his problem about form.


----------



## arpeggio

consuono said:


> Driven out by opposing views? Maybe they should grow a thicker skin.


I have heard this one before too.


----------



## SanAntone

Mandryka said:


> Well to be honest I think you're being a bit unsympathetic to that chap who said he couldn't manage _Night Fantasies_, especially because his comment about the Messaien thing having a more clear form gives us a clue about what his problem is. We chould all be a bit more clubbable.
> 
> That Adorno paper about _Musique Informelle_ is a way of understanding his problem about form.


We all have music that we don't enjoy or can't understand. There comes a point when continuing to bring it up derails the forum/thread into a focus on one person's limitations, and I definitely interpret the inability to appreciate a kind of music as a limitation on the part of the listener as opposed to a defect in the music/work.

I recently started a thread about the orchestral music I have had trouble enjoying. I asked for suggestions and help in finding a way to break through and enjoy some. The members who have expressed a dislike and intolerance for avant-garde music are not asking for help to enjoy it; they wish to remove it from the classical forum.

I am much more interested in hearing people talk about the music that excites and thrills them than the music they don't like, or worse, question its place as classical music.

Finally, I have never had patience with philosophical texts about appreciating art or music. I guess I have a much simpler approach: I listen, I react (positively or negatively), then move on and repeat the process.


----------



## DaveM

Bulldog said:


> The recommendation that avant-garde music have its own subforum is based on the notion that *it is not classical music*. It's definitely* a segregationist and toxic proposal* that I trust reasonable members will not get sucked into.


That kind of inflammatory language and the judgment behind it are just the sort of thing that can provoke responses that some are complaining about here.


----------



## ArtMusic

janxharris said:


> The motivic development of this piece is easily discernable imo - especially in the first half. It's link with such methods employed by LVB et al is clear to me. It has been my gateway into AG music.


I agree, as does this piece _Kontakte_. It's complex harmonic extension and development make this a great avant-garde piece. Extremely well performed here, too obviously; you can easily discern. My favorite exposition starts at around [17:20] where the music slows before picking up again for a crescendo effect.


----------



## Mandryka

janxharris said:


> It's [Gruppen's]link with such methods employed by LVB et al is clear to me.
> 
> ]


Can you say a bit more about that? Do you just mean that it's thematic?

As far as Beethoven's link to Stockhausen is concerned, there's this of course


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> We all have music that we don't enjoy or can't understand. There comes a point when continuing to bring it up derails the forum/thread into a focus on one person's limitations.


The OP was about Great vs Average/Mediocre Avante-garde which inevitably raises the question how does one tell the difference. I haven't read a convincing answer yet. But, this thread has devolved into complaints about perceived anti-avant-garde posts and posts that derail threads in general. I would just point out that on the subject of derailing a thread, this post without provocation (that I could find) came near the start of the thread:



Simon Moon said:


> And let me add, that I find it predictable on Talk Classical, that the go to composer used by the anti modernists to deride avant-garde and modern classical is Cage.
> 
> He's like the poster child for anti modernists to point at, in order to dismiss all modern and avant-garde classical.


----------



## Mandryka

DaveM said:


> I haven't read a convincing answer yet.:


Find my answer right at the beginning of the thread.


----------



## DaveM

Mandryka said:


> Find my answer right at the beginning of the thread.


I did before posting above. Your response was that you didn't have an answer, but suggested that it might be in the 'criteria being deployed' for selection of works at various festivals, but we we're still left wondering what those are. You also went on to say, _'I'll mention an avant garde composer who I feel strongly is not very good, but I'm not sure why I have this strong belief. Just a feeling, inarticulate. Henryk Görecki.'_ which, for me, muddied the waters because you, yourself, aren't sure why he is not very good and, also, I have never thought of Görecki as Avant-garde. (I could be wrong though.)


----------



## Mandryka

DaveM said:


> I did before posting above. Your response was that you didn't have an answer, but suggested that it might be in the 'criteria being deployed' for selection of works at various festivals, but we we're still left wondering what those are.


Well I'm proposing a methodology, my contention is that that's the only way to find out. My point about Gorecki wasn't to be taken seriously, just an intuition, a worthless intuition!


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> The OP was about Great vs Average/Mediocre Avante-garde which inevitably raises the question how does one tell the difference. I haven't read a convincing answer yet.


Since the "test of time" is the only quasi-objective test (cumulative subjective responses over centuries) for quality in a work of art of piece of music, there can be no answer today to the question posed by the OP. Further, I think the appreciation of music is entirely subjective, so one person's mediocre music will be someone else's great work.

Until 200 years pass and some works from today's avant-garde survive, all we are left with are our individual subjective reactions to avant-garde music.


----------



## consuono

arpeggio said:


> I have heard this one before too.


Well then maybe you should realize it's just as silly as saying "there have been people driven from this forum for defending Mozart/Bach/Beethoven/Wagner/John Williams". Yeah, I guess there are some people who can't tolerate opposing views. That's not my problem, it's theirs.


----------



## ArtMusic

DaveM said:


> The OP was about Great vs Average/Mediocre Avante-garde which inevitably raises the question how does one tell the difference. I haven't read a convincing answer yet. ....


One cannot and should not tell the difference; that is the whole point with AG music. There is no standard, it only exists and either you like it or you quietly walk away from it.


----------



## ArtMusic

SanAntone said:


> .... so one person's mediocre music will be someone else's great work.


That's exactly the criteria that breeds mediocrity in the arts in modern times - that there is no standard. It is a thinking born out of the late impressionists but "educated" into academia in the mid-20th century.


----------



## jojoju2000

This is a interesting topic.... because my first post on this forum, had discussions about this as well.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> Since the "test of time" is the only quasi-objective test (cumulative subjective responses over centuries) for quality in a work of art of piece of music, there can be no answer today to the question posed by the OP. Further, I think the appreciation of music is entirely subjective, so one person's mediocre music will be someone else's great work.


Since you're back to that again, just for giggles, how do you explain that Beethoven's 9th Symphony is a guaranteed sell-out whenever scheduled and is the go-to selection whenever there are major disasters. I'm also wondering how the 'test of time' can be called even a 'quasi-objective' test if appreciation of music is 'entirely subjective'. Those two things would seem to be mutually exclusive.

I don't have a problem agreeing that subjectivity plays a role in our evaluation of the quality and status of classical works and composers. My problem is with the extreme view that it is entirely subjective.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> Since you're back to that again, just for giggles, how do you explain that Beethoven's 9th Symphony is a guaranteed sell-out whenever scheduled and is the go-to selection whenever there are major disasters. I'm also wondering how the 'test of time' can be called even a 'quasi-objective' test if appreciation of music is 'entirely subjective'. Those two things would seem to be mutually exclusive.
> 
> I don't have a problem agreeing that subjectivity plays a role in our evaluation of the quality and status of classical works and composers. My problem is with the extreme view that it is entirely subjective.


I guess you ignored my parenthetical phrase "cumulative subjective responses over centuries" which is my description of the "test of time."


----------



## SanAntone

If there is objective criteria for judging the quality of musical works, is it the same for Beethoven as it is for an avant-garde work? What authority defines this criteria? How can a work from the 18th century, written in a tonal style share criteria with a work from the 20th century written in an atonal style?

To answer your question, "how do you explain that Beethoven’s 9th Symphony is a guaranteed sell-out whenever scheduled and is the go-to selection whenever there are major disasters," because after 200 years of being taught it is one of the major artistic statements in music history, we accept it as such, and we have made associations with that music that we find comforting during times of crises.

I have never seen any so-called objective criteria that is universally accepted to define greatness in a musical work, for all periods and styles.


----------



## arpeggio

*Erich Urbanner*

While reviewing the Naxos Music Library I found another avant-garde composer that is interesting: Erich Urbanner. I am currently listening to the Alban Berg String Quartet performing his _Fourth String Quartet_.


----------



## arpeggio

I have recently discovered something.

Many of the members who dislike avant-garde music also have problems with composers like Danzi or Bax.

If a person wants to live in some classical ivory tower just listening to or discussing the music of Bach, Beethoven or Brahms, that is their right.

But stop chiding those of us who want to expand our musical horizons beyond Bach, Beethoven or Brahms.

Maybe we should ban arpeggio from the forum because he likes Willie Nelson, Fleetwood Mac, Aretha Franklin and Abba.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> If there is objective criteria for judging the quality of musical works, is it the same for Beethoven as it is for an avant-garde work? What authority defines this criteria? How can a work from the 18th century, written in a tonal style share criteria with a work from the 20th century written in an atonal style?
> 
> To answer your question, "how do you explain that Beethoven's 9th Symphony is a guaranteed sell-out whenever scheduled and is the go-to selection whenever there are major disasters," because after 200 years of being taught it is one of the major artistic statements in music history, we accept it as such, and we have made associations with that music that we find comforting during times of crises.
> 
> I have never seen any so-called objective criteria that is universally accepted to define greatness in a musical work, for all periods and styles.


So, instead of accepting the fact that perhaps there is something objective going on with the popularity of Beethoven's 9th and it's use in certain situations where people need solace and reassurance, you actually expect me or anyone else here that recognizes the greatness of the 9th to believe that it is because we and those who came before were 'taught' that it is 'one of the major statements on music history' and so 'accept it as such'. And then '_we have made associations with that music that we find comforting during times of crises'._ This is support for the premise that 'it is all subjective'?

On the contrary, this infers that we are lemmings who are 'taught' what the great works are as opposed to the fact that as we develop our experience with classical music works over time we (individually) are more able to recognize composers and their works that stand out and it is not a surprise to us that many others have independently come to the same conclusion both in the past and the present about many of the same composers and works. Herein lies the evidence that there are objective reasons for the superiority of these works and the skill of these composers.


----------



## consuono

arpeggio said:


> I have recently discovered something.
> 
> Many of the members who dislike avant-garde music also have problems with composers like Danzi or Bax.
> 
> If a person wants to live in some classical ivory tower just listening to or discussing the music of Bach, Beethoven or Brahms, that is their right.
> 
> But stop chiding those of us who want to expand our musical horizons beyond Bach, Beethoven or Brahms.
> 
> Maybe we should ban arpeggio from the forum because he likes Willie Nelson, Fleetwood Mac, Aretha Franklin and Abba.


I don't know much about Bax or Danzi, but there's a little bit of a false dichotomy there. I also like Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler, R. Strauss, the Second Vienna School. Arvo Pärt is one of my favorite composers. Penderecki and Gorecki wrote some very powerful music. Just because one acknowledges the greatness of the 3 B's and is turned off by most avant garde doesn't mean all one listens to are the 3 B's (although one could do much, much worse...it isn't exactly a waste of time). Nor am I under any obligation to say that Stockhausen or Steve Reich is "equal to" Bach or Beethoven just to show how broadminded I am, when I know that it's ****** .


----------



## BachIsBest

arpeggio said:


> I have recently discovered something.
> 
> Many of the members who dislike avant-garde music also have problems with composers like Danzi or Bax.
> 
> If a person wants to live in some classical ivory tower just listening to or discussing the music of Bach, Beethoven or Brahms, that is their right.
> 
> But stop chiding those of us who want to expand our musical horizons beyond Bach, Beethoven or Brahms.
> 
> Maybe we should ban arpeggio from the forum because he likes Willie Nelson, Fleetwood Mac, Aretha Franklin and Abba.


I'm not sure if this was specifically intended partly at myself, but I wish to point out I was comparing Danzi to Beethoven; I hardly think saying "Danzi wasn't quite as good as Beethoven for these reasons" is the same as saying I am chiding those who want to move beyond Bach, Beethoven, or Brahms.

Regardless, one of the composers that got me into classical music was Giuseppe Tartini who can hardly be accused of making too many top 50 composers of all time lists.

I'm also not sure why you think this is a reasonable statement to make when you have a sketchy sample size of twoish people who may (in fact) have more nuanced opinions than a biased reading of one forum post allows for?


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> So, instead of accepting the fact that perhaps there is something objective going on with the popularity of Beethoven's 9th and it's use in certain situations where people need solace and reassurance, you actually expect me or anyone else here that recognizes the greatness of the 9th to believe that it is because we and those who came before were 'taught' that it is 'one of the major statements on music history' and so 'accept it as such'. And then '_we have made associations with that music that we find comforting during times of crises'._ This is support for the premise that 'it is all subjective'?
> 
> On the contrary, this infers that we are lemmings who are 'taught' what the great works are as opposed to the fact that as we develop our experience with classical music works over time we (individually) are more able to recognize composers and their works that stand out and it is not a surprise to us that many others have independently come to the same conclusion both in the past and the present about many of the same composers and works. Herein lies the evidence that there are objective reasons for the superiority of these works and the skill of these composers.


So a subjective response is objective criteria? Objective criteria is something internal in the music, not a reaction by an audience member.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> If there is objective criteria for judging the quality of musical works, is it the same for Beethoven as it is for an avant-garde work? What authority defines this criteria? How can a work from the 18th century, written in a tonal style share criteria with a work from the 20th century written in an atonal style?
> 
> To answer your question, "how do you explain that Beethoven's 9th Symphony is a guaranteed sell-out whenever scheduled and is the go-to selection whenever there are major disasters," because after 200 years of being taught it is one of the major artistic statements in music history, we accept it as such, and we have made associations with that music that we find comforting during times of crises.
> ....


It was apparently well-received on its premiere as well, unlike a lot of avant garde music. (And I thought Beethoven was supposed to have been sort of avant garde himself? He must not have gotten the "turn off the audience and write only for that tiny ultra-subjectivist niche" memo). And I have to say I recognize the greatness of the 9th, but it isn't one of my favorite symphonies.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

consuono said:


> It was apparently well-received on its premiere as well, unlike a lot of avant garde music. (And I thought Beethoven was supposed to have been sort of avant garde himself? He must not have gotten the "turn off the audience and write only for that tiny ultra-subjectivist niche" memo). And I have to say I recognize the greatness of the 9th, but it isn't one of my favorite symphonies.


The Große Fugue horrified people when it first premiered, I don't think he wrote that with the mind of pleasing the crowd.

I also don't think it's fair to say Stockhausen, Babbit, Xennakis etc. don't have an audience when they do have a substantial audience of people who listen to their music. While it's probably true there's your occasional douchebag who listens to them to put on airs ("look at these wacky obscure composers I listen to! I bet you've never heard of 'em!") , most of audience comes from a genuine enjoyment of the music. If so many people like it, that means there's something about the sound and composition that draws them to it and makes them want to listen. Now while that doesn't automatically grant music objective merits, one can't deny that composers are fulfilling a goal of entertaining and speaking to an audience, and aren't just holed up in an ivory tower of academia making the music for themselves


----------



## Mandryka

DaveM said:


> Since you're back to that again, just for giggles, how do you explain that Beethoven's 9th Symphony is a guaranteed sell-out whenever scheduled and is the go-to selection whenever there are major disasters. I'm also wondering how the 'test of time' can be called even a 'quasi-objective' test if appreciation of music is 'entirely subjective'. Those two things would seem to be mutually exclusive.
> 
> I don't have a problem agreeing that subjectivity plays a role in our evaluation of the quality and status of classical works and composers. My problem is with the extreme view that it is entirely subjective.


Stockhausen's Licht is a major sellout whenever it's scheduled.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> So a subjective response is objective criteria? Objective criteria is something internal in the music, not a reaction by an audience member.


Notice in my post I said 'we recognize composers and their works that stand out', not that we all subjectively liked them the same. Btw, 'objective criteria internal in the music' can be found in the score.


----------



## arpeggio

I need to clarify what I was trying to say.

Let me try this.

If a person believes that avant-garde music is classical music should he be prohibited from participating in this forum?

At times I am under the impression that there are members who think one should only listen to or discuss the music of Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, _etc._

Well that is 99% of the classical composers out there.

So what if Berio is not as good as Beethoven. There are only a hand full of composers who are. (While I was typing this I was listening to a string quartet of Berio. It ain't Beethoven but I still liked it. Does that mean I have to leave?)


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

DaveM said:


> Notice in my post I said 'we recognize composers and their works that stand out', not that we all subjectivity liked them the same. Btw, 'objective criteria internal in the music' can be found in the score.


I think something that hints at objective quality is the ability to respect a composer without liking them. I don't really like Tchaikovsky that much because he's not my cup of tea, while I've come around to Mozart a lot lately I still find a good deal of his stuff drab, and Mahler is the aural equivalent of drinking out of a fire hydrant to me and is just waaaay too much drama for me. All of these are top-tier composers without a doubt. Even though the appreciation of music is a subjective experience, there are still standards that are in place, which is where SanAntone's views and mine differ.

I don't have the credentials or knowledge to back it up, but I think the same applies to AV-G composers as well, which has been the main point of contention in these types of threads. I _do_ think it has merits and evidence of craftsmanship. It's a totally different musical language and approach than before so it's less cut-and-dry than common practice and 20th century non-AVG compositional practices, which makes it harder to really discern what's good from bad. It's hard for me too - I just know what I like and what I don't.


----------



## hammeredklavier

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> The Große Fugue horrified people when it first premiered, I don't think he wrote that with the mind of pleasing the crowd.


Even in that Beethoven was following the footsteps of his predecessors. I personally think the piece is a masterpiece of common practice music. Yes, there are some "rough edges", and a certain disregard for the 18th century rules of "good taste", but that is to be expected of Beethoven. He creates agitation and resolves it convincingly throughout the narrative, which consists of various phases such as variations, a march, etc. I consider it to be in a similar vein as Berlioz's more ground-breaking works -early "19th-century artistic creativity". I think Beethoven wanted to expand on the ideas of the scherzo of his 9th symphony to make one final statement. (He followed his passions while respecting the conventions)
I know Shostakovich, Bartok, Stravinsky found it inspirational , but I don't think it can ever be compared to the "effects" of Stockhausen, Babbit, Xennakis, who were just avant-garde for the sake of being avant-garde. I think Beethoven would have spat his tea upon hearing avant-garde ideas such as "everything we do is music", "who cares if you listen", "noise is also music", etc.






"the fact remains that the "Great Fugue" is "a controlled violence without parallel in music before the twentieth century and anticipated only by Mozart in the C minor fugue for two pianos (K.426)"
< Opera's Second Death / Slavoj Žižek, Mladen Dolar / P.128 >

"Mozart later arranged this fugue for strings as well, adding the introductory Adagio, K. 546. The traditional Baroque idiom that is developed in this fugue for two pianos lays great stress on dissonant chromatic semitones and appoggiaturas. The intensity of the fugal writing is startling, foreshadowing the fugal textures in some of Beethoven's later works, such as the first movement of the Piano Sonata in C Minor, op.111, which exploits a variant of the same idiom. Beethoven was so taken by this piece, in fact, that he copied out the entire fugue in score."
< Mozart's Piano Music / William Kinderman / P.46 >

"although it also has some hair-raising dissonances that would not have been allowed in the strict style. It was surely bound to please Swieten and may have been written especially for his concerts."
< Mozart, Haydn and Early Beethoven: 1781-1802: 1781-1802 / Daniel Heartz / P.64 >


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

hammeredklavier said:


> Even in that Beethoven was following the footsteps of his predecessors. I personally think the piece is a masterpiece of common practice music. Yes, there are some "rough edges", and a certain disregard for the 18th century rules of "good taste", but that is to be expected of Beethoven. But he creates agitation and resolves it convincingly throughout the narrative, which consists of various phases such as variations, a march, etc.


OK, you do have a point, it's not like the Große Fugue emerged out of nowhere, rather longstanding tradition and form, despite the ideas themselves being radical. It lends itself in no way to comparison with the aforementioned AV-G composers. I more made that comment to show Beethoven still wasn't really thinking of the audience, instead wanting to blaze new trails for himself. I think the compositional goals differ greatly with Beethoven and AV-G composers. In my mind it's less of a "who cares if you listen" and more methods of manipulating sound and appreciating sound in itself. I'm not in the heads of Stockhausen, Babbit, Xennakis so I can't speak for them but it's still made to be listened to, and not just being edgy for its own sake, even if it doesn't cast a super wide net of appeal.


----------



## DaveM

arpeggio said:


> I need to clarify what I was trying to say.
> 
> Let me try this.
> If a person believes that avant-garde music is classical music should he be prohibited from participating in this forum?
> At times I am under the impression that there are members who think one should only listen to or discuss the music of Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, _etc._
> Well that is 99% of the classical composers out there.
> 
> So what if Berio is not as good as Beethoven. There are only a hand full of composers who are. (While I was typing this I was listening to a string quartet of Berio. It ain't Beethoven but I still liked it. *Does that mean I have to leave?*)


I think arpeggio should not have to leave '_because he [does like] Willie Nelson, Fleetwood Mac, Aretha Franklin and Abba.'_


----------



## BachIsBest

arpeggio said:


> I need to clarify what I was trying to say.
> 
> Let me try this.
> 
> If a person believes that avant-garde music is classical music should he be prohibited from participating in this forum?
> 
> At times I am under the impression that there are members who think one should only listen to or discuss the music of Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, _etc._
> 
> Well that is 99% of the classical composers out there.
> 
> So what if Berio is not as good as Beethoven. There are only a hand full of composers who are. (While I was typing this I was listening to a string quartet of Berio. It ain't Beethoven but I still liked it. Does that mean I have to leave?)


Please quote a post where someone has suggested that someone who believes avant-garde music is classical music should be prohibited from this forum. I really haven't seen any posts that were asking for anything remotely this extreme.


----------



## arpeggio

BachIsBest said:


> Please quote a post where someone has suggested that someone who believes avant-garde music is classical music should be prohibited from this forum. I really haven't seen any posts that were asking for anything remotely this extreme.


I have been a member of this forum since 2012 and one of the things about participating in this forum I have learned is that one can bash composers, musicians and music to their hearts content but if one dares confront some of the more difficult members they would risk banishment. So if I provided you with a list of current members who have taken this position I would risk violating the code of conduct here and be sent the the penalty box.

One has to be very careful about how one responds.

I received a warning from the moderators a few years ago that I could not reveal who is on my ignore list. It would be considered a personal attack.

It would take me some time but I could provide you with a list of former members who have submitted such posts.

Note: I just remembered one of the current members who feels this way complained to one of the moderators about me. The moderator was a friend and warned me about the complaint. Since then I never respond to any of his posts.


----------



## BachIsBest

arpeggio said:


> I have been a member of this forum since 2012 and one of the things about participating in this forum I have learned is that one can bash composers, musicians and music to their hearts content but if one dares confront some of the more difficult members they would risk banishment. So if I provided you with a list of current members who have taken this position I would risk violating the code of conduct here and be sent the the penalty box.
> 
> One has to be very careful about how one responds.
> 
> I received a warning from the moderators a few years ago that I could not reveal who is on my ignore list. It would be considered a personal attack.
> 
> It would take me some time but I could provide you with a list of former members who have submitted such posts.


I mean, I don't really want a list of such members; just a quote demonstrating that a member has actually expressed the opinion you claim to be against. My concern is that it might be a bit of a (and I hate this over-used-on-the-internet-word, so forgive me for using it) strawmen. I don't think you quoting a member, with no comment, in response to my question would gain you any attention from the mod team.


----------



## arpeggio

BachIsBest said:


> I mean, I don't really want a list of such members; just a quote demonstrating that a member has actually expressed the opinion you claim to be against. My concern is that it might be a bit of a (and I hate this over-used-on-the-internet-word, so forgive me for using it) strawmen. I don't think you quoting a member, with no comment, in response to my question would gain you any attention from the mod team.


If I quote a member and I do not mention his name, they are going to know I am quoting them. As a matter of fact a few years ago one of them did file a complaint with one of the moderators when I questioned one if his posts.


----------



## consuono

arpeggio said:


> If I quote a member and I do not mention his name, they are going to know I am quoting them. As a matter of fact a few years ago one of them did file a complaint with one of the moderators when I questioned one if his posts.


I was suspended for a couple of weeks for "arguing" with an avant garde fan in another thread. I was always trying to be civil; that one was anything but. Another a.g. fan was downright trollish for page after page and never received so much as a warning. So please. Avant gardians are hardly martyrs at this forum.


GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> It's a totally different musical language and approach than before ...


And that's exactly why you have some who question whether avant garde things should be discussed along with CP music. I don't have an opinion on that but I don't want to see segregation and whatnot. At the same time I don't really see the continuity between Chopin and Cage. That's as different as Mozart and the Rolling Stones to me.


> The Große Fugue horrified people when it first premiered, I don't think he wrote that with the mind of pleasing the crowd.
> 
> I also don't think it's fair to say Stockhausen, Babbit, Xennakis etc. don't have an audience when they do have a substantial audience of people who listen to their music.


The Große Fuge and the Hammerklavier (which is even more wacky) I think were horrifying primarily in terms of playability. I would say both of the above were acclaimed as masterpieces within a generation of Beethoven's death. Beethoven didn't try to abolish tonality or have the performer bang on the fallboard or use mallets on the violins or any such gimmickry. It was still based on the previous centuries' worth of musical practice. It certainly wasn't just about "soundscapes", which to me indicates "dead end". I don't have anything to say, so let's meditate on the vibrations of a piano string with a conch shell on top of it. I wonder what a double bass sounds like when dropped 50 feet? Who cares?

And yes there is an audience for avant garde stuff and that's fine. I'd still say it's über-niche. A niche of a niche of a niche. And that's probably by design.


----------



## arpeggio

deleted...............................


----------



## arpeggio

consuono said:


> I was suspended for a couple of weeks for "arguing" with an avant garde fan in another thread. I was always trying to be civil; that one was anything but. Another a.g. fan was downright trollish for page after page and never received so much as a warning. So please. Avant gardians are hardly martyrs at this forum.


This is a bogus argument.

Because you got into trouble arguing with an avant-gardists it is OK for me to risk offending an anti-avant-gardist?

No way Jose.

There are some difficult avant-gardists. Don't you think I know that there are difficult people on both sides of the aisle?


----------



## consuono

arpeggio said:


> This is a bogus argument.
> 
> Because you got into trouble arguing with an avant-gardists it is OK for me to risk offending an anti-avant-gardist?
> 
> No way Jose.
> 
> There are some difficult avant-gardists. Don't you think I know that there are difficult people on both sides of the aisle?


It's a bogus argument to respond to a bogus argument. I think the bottom line is avant garde fans are p.o.'ed because there aren't more of them. Find some way of dealing with it other than whining about disrespect or "attacks" or the like. I couldn't care less who hates Bach or Mozart or Beethoven or Chopin or Mahler. I feel their achievements are obvious enough and will stand regardless.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> Notice in my post I said 'we recognize composers and their works that stand out', not that we all subjectively liked them the same. Btw, 'objective criteria internal in the music' can be found in the score.


But why do they stand out. TBH, I haven't listened to the Beethoven 9th in years, in fact I haven't listened to ANY Beethoven symphony in years. I don't enjoy Beethoven symphonies like I enjoy the Duruflé _Requiem_, or Stravinsky's _Historie du soldat,_ or the Debussy _String Quartet_. What difference does it make that Beethoven's 9th is considered great - why is it important?

And give me some examples of objective criteria found in the score of the Beethoven 9th that proves it is a great work.

Also, what is the most recent "great" work that is recognized as such, and why is it great? If it is great because a majority of classical music lovers say it is great, that is a circular argument based on cumulative subjective responses over time.


----------



## Kilgore Trout

hammeredklavier said:


> I know Shostakovich, Bartok, Stravinsky found it inspirational , but I don't think it can ever be compared to the "effects" of Stockhausen, Babbit, Xennakis, who were just avant-garde for the sake of being avant-garde. I think Beethoven would have spat his tea upon hearing avant-garde ideas such as "everything we do is music", "who cares if you listen", "noise is also music", etc.


If you think someone like Xenakis shared any of these "avant-garde ideas", you couldn't be more wrong.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> But why do they stand out. TBH, I haven't listened to the Beethoven 9th in years, in fact I haven't listened to ANY Beethoven symphony in years. I don't enjoy Beethoven symphonies like I enjoy the Duruflé _Requiem_, or Stravinsky's _Historie du soldat,_ or the Debussy _String Quartet_. What difference does it make that Beethoven's 9th is considered great - why is it important?
> 
> And give me some examples of objective criteria found in the score of the Beethoven 9th that proves it is a great work.
> 
> Also, what is the most recent "great" work that is recognized as such, and why is it great? If it is great because a majority of classical music lovers say it is great, that is a circular argument based on cumulative subjective responses over time.


No, I don't think I'll do your homework for you. Besides, you're just repeating things that I've already responded to. You're outside the Bell curve on this 'totally subjective' subject and are determined to stay there.


----------



## arpeggio

consuono said:


> It's a bogus argument to respond to a bogus argument. I think the bottom line is avant garde fans are p.o.'ed because there aren't more of them. Find some way of dealing with it other than whining about disrespect or "attacks" or the like. I couldn't care less who hates Bach or Mozart or Beethoven or Chopin or Mahler. I feel their achievements are obvious enough and will stand regardless.


You win............


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> No, I don't think I'll do your homework for you.


My homework? You said there was objective criteria and I asked you to provide it. If you can't, just say so.



> Besides, you're just repeating things that I've already responded to. You're outside the Bell curve on this 'totally subjective' subject and are determined to stay there.


What bell curve? I think subjective responses are what we have, either over time and cumulative, or as we listen. I've asked for examples of objective criteria and you haven't provided any.

So, yeah, there's no reason for me to change my opinion.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> My homework? You said there was objective criteria and I asked you to provide it. If you can't, just say so.


If you can't read a score just say so.


----------



## consuono

I wonder if the same subjectivity extends to architecture. Is it "valid" to find your neighborhood McDonald's to be "just as good as" the Chartres Cathedral?


----------



## consuono

arpeggio said:


> You win............


No, because there aren't any losers.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> I wonder if the same subjectivity extends to architecture. Is it "valid" to find your neighborhood McDonald's to be "just as good as" the Chartres Cathedral?


Better for burgers, not as good for prayer.


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> Better for burgers, not as good for prayer.


No, I don't mean purpose, just aesthetically as a built structure.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> just aesthetically as a built structure.


You'll have to explain that a bit more. The criteria.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> If you can't read a score just say so.


I can read a score, but I am not going to analyze it in order to prove Beethoven's 9th symphony is objectively great. You made that claim not, me. It is not my obligation to prove your argument.

I already said the test of time is a quasi-objective standard because of the fact that over 200 years a consensus has been achieved that Beethoven's 9th symphony is a great work. I'm fine with that.

But if the test of time is the only standard we can rely upon, it will take a 100 years for any works from the 20th century to achieve the same consensus as a Beethoven symphony.


----------



## Simon Moon

consuono said:


> I wonder if the same subjectivity extends to architecture. Is it "valid" to find your neighborhood McDonald's to be "just as good as" the Chartres Cathedral?


What is your criteria?

The McDonalds, architecturally speaking, an objectively better structure at surviving an earthquake.


----------



## consuono

Simon Moon said:


> What is your criteria?
> 
> The McDonalds, architecturally speaking, an objectively better structure at surviving an earthquake.


If you had to do without one or the other, which would go? Or is it that they're both essentially objectively the same, and one isn't any worthier than the other?


SanAntone said:


> I already said the test of time is a quasi-objective standard because of the fact that over 200 years a consensus has been achieved that Beethoven's 9th symphony is a great work. I'm fine with that.


But it didn't take 200 years to reach that consensus. Brahms probably thought it was a great work as well.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

consuono said:


> If you had to do without one or the other, which would go? Or is it that they're both essentially objectively the same, and one isn't any worthier than the other?


My criteria would be skill and craftsmanship. Like I said earlier, the fact one can respect a composer without liking them is a telltale sign of objective quality, because someone who does not subjectively enjoy it can still know it was well made - otherwise they would feel no desire to acknwoledge its merits because they don't derive any aesthetic appreciation of it. There's no incentive for someone who doesn't like Chopin to say 'He's very good though' if there wasn't something there pointing to skill, craftsmanship and quality.

The McDonalds is an architectural template that's copy pasted everywhere with no intention for aesthetic appeal. The architecture analogy and Simon Moon's comment about the structural integrity of the building actually brought the principles Bauhaus architecture to mind (great band too  ) whose proponents omitted ornamention for cold, geometric and bare bones approach, which I guess one could say is an aesthetic in itself, placed more on function then pleasing, alluring flashiness. Not saying McDonalds establishments are Walter Gropius buildings, but perhaps there is something aesthetically pleasing to be derived from a well-built construction with impeccable structural integrity!


----------



## consuono

Nevertheless I say that that McDonald's building 2 miles from my house is no better or worse than that cathedral.

Am I right?


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> I can read a score, but I am not going to analyze it in order to prove Beethoven's 9th symphony is objectively great. You made that claim not, me. It is not my obligation to prove your argument.
> 
> I already said the test of time is a quasi-objective standard because of the fact that over 200 years a consensus has been achieved that Beethoven's 9th symphony is a great work. I'm fine with that.
> 
> But if the test of time is the only standard we can rely upon, it will take a 100 years for any works from the 20th century to achieve the same consensus as a Beethoven symphony.


So you (and two others) apparently think it took 100-200 years for the 9th to be considered great? Quasi-objective? You're just making this up as you go along. Sorry, it will take too many hours of my life to educate you.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

consuono said:


> Nevertheless I say that that McDonald's building 2 miles from my house is no better or worse than that cathedral.
> 
> Am I right?


Now I'm a big fan of analogies, but I wanna reframe it in the context of thread: Is Xennakis McDonalds and Beethoven is Notre Dame? Because if so I think that's a great disservice to Xennakis. That's not meant to sound irate, we're all entitled to our own opinions. Someone could say Gucci Mane and Webern deserve to be erased from history and it wouldn't bother me one bit. However, I still think it would be unfair to sell Xennakis that short.

The overall point I do agree with: the cathedral is of a 'nobler' quality and took skill and craftsmanship to produce, making it obviously superior to the McDonalds. While I really do agree with a lot of SanAntone's sentiments, I think a line needs to be drawn somewhere. If some sort of objective criteria didn't exist, people would think a landfill looks better than a mountain landscape. There's something there.


----------



## Bulldog

consuono said:


> Nevertheless I say that that McDonald's building 2 miles from my house is no better or worse than that cathedral.
> 
> Am I right?


Definitely. In my situation, the nearest McDonald's is less than 1 mile from my home which makes it better than that overrated cathedral.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> So you (and two others) apparently think it took 100-200 years for the 9th to be considered great? Quasi-objective? You're just making this up as you go along. Sorry, it will take too many hours of my life to educate you.





> Music critics almost universally consider the Ninth Symphony one of Beethoven's greatest works, and among the greatest musical works ever written. The finale, however, has had its detractors: "[e]arly critics rejected [the finale] as cryptic and eccentric, the product of a deaf and ageing composer." Verdi admired the first three movements but lamented the confused structure and the bad writing for the voices in the last movement:
> 
> The alpha and omega is Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, marvellous in the first three movements, very badly set in the last. No one will ever approach the sublimity of the first movement, but it will be an easy task to write as badly for voices as in the last movement. And supported by the authority of Beethoven, they will all shout: "That's the way to do it..."
> - Giuseppe Verdi, 1878


Subjective opinions differed both at the time of its premier and 50 years later when Verdi was quoted. I don't argue that the 9th is a great work, only that the assessment was the product of subjective opinions. Opinions which became quasi-objective over a period of 200 years of consensus.


----------



## DaveM

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> ..I think a line needs to be drawn somewhere. If some sort of objective criteria didn't exist, people would think a landfill looks better than a mountain landscape.


There you go.


----------



## arpeggio

*Petty Behavior*



consuono said:


> I think the bottom line is avant garde fans are p.o.'ed because there aren't more of them.


There are many false narratives that have been generated in this thread and I could not let this one go.

Of course there are some aficionados of avant-garde music who have a chip on their shoulders.

The vast majority of those of us who follow avant-garde are not upset that only a few people listen to it. We realize that it will only appeal to a small group of people. And we do not think that our ears are superior to those who do not care for this music.

I hope that most of you do not think I am that petty.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

DaveM said:


> There you go.


Hahaha I know for some of you Xennakis is the landfill and Beethoven is the landscape, which is fair to have the opinion but I think sells Xennakis vastly short. I prefer to think of them as an apples and oranges situation.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> Subjective opinions differed both at the time of its premier and 50 years later when Verdi was quoted. I don't argue that the 9th is a great work, only that the assessment was the product of subjective opinions. Opinions which became quasi-objective over a period of 200 years of consensus.


Well then Verdi would be outside that consensus.


arpeggio said:


> The vast majority of those of us who follow avant-garde are not upset that only a few people listen to it. We realize that it will only appeal to a small group of people. And we do not think that our ears are superior to those who do not care for this music.


A narrative I detect is "if you haven't seen the light regarding avant garde music, then please shut up about it".


----------



## SanAntone

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Now I'm a big fan of analogies, but I wanna reframe it in the context of thread: Is Xennakis McDonalds and Beethoven is Notre Dame? Because if so I think that's a great disservice to Xennakis. That's not meant to sound irate, we're all entitled to our own opinions. Someone could say Gucci Mane and Webern deserve to be erased from history and it wouldn't bother me one bit. However, I still think it would be unfair to sell Xennakis that short.
> 
> The overall point I do agree with: the cathedral is of a 'nobler' quality and took skill and craftsmanship to produce, making it obviously superior to the McDonalds. While I really do agree with a lot of SanAntone's sentiments, I think a line needs to be drawn somewhere. If some sort of objective criteria didn't exist, people would think a landfill looks better than a mountain landscape. There's something there.


I have never seen and convincing universal objective criteria for assessing music - across all periods. If you can provide some for judging both Beethoven and Xenakis, I'll consider it.

I am not opposed to using objective criteria, it would be wonderful if there were some which was universally accepted. I just haven't ever seen any.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> I have never seen and convincing universal objective criteria for assessing music - across all periods. If you can provide some for judging both Beethoven and Xenakis, I'll consider it.
> 
> I am not opposed to using objective criteria, it would be wonderful if there were some which was universally accepted. I just haven't ever seen any.


You just haven't seen any that you agree with. How about, for once, you provide objective evidence for your theory of total subjectivity.


----------



## consuono

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Now I'm a big fan of analogies, but I wanna reframe it in the context of thread: Is Xennakis McDonalds and Beethoven is Notre Dame? Because if so I think that's a great disservice to Xennakis. That's not meant to sound irate, we're all entitled to our own opinions. Someone could say Gucci Mane and Webern deserve to be erased from history and it wouldn't bother me one bit. However, I still think it would be unfair to sell Xennakis that short.
> ....


Now why would you assume that Beethoven is the cathedral? :lol: But are Xennakis and Beethoven both cathedrals? Are they both McDonald's?


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> You just haven't seen any that you agree with. How about, for once, you provide objective evidence for your theory of total subjectivity.


You haven't provided any examples of objective criteria for judging musical works. I at least offered the test of time.

The most common discussion on any classical music forum is lists of our ten favorite composers. Often within these discussions someone will make the distinction between our favorite and the greatest composers. And in response others will point out that we often do not agree on which composers are the ten greatest, but we can easily come up with our individual list of favorites.

If there were reliable objective criteria that was universally accepted, agreeing on a list of the ten greatest composers would be easy.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> You haven't provided any examples of objective criteria for judging musical works. I at least offered the test of time.
> 
> The most common discussion on any classical music forum is lists of our ten favorite composers. Often within these discussions someone will make the distinction between our favorite and the greatest composers. And in response others will point out that we often do not agree on which composers are the ten greatest, but we can easily come up with our individual list of favorites.
> 
> If there were reliable objective criteria that was universally accepted, agreeing on a list of the ten greatest composers would be easy.


Of course, there will be more of a subjective component in picking the greatest. What you're missing is that (in this case) the ten greatest are picked from what is usually much the same bunch of what are considered great composers. They are on these lists over and over. You can't say that is all subjective. Well, you probably will, but anyone with common sense will not.

And btw, you've blown your entire argument with the admission of a test-of-time objectivity measure. Objectivity from a test-of-time doesn't exist in a vacuum; it derives from objective measures of the quality of the music and the skill of the composer(s). For a number of the great composers, the test-of-time was not all that long.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> Of course, there will be more of a subjective component in picking the greatest. What you're missing is that (in this case) the ten greatest are picked from what is usually much the same bunch of what are considered great composers. They are on these lists over and over. You can't say that is all subjective. Well, you probably will, but anyone with common sense will not.
> 
> And btw, you've blown your entire argument with the admission of a test-of-time objectivity measure. Objectivity from a test-of-time doesn't exist in a vacuum; it derives from objective measures of the quality of the music and the skill of the composer(s). For a number of the great composers, the test-of-time was not all that long.


I guess you've misunderstood a series of posts I've made. The reason I referred to the "test of time" as quasi-objective is because I see the test of time, and included this in my first post between us, as a "cumulative subjective responses over centuries".

The bottom-line is that

1. I don't care about "greatness" - I like what I like
2. I am only interested in finding music that interests me - a 100% subjective process
3. I also don't care about labels such as "avant-garde," "great," "classical."

I'm done.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> Nevertheless I say that that McDonald's building 2 miles from my house is no better or worse than that cathedral.
> 
> Am I right?


Well Chartres is the more expensive piece of real estate. And it has historical associations. But McD is more comfortable, very good for cooking and is less old fashioned.


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> Well Chartres is the more expensive piece of real estate. And it has historical associations. But McD is more comfortable, very good for cooking and is less old fashioned.


That's a circularity though, and anyway price and historical associations are irrelevant. But those would be objective measures more "comfortable" and "good cooking" or "less old fashioned".


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

I'm going to make an attempt to steer the conversation more in the direction of dealing with the concrete, tangible elements of the music itself. The way I see it, the discussion tends to revolve around quasi philosophical abstractions, like the nature of aesthetics, subjective vs. objective value, whether objective can be judged by legacy and time, the attitudes of AV-G composers (a lot of which I feel is projected onto them) being haughty and self-serving...but rarely the actual music! What I really want to do is get into the nitty gritty of talking about the music itself, _because the proof is in the pudding_.

So here's a suggestion: why don't we all pick certain pieces as examples, listen to it and share our opinions? What do you like about it? Why do you think it's crap? Are there elements you like about it but reasons you dislike it as a whole? The goal isn't to evangelize the avant-garde to the people here who dislike it by getting them to listen to it. On the contrary, if you loathe the piece, tell us how you really feel: it's a judgement free zone where everyone is free to express their opinions as long as they don't personally attack others - the music is fair game. It's a music forum, so it makes sense to talk about what's actually going on in the music right?


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Here's my two examples of what I personally feel are "great" avant-garde music and "bad" avant-garde music respectively. Both of the videos have scores so we can all directly see what is going on in the music as well.

*Great AV-G: Kottos by Iannis Xennakis*

I really love this piece because of the ferocity of expression and rhythmic ideas he explores, and the way Xenakis creates interweaving polyphony on a solo instrument. The words "polyphony on a solo instrument" obviously bring Bach to mind for everyone, specifically the Violin Partitas and Cello Suites where he mastered the technique of implied polyphony for a single voice. While Bach and Xenakis are as different as they come, I find this connection very overt in this solo cello piece where multiple voice polyphony plays a huge role, both implied and in full effect (to the point where a cello needs to be written in both treble and bass clef) There is a coherent development of different ideas and I find the different rhythmic and textural changes create a strong sense of balance. 7:19 for instance uses more of an implied polyphony slightly reminding me of Bach's partitas, contrasting with the opening few minutes with the different clefs, and he even interjects other areas with dance-like rhythms. In my opinion, Xennakis not only manages to explore a lot, but also _say_ a lot. I find the piece overall exhilarating.

Also, I want to add that me drawing the connection to Bach isn't me trying to "legitimize" an AV-G piece by comparing it to Bach and get some brownie points from the conservative camp. They just both happen to be composers I enjoy and the connection stood out to me. In addition, It shows a continuity of ideas across generations, even when it's more in the form of aesthetic concepts than what's actually happening on the paper.





\

*Bad AV-G: Crimson by Rebecca Saunders*

Yeah, yeah, yeah I know. This one is always the go-to punching bag. I don't think it's without good reason. Over the course of 20 minutes Saunders practically manages to say nothing at all. In fact, you don't even need to listen to the whole thing: you can just skip around and it's plain as day to see that there's nothing going on here. I think music has the ability to be excellent while staying static in nature, but this type of staticity (is that a word?) accomplishes and says nothing, IMO. There's no development of ideas, and the ideas themselves are really not well thought out and don't even strike me as being ideas at all, more just noodling of arbitrarily chosen dissonant chords. To be fair, I like certain moments of it, but stretched over the course of 20 minutes? No thanks. There's nothing going on here that justifies that length. Saunders employs certain gimmicks like percussive knocking on the piano, but I've seen extended, unorthodox techniques used elsewhere in much more engaging ways.


----------



## DaveM

I only took part in this thread because of the OP. There are relatively few who have addressed it and the answers are vague to say the least. If it’s hard to tell great AV-G from average/mediocre, what are the criteria for great AV-G composers from the average/mediocre. And if appreciation for these works is all subjective, there can’t be any great AV-G as distinguished from average/mediocre. Surely those who love AV-G have given this some thought.

Edit, the post above was posted as I was writing mine. It’s a start. Actually, pretty good after a couple of reads.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> Let me ask you - how come the piano song cycles[/URL] of Yiruma and Einaudi can't be genuine topics for debate in the main forum? How come they're not allowed in the List of Most Recommended Works?[/video]


Why did you make this assertion hammeredklavier? If you had checked with science he would have told you that Einaudi is permitted in the list.


----------



## SanAntone

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Here's my two examples of what I personally feel are "great" avant-garde music and "bad" avant-garde music respectively. Both of the videos have scores so we can all directly see what is going on in the music as well.
> 
> *Great AV-G: Kottos by Iannis Xennakis*
> 
> *Bad AV-G: Crimson by Rebecca Saunders*


I prefer the Saunders work. It has been given the imprimatur of a long-standing classical music publisher, which would indicate some intrinsic worth, leaving your opinion as an isolated subjective reaction to it. My isolated reaction to the Xenakis work is to say that it is ugly to my ears (as is often how his work sounds to me).

I wouldn't call either work "great" since I don't often use that term, I only use "great" when referring to something that has been called that for decades/centuries. I normally only describe works as those that either interest me or don't interest me; those I enjoy and those I don't enjoy. So premise of the OP is irrelevant regarding how I describe music.

Neither work are ones I would point to as examples of AG music worth promoting. But I am also not "against" them; both composers have an audience and their advocates.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> That's a circularity though


why?

Am,dxnsx,m can,Mac,n


----------



## SanAntone

Regarding AG works that I enjoy, here's one:

*Alexandra du Bois - String Quartet: Oculus pro oculo totum orbem terrae caecat*






It is quite beautiful in places.

Another one:

*Katherine Balch - drip music*






There is a point about half way through where the music becomes yearning and beautiful.

And a third AG work I enjoy:

*Turgut Erçetin - String Quartet No.2 "Contra-statement"*






All three of these works are sting quartets, a traditional classical music ensemble/form for composers to work in. This alone links these composers to the classical music tradition. They all hold my interest and I have no trouble listening to them to the end and find the experience rewarding.

I won't put up a work that I don't enjoy or consider "mediocre".


----------



## Mandryka

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> .
> manages to say nothing at all.


Here's something that says a lot


__
https://soundcloud.com/exaudivocal%2Fevan-johnson-vo-mesurando

Evan Johnson's Vo Mesurando is a madrigal, but it is one which is out of earshot. It makes me think of the transubstantiation behind a screen in the catholic mass, magical energy which you can't quite see.


----------



## SanAntone

Here's a AG work, not a string quartet, that uses triads but in a completely non-functional/tonal manner, but still linking it to the tradition.

*Matthew Ricketts, Last Impression / standardmodell *(2013)
for saxophone, piano & percussion


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> why?
> 
> Am,dxnsx,m can,Mac,n


Because it doesn't address *why* the property is expensive. It's because it's the site of a cathedral, duh...


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> Because it doesn't address *why* the property is expensive. It's because it's the site of a cathedral, duh...


Spacious, well built, no subsidence, historical and religious associations, some energy consumption problems, south facing garden, convenient for schools and shops . . . Price includes the dress worn by Mary when she gave birth to Jesus.


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> Spacious, well built, no subsidence, historical and religious associations, some energy consumption problems, south facing garden, convenient for schools and shops . . . Price includes the dress worn by Mary when she gave birth to Jesus.


Which still doesn't address why that would be more "precious" than a McDonald's. There's the circularity. That's like saying a piece by Mozart is superior because the paper it's written on is older. It doesn't get to the thing itself.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> Which still doesn't address why that would be more "precious" than a McDonald's. There's the circularity. That's like saying a piece by Mozart is superior because the paper it's written on is older. It doesn't get to the thing itself.


Possibly the value is in the thing itself, and not in the reactions of society to that thing. See my first post in this thread -- same for architecture maybe (I have never thought about these things. I have a doctorate in Philosophy but not aesthetics, my subject was logic.)


----------



## SanAntone

Mandryka said:


> I don't have an answer to this question, but I want to suggest a way of answering it. There are festivals of contemporary art music in Europe and no doubt elsewhere. The Borealis Festival, Darmstädter Ferienkursen, Donaueschinger Musiktage, Wittener Tage für neue Kammermusik, Musica Viva, Festival d'Automne, London Contemporary Music, Ultima, Wien Modern, the events at The Pompidou Centre, The Huddersfield festival, Cafe Oto, Tate music events and more. I think that to answer your question we should look at the music these festivals have promoted under different curatorships over the past few decades, since 1989 say. The criteria being deployed would start to give us a handle on what's going on.


This is a good idea. Also, there are two active YouTube channels which focus on new music, and often the works chosen are selected by a jury of composers and other stakeholders in the contemporary music community.

*incipitsify*

*Score Follower*

I subscribe to about 45 YT channels that feature new music, or music from the 20th century, some not so new - and regularly find interesting and rewarding works. All one needs in order to discover worthwhile new music is curiosity about what living composers are writing. It is out there and easy to find. Of course it is like all music of varying quality, according to your taste. Often the videos have received thousands of views with hundreds of 'Likes" and only a few "thumbs down." The comments are mostly complementary.

There is an audience for new music, it is nowhere near as large as the audience for more traditional classical music. But for those people who are interested in new music, it is important to them.


----------



## Mandryka

SanAntone said:


> This is a good idea. :


It's a major piece of work, it's a doctoral thesis which would turn into a book and earn the author a lectureship. I'm too old and too lazy.


----------



## Mandryka

But my main reason for coming back to this thread was to post an amazing piece of music which I only discovered this week and I am bowled over. This


----------



## calvinpv

SanAntone said:


> This is a good idea. Also, there are two active YouTube channels which focus on new music, and often the works chosen are selected by a jury of composers and other stakeholders in the contemporary music community.
> 
> *incipitsify*
> 
> *Score Follower*


Whoever runs these channels used to have a third one called *Mediated Scores* but they've now condensed it down to the two you mentioned. There's still some videos posted there.


----------



## calvinpv

Mandryka said:


> And I'll give you an example of music which I have a strong intuition is very good, a masterpiece. And I'll try to say why.
> 
> Peter Ablinger's _Piano and Record_ is the sound of an empty LP transcribed for piano. Example here, love it.
> 
> https://ablinger.mur.at/i+r_pno+rec.html
> 
> The transcription has made something out of nothing. Ontological bliss. Alchemy. And what a revelation that music is there in something which previously we thought was just a void. There's a moral lesson, a lesson for life, in there.


I was just reading about this piece elsewhere yesterday, and then I remembered you posted about it. Do you know if there's a complete performance besides the two minute excerpt on Ablinger's website? It sounds fascinating, kinda like his piece Voice and Piano.


----------



## SanAntone

calvinpv said:


> Whoever runs these channels used to have a third one called *Mediated Scores* but they've now condensed it down to the two you mentioned. There's still some videos posted there.


Mediated Scores is still there - but doesn't seem to be updated as often. The last video upload was nine months ago.


----------



## Mandryka

calvinpv said:


> I was just reading about this piece elsewhere yesterday, and then I remembered you posted about it. Do you know if there's a complete performance besides the two minute excerpt on Ablinger's website? It sounds fascinating, kinda like his piece Voice and Piano.


I don't know, may be an idea to write to him and ask.

By the way, anyone heard this, Mario Lanza and Andrea Valle's Systema Naturae? Came out last year I think. I'm finding quite agreeable after dinner this evening, timbre wise -- not sure what more I can say, just started to explore it.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> Often the videos have received thousands of views with hundreds of 'Likes" and only a few "thumbs down." The comments are mostly complementary.


Off topic, but I hate that thumbs up/down feature on YT. It's an encouragement to prejudice before hearing or viewing. Comments on CM videos though are often surprisingly insightful there.


GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> ...I think music has the ability to be excellent while staying static in nature, but this type of staticity (is that a word?)...


"Stasis". 


SanAntone said:


> I prefer the Saunders work. It has been given the imprimatur of a long-standing classical music publisher, which would indicate some intrinsic worth, leaving your opinion as an isolated subjective reaction to it. ..


Not totally isolated...I can't listen to the Saunders piece either. But I think there's a clue there as to how a lot of this music is kind of artificially elevated: "Well, Dr Frankendrank of Whillikers Conservatory praised it, and Edition Peters published it, so it must be good..."


----------



## ArtMusic

Yotube is not a good indicator of genuine sustainability of art. The artists in the clip seldom if ever gets paid from Youtube.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> artificially elevated:


What constitutes legitimate elevation?


----------



## SanAntone

I like these two works by Rebecca Saunders better than the other ones I seen that people have posted:

*Rebecca Saunders: Dust* (2017/18)






Dust, for solo percussion (2017/18)

*Rebecca Saunders : Fury II*
for double bass and ensemble

Recording of the french premiere at Paris, Centre Pompidou, June 16th 2016 - FESTIVAL MANIFESTE IRCAM

Florentin Ginot, double bass
Jean-Philippe Wurtz, conductor
Ensemble Linea
Andrea Nagy, bass clarinet
Johannes Burghoff, cello
Lise Baudoin, piano
Benoît Maurin, percussion
Marie-Andrée Joerger, accordeon 
Régie, captation et réalisation : Frédéric Durrmann


----------



## SanAntone

Mandryka said:


> What constitutes legitimate elevation?


Only a small percentage of living composers manage to acquire a publishing contract with an established music publisher. It is an indication that their music is marketable and the company expects to make money through the association.

I can think of no other objective acknowledgement of their arrival and legitimacy as a composer.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> Only a small percentage of living composers manage to acquire a publishing contract with an established music publisher. It is an indication that their music is marketable and the company expects to make money through the association.
> 
> I can think of no other objective acknowledgement of their arrival and legitimacy as a composer.


I wonder how many copies of things like "Crimson" are printed and sold, and how much money they bring in.


Mandryka said:


> What constitutes legitimate elevation?


A broad consensus among musicians and audience that generates its own demand.


----------



## SanAntone

*Plainsound Counterpoint*
Album • Frank Reinecke • 2015









Double Bass compositions by Catherine Lamb and Wolfgang von Schweintz. Long tone, micro-tones, harmonics and other extended techniques.

Probably not for everyone, but there's something here I'm finding interesting.


----------



## ArtMusic

consuono said:


> I wonder how many copies of things like "Crimson" are printed and sold, and how much money they bring in.
> A broad consensus among musicians and audience that generates its own demand.


Not much, it does exists as a niche. It's hardly on a scale that AG composers would prefer to see though.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> A broad consensus among musicians and audience that generates its own demand.


I was surprised by this because it never occurred to me that anyone would think that the consensus needs be broad. But in any case, it's not really important to what we're discussing for the following reason. If it has to be broad as you say, then it grows over time, the consensus may start of small and develop into something significant. And if that's right, you shouldn't dismiss a positive opinion among a few as being illegitimate. It may be embryonic.

An example where there's broad consensus would be Sciarrino I suppose. And Reich. And Rihm. And of the previous generation there's Stockhausen and Nono, possibly Ligeti too, given the response that the thread I created here has had.


----------



## SanAntone

Mandryka said:


> I was surprised by this because it never occurred to me that anyone would think that the consensus needs be broad. But in any case, it's not really important to what we're discussing for the following reason. If it has to be broad as you say, then it grows over time, the consensus may start of small and develop into something significant. And if that's right, you shouldn't dismiss a positive opinion among a few as being illegitimate. It may be embryonic.


Most music that is challenging will never develop a large audience for the simple reason that most people are attracted to the kind of music that is familiar, in some way, to them. But this does not mean that new music does not offer a valuable alternative to the mainstream, more popular, more comfortable, music.

Comments about popularity are irrelevant, IMO, since often the most interesting things are on the margins - at least to me they are interesting. But even if they never become broadly popular, their place in the scheme of things is important since they advance music in new directions. And might evolve into a kind of music which does develop a broad popularity, but would not have come into existence without the innovators on the fringes.


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> If it has to be broad as you say, then it grows over time, the consensus may start of small and develop into something significant. And if that's right, you shouldn't dismiss a positive opinion among a few as being illegitimate. It may be embryonic.


But you're taking about avant garde in CP language. It's said on one hand that we can't really compare a.g. with CP, but yet a.g. is going to meet the same audience demand as CP. To be honest I don't think a.g. in general is built to last like that. It's a "highly individual artistic expression" intended for a tiny ultra-niche, if anyone at all.


----------



## arpeggio

consuono said:


> A narrative I detect is "if you haven't seen the light regarding avant garde music, then please shut up about it".


I spent some time checking out other discussions to verify this.

This is another example that if some are guilty all are guilty.

I will admit that a few of us, including myself, feel this way. The majority who follow avant-garde do not.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> The alpha and omega is Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, marvellous in the first three movements, very badly set in the last. No one will ever approach the sublimity of the first movement, but it will be an easy task to write as badly for voices as in the last movement. And supported by the authority of Beethoven, they will all shout: "That's the way to do it..."
> - Giuseppe Verdi, 1878
> Subjective opinions differed both at the time of its premier and 50 years later when Verdi was quoted. I don't argue that the 9th is a great work, only that the assessment was the product of subjective opinions. Opinions which became quasi-objective over a period of 200 years of consensus.


The fact that Beethoven wasn't very comfortable with vocal writing was something even Beethoven himself admitted.

"In fact, Beethoven himself seems to have been well aware of this, as he observed in a letter to the librettist Friedrich Kind: 'When sounds stir within me I always hear the full orchestra; I know what to expect of instrumentalists, who are capable of almost everything, but with vocal compositions I must always be asking myself, can this be sung?'"

Other than the roughness of vocal writing, the symphony is a marvelous piece of music, in terms of inspiration, and almost everyone who took part in classical music history after Beethoven would have agreed.
This is the kind of thing I've been talking about. In classical music, there are some objective values people agree upon. In avant-garde music, there are none.

What do you think is the musical equivalent of these:
"It's not only artists who are at fault; it is equally the fault of the so-called art community: the museum heads, gallery owners, and the critics who encourage and financially enable the production of this rubbish. It is they who champion graffiti and call it genius, promote the scatological and call it meaningful. It is they who, in reality, are the naked emperors of art, for who else would spend $10 million dollars on a rock and think it is art."


----------



## ArtMusic

consuono said:


> But you're taking about avant garde in CP language. It's said on one hand that we can't really compare a.g. with CP, but yet a.g. is going to meet the same audience demand as CP. To be honest I don't think a.g. in general is built to last like that. It's a "highly individual artistic expression" intended for a tiny ultra-niche, if anyone at all.


It is more social than truly musical. This means that any sounds labelled as AG music/newly "composed" music instantly deserves recognition and respect, almost void of artistic criticism, than any other classical music since 1500 to 1950. The listener is expected to respond in one of two ways: like it with applause or quietly walk away. It is nothing more than the equivalent of modern day social recognition of labels rather than merit.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

SanAntone said:


> Regarding AG works that I enjoy, here's one:
> 
> *Katherine Balch - drip music*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a point about half way through where the music becomes yearning and beautiful.
> 
> And a third AG work I enjoy:
> 
> *Turgut Erçetin - String Quartet No.2 "Contra-statement"*


You posted the Katherine Balch piece in another thread a while back and I instantly loved it. It's a work not only filled with a beautiful timbral pallette and truly "outside the box" thinking, but also a lot of emotion and passion.

I do like the Turgut Erçetin but it's not my cup of tea. I like the ethereal, airy sound of the harmonics and resulting harmonies and soundscape but it's missing a certain something to cater to my personal taste. It's really well made though.



SanAntone said:


> *Plainsound Counterpoint*
> Album • Frank Reinecke • 2015
> 
> Double Bass compositions by Catherine Lamb and Wolfgang von Schweintz. Long tone, micro-tones, harmonics and other extended techniques.
> 
> Probably not for everyone, but there's something here I'm finding interesting.


I'm a big fan of this The double bass is one of my favorite instruments and timbres and I love the meditative feel that puts me in a really interesting headspace. The piece plays out like a dialog. The fact it's étude like in nature also contributes to that meditative feeling.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

consuono said:


> I wonder how many copies of things like "Crimson" are printed and sold, and how much money they bring in.


I did a bit of research. The publishing company was in dire financial straits and things were looking grim, but once Crimson hit the market the execs are now throwing yacht parties with hookers and blow galore.


----------



## consuono

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I did a bit of research. The publishing company was in dire financial straits and things were looking grim, but once Crimson hit the market the execs are now throwing yacht parties with hookers and blow galore.


Darn. I've *got* to try making it past the 2 minute mark with that one then.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

SanAntone said:


> I prefer the Saunders work. It has been given the imprimatur of a long-standing classical music publisher, which would indicate some intrinsic worth, leaving your opinion as an isolated subjective reaction to it. My isolated reaction to the Xenakis work is to say that it is ugly to my ears (as is often how his work sounds to me).


What aspects do you like about the Saunders work, or is it just in comparison to Xenakis whom you don't care for so you like her by default? I like the sparse, frigid atmosphere of Crimson but that's about all there's going for it for me.


----------



## Kilgore Trout

SanAntone said:


> Only a small percentage of living composers manage to acquire a publishing contract with an established music publisher. It is an indication that their music is marketable and the company expects to make money through the association.


You're very naïve about how these things work, especially in Europe where new music is financed by institutions, not by the market demand or on the basis of the inherent quality of the music.


----------



## SanAntone

Some info on Rebecca Saunders:

*A guide to Rebecca Saunders' music*. Tom Service, The Guardian "Guide to Contemporary Music".

*Edition Peters*. Rebecca Saunders composer page

*An Interview with Rebecca Saunders*. Jeffrey Arlo Brown. _Voids_. (06/16/2016).

*Rebecca Saunders* website


----------



## Mandryka

Kilgore Trout said:


> You're very naïve about how these things work, especially in Europe where new music is financed by institutions, not by the market demand or on the basis of the inherent quality of the music.


How do the institutions make their decisions about which music to finance? (I appreciate that it isn't an easy question! But IMO it's a central one to this discussion.)


----------



## SanAntone

Mandryka said:


> How do the institutions make their decisions about which music to finance? (I appreciate that it isn't an easy question! But IMO it's a central one to this discussion.)


Also, no music publisher will add a composer to their roster if they anticipate the association will lose money.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> *Comments about popularity are irrelevant,* IMO, since often the most interesting things are on the margins - at least to me they are interesting. But even if they never become broadly popular, their place in the scheme of things is important since they advance music in new directions. *And might evolve into a kind of music which does develop a broad popularity*, but would not have come into existence without the innovators on the fringes.


Hmm, seems to be a bit of a contradiction...


----------



## Mandryka

SanAntone said:


> Also, no music publisher will add a composer to their roster if they anticipate the association will lose money.


I suppose they take a punt on a composer and then basically use PR to get the guy performed and recorded and talked about in academic stuff, and that way they hope to get a return. It's that process - the PR etc which interests me.

I've been reading about Samual Beckett's publisher, Jérôme Lindon. What he did out of Editions Minuit in Paris may be similar.

I think this is a really good area for serious research, by the way. It's not the sort of thing we're going to make much progress with on a forum like this, unless one of is has worked in the business. Actually, maybe you have


----------



## ArtMusic

Kilgore Trout said:


> You're very naïve about how these things work, especially in Europe where new music is financed by institutions, not by the market demand or on the basis of the inherent quality of the music.


That's right, these institutions do have a greater agenda, and more often that not, it is not about the music.


----------



## SanAntone

Mandryka said:


> I suppose they take a punt on a composer and then basically use PR to get the guy performed and recorded and talked about in academic stuff, and that way they hope to get a return. It's that process - the PR etc which interests me.


Score rentals are probably the largest revenue stream for music publishers. Royalties from performances and recordings also play a role, but probably not as large a role as the score rentals. I'd guess most successful classical composers cobble together an income from teaching, if there's a publishing contract, and commissions, and some performing, if they do that.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

DaveM said:


> Hmm, seems to be a bit of a contradiction...


I don't think he's attributing inherent worth to popularity, just speculating that it could become popular in the future, possibly.


----------



## vincula

The lesser you have to say the more complex it becomes trying to explain it to someone else. That's what happens with much of the so-called avant-garde. It ends up exploring technique for its own sake.

IMHO few are good. Music conservatories are getting a bit crowded. The business of education.

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## janxharris

Mandryka said:


> Can you say a bit more about that? Do you just mean that it's thematic?
> 
> As far as Beethoven's link to Stockhausen is concerned, there's this of course


Yes - developed thematically. I hear echoes of the violin motif (A,B,Ab,Bb,C,Ab,D I think) throughout the piece (so for example in the horns just a tad later).

That piece you posted is strange. It has links with Beethoven?


----------



## Mandryka

janxharris said:


> Yes - developed thematically. I hear echoes of the violin motif (A,B,Ab,Bb,C,Ab,D I think) throughout the piece (so for example in the horns just a tad later).
> 
> That piece you posted is strange. It has links with Beethoven?


Ah, a quotation of a Beethoven tune. I see.

I can't remember the story about Stockhoven, it'll be in Mconie's book if you have it, I'm not at home so I can't look it up. I don't think it's a very serious work, maybe written for a festival or concert or something like that.


----------



## janxharris

Mandryka said:


> Ah, a quotation of a Beethoven tune. I see.


I didn't mean that, no. Rather that Stockhausen develops a theme in the ways Beethoven et al would thus linking the modern with the past. Gruppen sounds well crafted in that respect and certainly is not just throwing notes at a score (though there is I would say some element of that in the tone clusters).



> I can't remember the story about Stockhoven, it'll be in Mconie's book if you have it, I'm not at home so I can't look it up. I don't think it's a very serious work, maybe written for a festival or concert or something like that.


Okay.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> Hmm, seems to be a bit of a contradiction...





GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I don't think he's attributing inherent worth to popularity, just speculating that it could become popular in the future, possibly.


That's not my point. I was saying that something might come out of the avant-garde ("innovation on the fringes"), which influences a different, non-avant-garde, more broadly popular, composer.


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> How do the institutions make their decisions about which music to finance? (I appreciate that it isn't an easy question! But IMO it's a central one to this discussion.)


Maybe some publishing firms regard publishing contemporary composers whose work doesn't really fly off the shelves as a sort of "artistic duty" and may be willing to take a hit in publishing it. At any rate I can't see the majority of contemporary composers -- especially avant garde ones -- being big money makers, except maybe in a university setting in the form of tenure. And I thought that sort of consideration (popularity, audience approval) wasn't important to the avant garde anyway.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

SanAntone said:


> That's not my point. I was saying that something might come out of the avant-garde ("innovation on the fringes"), which influences a different, non-avant-garde, more broadly popular, composer.


Ahh reading the phrasing in your original post I get it now.
But has that not already been happening for a long while? A lot of contemporary music with AV-G elements is already popular and recognized


----------



## consuono

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Ahh reading the phrasing in your original post I get it now.
> But has that not already been happening for a long while? A lot of contemporary music with AV-G elements is already popular and recognized


Are there some examples? The most notable medium in which I think a.g. techniques would be most influential would be...film scores.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

consuono said:


> Are there some examples? The most notable medium in which I think a.g. techniques would be most influential would be...film scores.


Just about anything contemporary/21st century composers are currently making. It doesn't necessarily sound like Nono or Xennakis, but contemporary classical has a very distinct sound thats generally, to put it one way rougher around the edges.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> Maybe some publishing firms regard publishing contemporary composers whose work doesn't really fly off the shelves as a sort of "artistic duty" and may be willing to take a hit in publishing it. At any rate I can't see the majority of contemporary composers -- especially avant garde ones -- being big money makers, except maybe in a university setting in the form of tenure. And I thought that sort of consideration (popularity, audience approval) wasn't important to the avant garde anyway.


The majority won't be big money makers, that sounds plausible. Rihm and Scarrinino could well make interesting money for their agents though, and Diamanda Gallas and Bernhard Lang and John Zorn, and maybe Beat Furrer and Enno Poppe and Pascal Dusapin and I'm sure a few others I can't think of at the moment. I guess an agent tries to have a portfolio where there's likely to be one who performs at Sciarrino's level, that's the jackpot.


----------



## ArtMusic

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Ahh reading the phrasing in your original post I get it now.
> But has that not already been happening for a long while? A lot of contemporary music with AV-G elements is already popular and recognized


Where is it being popular and recognized, on what scale?


----------



## SanAntone

Mandryka said:


> The majority won't be big money makers, that sounds plausible. Rihm and Scarrinino could well make interesting money for their agents though, and Diamanda Gallas and Bernhard Lang and John Zorn, and maybe Beat Furrer and Enno Poppe and Pascal Dusapin and I'm sure a few others I can't think of at the moment. I guess an agent tries to have a portfolio where there's likely to be one who performs at Sciarrino's level, that's the jackpot.


There is an "artistic duty" aspect, and some of Peter's composers like Cage and more traditional composers make enough money that they can subsidize some of the younger composers who are still developing their audience. But recordings are not primarily where the money is made. Many of these composers receive many more performances of their music which require the rental of the score and parts, than they do of recordings.

I don't know where the idea that avant-garde community is not interested in developing an audience and seeing it grow. That is the desire of all composers and performers, whether they are among the avant-garde or not. All artists wish to have their work heard or seen, no one dreams of writing music and keeping it in their desk drawer.

There is a difference between developing an audience, i.e. cultivating an audience and bringing them to your music as opposed to attempting to compose music in order to chase an audience.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

ArtMusic said:


> Where is it being popular and recognized, on what scale?


While I can't regurgitate exact statistics, Avant-Garde being popular hardly isn't anything new either: look to the popularity of Ligeti or Messaeien. That was a different kind of avant-garde. I've never listened to Elliot Carter but I know a lot of his music is considered avant-garde and he only dies fairly recently. It's a different AV-G than Stockhausen/Boulez/Nono/Babbit but AV-G nonetheless.


----------



## SanAntone

I've posted this before, but apparently those of you who are not fans of the avant-garde need reminding of the large number of contemporary composers on the Edition Peters roster. They have a large and esteemed group of composers, many of whom you've heard of, but there are also some that are less well known.

*Edition Peters Contemporary Composers*


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

SanAntone said:


> I've posted this before, but apparently those of you who are not fans of the avant-garde need reminding of the large number of contemporary composers on the Edition Peters roster. They have a large and esteemed group of composers, many of whom you've heard of, but there are also some that are less well known.
> 
> *Edition Peters Contemporary Composers*


A lot of those composers on that list are widely regarded and absolutely have an audience. It only just scratches the surface too.


----------



## SanAntone

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> A lot of those composers on that list are widely regarded and absolutely have an audience. It only just scratches the surface too.


And the stylistic range is fairly wide. Some are definitely writing music that could be called avant-garde, but there are also theater music composers, and some like Arvo Pärt whose music is not avant-garde. It might be interesting for some on TC to click the Rental and Licensing links and see how those processes work.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> I don't know where the idea that avant-garde community is not interested in developing an audience and seeing it grow.


It began probably here:
https://entropymag.org/who-cares-if-they-listen/


----------



## ArtMusic

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> While I can't regurgitate exact statistics, Avant-Garde being popular hardly isn't anything new either: look to the popularity of Ligeti or Messaeien. That was a different kind of avant-garde. I've never listened to Elliot Carter but I know a lot of his music is considered avant-garde and he only dies fairly recently. It's a different AV-G than Stockhausen/Boulez/Nono/Babbit but AV-G nonetheless.


Yes, they are all avant-garde. Popularity is relative.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> It began probably here:
> https://entropymag.org/who-cares-if-they-listen/


First, the title of that article was not Babbitt's but the editor's, who wished to stir up some controversy. Second, Babbitt was not saying that he didn't care if anyone listened, he was saying that just like advanced physics, his kind of new music was written for a professional class, knowledgeable of the particular "vocabulary" of the music. And finally, the university was the appropriate locus for the composers working in this specialized style.

He was saying that the audience was different from that of the man off the street, but more like those few who understand particle physics.

I don't agree with him - but he was not saying what you think he was saying.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

ArtMusic said:


> Yes, they are all avant-garde. Popularity is relative.


So it boils down to semantics then. Ligeti, Messaeien and Carter may not sell as many tickets as The Big 3 or "The (city) Symphony Orchestra Plays the Legend of Zelda and Harry Potter" but they still have a very substantial audience.


----------



## Haydn70

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> So it boils down to semantics then. Ligeti, Messaeien and Carter may not sell as many tickets as The Big 3 or "The (city) Symphony Orchestra Plays the Legend of Zelda and Harry Potter" *but they still have a very substantial audience.*


Do they? Have any hard proof to that effect? And what is your definition of "very substantial"?


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> ....
> 
> He was saying that the audience was different from that of the man off the street, but more like those few who understand particle physics.
> 
> I don't agree with him - but he was not saying what you think he was saying.


It's essentially the same thing. Do you think any of those Saunders compositions we've discussed were composed with *any* thought of a general audience? Of course they weren't.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Haydn70 said:


> Do they? Have any hard proof to that effect? And what is your definition of "very substantial"?


I don't know if our official TC audit will take anecdotal evidence, but last time I was in a concert hall it was the Turangalia Symphony sold out to a full house.

I'm not going to look into statistics of records sold and YouTube views and number of concerts performed by aforementioned artists because I don't really care enough: people _do_ listen to Ligeti, Messaiean and Carter, I know that very well enough. They're respected and established composers.


----------



## Haydn70

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I don't know if our official TC audit will take anecdotal evidence, *but last time I was in a concert hall it was the Turangalia Symphony sold out to a full house*.
> 
> I'm not going to look into statistics of records sold and YouTube views and number of concerts performed by aforementioned artists because I don't really care enough: people _do_ listen to Ligeti, Messaiean and Carter, I know that very well enough. They're respected and established composers.


Was it sold out because of the Turangalia or in spite of it? What else was on the program?


----------



## Haydn70

consuono said:


> It's essentially the same thing. Do you think any of those Saunders compositions we've discussed were composed with *any* thought of a general audience? Of course they weren't.


You are correct. All that such charlatans as Saunders and Taku Sugimoto care about are their fellow composers who write similar garbage and the new music ensembles that will play it. And, if they have academic positions, they can list their pieces and performances on the "professional development" section of their yearly evaluation.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Haydn70 said:


> Was it sold out because of the Turangalia or in spite of it? What else was on the program?


Just the Turangalia. This was about 2 1/2 years ago. 
https://www.bsomusic.org/calendar/events/2018-2019-events/turangalîla-symphonie/

To be perfectly fair though, this isn't the best example of AV-G music in the context of what's being discussed in this thread. If my local symphony (post-COVID) puts on a performance featuring Xenakis and Nono, I think 99% percent of people are going to say "No No". I won't deny that kind of music is a very slim niche.


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> First, the title of that article was not Babbitt's but the editor's, who wished to stir up some controversy. Second, Babbitt was not saying that he didn't care if anyone listened, he was saying that just like advanced physics, his kind of new music was written for a professional class, knowledgeable of the particular "vocabulary" of the music. And finally, the university was the appropriate locus for the composers working in this specialized style.
> 
> He was saying that the audience was different from that of the man off the street, but more like those few who understand particle physics.
> 
> I don't agree with him - but he was not saying what you think he was saying.


For the sake of the record, the editor chose the title with the knowledge and consent of Babbitt and the article isn't disconnected from the title.


----------



## RogerWaters

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I don't know if our official TC audit will take anecdotal evidence, but last time I was in a concert hall it was the Turangalia Symphony sold out to a full house.
> 
> I'm not going to look into statistics of records sold and YouTube views and number of concerts performed by aforementioned artists because I don't really care enough: people _do_ listen to Ligeti, Messaiean and Carter, I know that very well enough. They're respected and established composers.


Spotify 'monthly listens':

Ligeti: 140,487
Messaiean: 104,212
Carter: 8,816

Bach: 6,979,308
Beethoven: 6,511,483
Mozart: 5,823,874

Based on these figures, Ligeti's popularity is but 2% of Bach's. Messaiean's is 1.5%. Carter's is 0.1%

In other words, for every 1000 people who listen to Bach, 20 people listen to Ligeti. 15 listen to Messaiean. 1.3 listen to Carter.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

RogerWaters said:


> Spoty 'monthly listens':
> 
> Ligeti: 140,487
> Messaiean: 104,212
> Carter: 8,816
> 
> Bach: 6,979,308
> Beethoven: 6,511,483
> Mozart: 5,823,874


So what's your point? It's not some big secret the Big 3 are vastly more popular.


----------



## consuono

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> So what's your point? It's not some big secret the Big 3 are vastly more popular.


Well it goes to show that contrary to what someone said earlier in the thread, it's not fans of the Big 3 who are the ones in an ivory tower.


----------



## SanAntone

RogerWaters said:


> Spotify 'monthly listens':
> 
> Ligeti: 140,487
> Messaiean: 104,212
> Carter: 8,816
> 
> Bach: 6,979,308
> Beethoven: 6,511,483
> Mozart: 5,823,874
> 
> Based on these figures, Ligeti's popularity is but 2% of Bach's. Messaiean's is 1.5%. Carter's is 0.1%
> 
> In other words, for every 1000 people who listen to Bach, 20 people listen to Ligeti. 15 listen to Messaiean. 1.3 listen to Carter.


I listen to all of those composers except Ligeti, who've I never warmed to. Oh, and its Messiaen. Not sure why you think these statistics are important. I once looked it up, and IIRC, about 250K listen to John Cage on a monthly basis.

Dylan beats them all with over 9 mil monthly listeners. Beethoven and Bach do slightly better than Neil Young.


----------



## Haydn70

Here is a quote from one of the leading post-WWII avant-gardists, György Ligeti:

"When I think of the avant-garde, I have this image in my head: I am sitting in an airplane, the sky is blue and I see a landscape. And then the plane flies into a cloud: everything is grey-white. At first the grey seems interesting if you compare it to the earlier landscape, but soon becomes monotonous. I then fly out of the cloud and again see the landscape, which has completely changed in the meantime.

I believe we have flown into such a cloud of high entropy and great disorder…. The instant I emerge out of the cloud, I see, and this is being very critical, that *the music we wrote was in fact rather ugly.*"


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

consuono said:


> Well it goes to show that contrary to what someone said earlier in the thread, it's not fans of the Big 3 who are the ones in an ivory tower.


Wait, did someone really say that? I must've missed that.


----------



## SanAntone

Haydn70 said:


> You are correct. All that such *charlatans* as Saunders and Taku Sugimoto care about are their fellow composers *who write similar garbage* and the new music ensembles that will play it. And, if they have academic positions, they can list their pieces and performances on the "professional development" section of their yearly evaluation.


There it is.


----------



## consuono

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> ...
> people _do_ listen to Ligeti, Messaiean and Carter, I know that very well enough. They're respected and established composers.


They're also not really contemporary anymore. I think I saw somewhere, maybe Wikipedia so it's not ironclad, that the two most listened-to living composers are John Williams and Arvo Pärt.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> They're also not really contemporary anymore. I think I saw somewhere, maybe Wikipedia so it's not ironclad, that the two most listened-to living composers are John Williams and Arvo Pärt.


I can believe that, but they're both pretty old. Of the two I listen to Pärt some, some of his music I really enjoy, Kanon Pokajanen, e.g. I never listen to Williams unless I happen to see one of his movies, which hasn't happened in a long time.

Oh, I meant to thank *Haydn70* for mentioning *Taku Sugimoto*, a composer I wasn't familiar with. But I'm listening to something of his now, _Spring_, and finding it interesting.


----------



## RogerWaters

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> So what's your point? It's not some big secret the Big 3 are vastly more popular.


Bach is literally one thousand times more popular than Carter, according to the above figures, 67 times more popular than Messaiean and 50 times more popular than Legeti.

This raises the question. In what sense are Carter et al 'respected' composers? Of course they are respected by other modern 'classical' composers, but why should we, who are sceptical of modern 'classical' music, care about _that_?!


----------



## SanAntone

RogerWaters said:


> Bach is one thousand times more popular than Carter, according to the above figures, 67 times more popular than Messaiean and 50 times more popular than Legeti.


Your math skills are better than your spelling.


----------



## BachIsBest

Haydn70 said:


> Here is a quote from one of the leading post-WWII avant-gardists, György Ligeti:
> 
> "When I think of the avant-garde, I have this image in my head: I am sitting in an airplane, the sky is blue and I see a landscape. And then the plane flies into a cloud: everything is grey-white. At first the grey seems interesting if you compare it to the earlier landscape, but soon becomes monotonous. I then fly out of the cloud and again see the landscape, which has completely changed in the meantime.
> 
> I believe we have flown into such a cloud of high entropy and great disorder…. The instant I emerge out of the cloud, I see, and this is being very critical, that *the music we wrote was in fact rather ugly.*"


Another point of clarity. It's not entirely clear what Ligeti meant by this quote. He obviously didn't mean that their music wasn't beautiful because it didn't sound much like the common practice period as, and you can easily verify this yourself, the music he wrote after that quote continued to be very emphatically atonal and not remotely similar to that of the common practice period. Personally, I think he was commenting against pieces like "symphony for a hundred metronomes" that are little more than intellectual gags as well as music that was devoid of most of the elements that one would traditionally associate with music in favour of stuff closer to this:






Ligeti is also an interesting guy because he managed to penetrate into the public consciousness more than virtually any other 20th-century "hardcore" avant-garde composer; part of this could probably be pinned on Kubrick's use of the music, but I truly do think there is something more musically appealing in his work than in most 20th century composers of the avant-garde.


----------



## BachIsBest

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Wait, did someone really say that? I must've missed that.





arpeggio said:


> If a person wants to live in some classical ivory tower just listening to or discussing the music of Bach, Beethoven or Brahms, that is their right.


Random characters to fill space.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

BachIsBest said:


> Random characters to fill space.


Hmmm, I actually do recall that now. I'll let the guy speak for himself, but I think he could possibly mean that rejecting AV-G and contemporary music out of hand shows close mindedness and prejudice. Emphasis on the "out of hand", not simply disliking it but dismissing it has any kind of worth.

When I think of the phrase 'ivory tower', I tend to think of esoteric academia realm, which is a much more fitting description of a lot of AV-G.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

RogerWaters said:


> Bach is literally one thousand times more popular than Carter, according to the above figures, 67 times more popular than Messaiean and 50 times more popular than Legeti.
> 
> This raises the question. In what sense are Carter et al 'respected' composers? Of course they are respected by other modern 'classical' composers, but why should we, who are sceptical of modern 'classical' music, care about _that_?!


Is it a popularity contest? Those extra-musical factors don't really interest me. I'm concern myself with the way things sound and if I enjoy them. It's also not mutually exclusive to like the Big 3 and Contemporary of music, plenty of people do.

Carter is listened to and talked about a good bit on this forum.



consuono said:


> They're also not really contemporary anymore. I think I saw somewhere, maybe Wikipedia so it's not ironclad, that the two most listened-to living composers are John Williams and Arvo Pärt.


Indeed, they're not contemporary at all. I was using them more as examples of how AV-G has been successful in finding a decently sized audience. But there's a thriving scene of contemporary composers whose work does get traction.


----------



## Knorf

I struggle with whether there's any more colossally ignorant statement in music than something like, "well Elliott Carter can't be considered all that important because his music is blah-blah-blah times less popular in recordings than Bach."

By that same logic, we should all be listening to Ariana Grande, Justin Bieber, Miley Cyrus, or Billie Eilish. We'll throw in The Weeknd as a bonus.

That, or just forking admit that we-yes, every one of use who posts in here in Talk Classical⁠-have niche yet frankly unremarkable tastes, and that bashing the niche tastes of others is in fact less noble than Don Quixote driving his lance into a herd of sheep.



GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Carter is listened to and talked about a good bit on this forum.


And that's it. If people are interested enough in Elliott Carter's music to find value in listening to it and discussing it, just let them.

I, for one, certainly am also interested, have been for decades, and have found reward in enjoyment and rich musical discovery. YMMV


----------



## calvinpv

RogerWaters said:


> Spotify 'monthly listens':
> 
> Ligeti: 140,487
> Messaiean: 104,212
> Carter: 8,816
> 
> Bach: 6,979,308
> Beethoven: 6,511,483
> Mozart: 5,823,874
> 
> Based on these figures, Ligeti's popularity is but 2% of Bach's. Messaiean's is 1.5%. Carter's is 0.1%
> 
> In other words, for every 1000 people who listen to Bach, 20 people listen to Ligeti. 15 listen to Messaiean. 1.3 listen to Carter.


To be fair, I think some perspective is needed:

Spotify 'monthly listens':

Bach: 6,979,308
Beethoven: 6,511,483
Mozart: 5,823,874

The Weeknd: 67,963,537
Justin Bieber: 67,377,183
Ariana Grande: 64,174,490

Based on these figures, Bach's popularity is but 10.3% of The Weeknd's. Beethoven's is 9.6%. Mozart's is 8.6%.

In other words, for every 1000 people who listen The Weeknd, 103 listen to Bach. 96 listen to Beethoven. 86 listen to Mozart.

But things get even stranger with youtube. If I search for The Weeknd's most viewed video, I get Starboy at 1,815,476,152 views since 9/28/2016, or about 1,146,857 views per day. If I search for a video with "Johann Sebastian Bach" in the video title, I get "Air - Johann Sebastian Bach" at 70,834,826 views since 1/25/2010, or about 17,625 views per day. Based on these figures, Bach's popularity is but 1.5% of The Weeknd's. In other words, for every 1000 people who listen to The Weeknd, 1.5 people listen to Bach.

I'm just gonna leave with some open questions: should Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart be considered "charlatans" alongside the likes of Rebecca Saunders, Taku Sugimoto, Ligeti, Messiaen, Carter, etc? Not gonna lie, those numbers for Bach look brutal, especially for a guy whose name has been around for 300 years. If I didn't know any better, I would perceive Bach as a composer stuck in an "ivory tower", unable to appeal to the masses with his "garbage". Is it fair to say that The Weeknd is a more important, more influential composer than Bach? Should I stop listening to Bach because -- since the numbers don't lie -- he's not worth my time and is not popular enough? Or because he's too "avant-garde" compared to The Weeknd?


----------



## Knorf

Hey, now. Let's not slag on The Weeknd.


----------



## arpeggio

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> So it boils down to semantics then. Ligeti, Messaeien and Carter may not sell as many tickets as The Big 3 or "The (city) Symphony Orchestra Plays the Legend of Zelda and Harry Potter" but they still have a very substantial audience.


Some of the veteran members should know better.

Many of us have provided dozens of examples of concerts of modern music that were well received by the audience. I have attended music festivals that were dedicated to modern music: Ojai, Tanglewood and Stauton.

Going through and dredging up those old posts would be a waste of time.


----------



## consuono

> Not gonna lie, those numbers for Bach look brutal, especially for a guy whose name has been around for 300 years.


Not gonna lie, his numbers are in the stratosphere compared to the avant garde.


----------



## Knorf

consuono said:


> Not gonna lie, his numbers are in the stratosphere compared to the avant garde.


Well, I mean, he's had a huge head start.


----------



## consuono

Knorf said:


> Well, I mean, he's had a huge head start.


What? You mean this 300 year old guy with that outmoded music of his is beating all those whippersnappers with their revolutionary startlingly new musical language? Get outta here. That's like Benny Goodman beating the Beatles like rented mules.


----------



## janxharris

ArtMusic said:


> I agree, as does this piece _Kontakte_. It's complex harmonic extension and development make this a great avant-garde piece. Extremely well performed here, too obviously; you can easily discern. My favorite exposition starts at around [17:20] where the music slows before picking up again for a crescendo effect.


Struggling with this. I'm not immediately hearing the development that I hear in Gruppen.


----------



## calvinpv

consuono said:


> Not gonna lie, his numbers are in the stratosphere compared to the avant garde.


Ok, you just conveniently ignored my questions. I already know the percentage differences between Ligeti and Bach. I personally don't care what they are because I don't listen according to popularity.

But I know you and few others here do. What I want to know is whether you'll acknowledge _the same_ "stratospheric" differences exist between Bach and The Weeknd.

Will you acknowledge that -- by your own logic -- Bach is an avant-garde, unpopular joke compared to The Weeknd?

Will you acknowledge that -- by your own logic -- you should stop listening to Bach this instant and hop on The Weeknd bandwagon?

And if you think Starboy is an aberration, go check out the view count of The Weeknd's other songs. And I want you to add them together. You will get a stupidly large number of views that I'm willing to bet is greater than or equal to the total number of times a Bach piece has been played live or on recording over the past 300 years. The Weeknd has achieved in 10 years what Bach has achieved in 300. And The Weeknd is only 30 years old.

Face it, Bach is an avant-garde composer like Rebecca Saunders. And you and me are both avant-garde music listeners.


----------



## janxharris

calvinpv said:


> Ok, you just conveniently ignored my questions. I already know the percentage differences between Ligeti and Bach. I personally don't care what they are because I don't listen according to popularity.
> 
> But I know you and few others here do. What I want to know is whether you'll acknowledge _the same_ "stratospheric" differences exist between Bach and The Weeknd.
> 
> Will you acknowledge that -- by your own logic -- Bach is an avant-garde, unpopular joke compared to The Weeknd?
> 
> Will you acknowledge that -- by your own logic -- you should stop listening to Bach this instant and hop on The Weeknd bandwagon?
> 
> And if you think Starboy is an aberration, go check out the view count of The Weeknd's other songs. And I want you to add them together. You will get a stupidly large number of views that I'm willing to bet is greater than or equal to the total number of times a Bach piece has been played live or on recording over the past 300 years. The Weeknd has achieved in 10 years what Bach has achieved in 300. And The Weeknd is only 30 years old.
> 
> Face it, Bach is an avant-garde composer like Rebecca Saunders. And you and me are both avant-garde music listeners.


Stating the obvious here - but The Weeknd are extremely unlikely to have the longevity of a great classical composer; chances are that they will be easily replaced by the next new thing and then fade into obscurity.

Not so easy to replace a great composer.


----------



## SanAntone

calvinpv said:


> Ok, you just conveniently ignored my questions. I already know the percentage differences between Ligeti and Bach. I personally don't care what they are because I don't listen according to popularity.


No fan of classical music does; all of us recognize that classical music is not remotely as popular as popular or rock music. But *classical music fans get something from listening to classical music that pop/rock music can't provide;* which is why popularity-by-the-numbers is irrelevant.

Those classical music fans who have no tolerance for avant-garde classical musical refuse to acknowledge that *avant-garde classical music fans get something from listening to avant-garde music that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart can't provide*.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Knorf said:


> And that's it. If people are interested enough in Elliott Carter's music to find value in listening to it and discussing it, just let them.


Sure, but what I have noticed about people like "phil loves classical" is that they tend to judge classical music by avant-gardist standards:



hammeredklavier said:


> Let's not pretend we (classical music enthusiasts) are the only ones who've ranted. Avant-garde music enthusiasts have also judged classical music composers by their standards. I'm only reminding us classical music and avant-garde are like oil and water and cannot reconcile, just like how jazz and prog rock can't. Why not separate ourselves into different communities? That way, classical music enthusiasts won't judge avant-garde music by their standards, and avant-garde music enthusiasts won't judge classical music by theirs. -It's for the good of all of us. (And as I said, I also respect avant-garde music enthusiasts' preferences, I won't call any of the stuff they enjoy "crap").


I think we should have some "awareness" that "classical music" and "avant-garde music" are different kinds of music adhering to different principles.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> I think we should have some "awareness" that "classical music" and "avant-garde music" are different kinds of music adhering to different principles.


There's avant-garde classical music (Rebecca Saunders), avant-garde jazz (Cecil Taylor), and avant-garde rock (Sonic Youth). I only listen to one of those kinds of avant-garde music, the classical kind.

I reject your comment because it is untrue.


----------



## Mandryka

hammeredklavier said:


> I think we should have some "awareness" that "classical music" and "avant-garde music" are different kinds of music adhering to different principles.


What principles are those?

I think that the avant garde of today is the mainstream or even old fashioned of tomorrow. I had some lunch with a composer the other day, and we listened to this:






"How old fashioned!" he said "That desire for purity is so Darmstadt!"

And I must say, I agree -- to me listening to that piece is a bit like listening to Mozart without tunes -- poised, diamantine. No-one would dream of writing like that today.


----------



## arpeggio

So what is the point?

People who listen to avant-garde music should stop listening to it because it is not as popular as Bach's?

Since avant-garde music is not as popular as Bach's, threads about avant-garde music should be excluded from this forum?

So what if Bach is a better composer than Lutoslawski.


----------



## SanAntone

Mandryka said:


> What principals are those?
> 
> I think that the avant garde of today is the mainstream or even old fashioned of tomorrow. I had some lunch with a composer the other day, and we listened to this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"How old fashioned!" he said* "That desire for purity is so Darmstadt!"
> 
> And I must say, I agree -- to me listening to that piece is a bit like listening to Mozart without tunes -- poised, diamantine. No-one would dream of writing like that today.


Which is the same thing that was said about J.S. Bach by the next generation.


----------



## Mandryka

SanAntone said:


> Which is the same thing that was said about J.S. Bach by the next generation.


Your best post!


----------



## millionrainbows

hammeredklavier said:


> Is there a line (standard of quality) differentiating between the two? What are some examples of "masterpieces" by John Cage, and "less successful/valuable works" by him, for example? What are the individual elements or traits that determine "quality" in those works?...Is there a similar method of reasoning for avant-garde music, in distinguishing the great stuff from the average/mediocre stuff?


*In John Cage's case,* to a large degree the answer is "no, that's irrelevant," because of the paradigm involved.

Cage has given a high degree of control to the performer, so a lot depends on who is playing it. Cage once remarked (after a bad performance of his work), "I give people freedom, and they end up making fools of themselves." In other words, a performer has to be responsible, and has to take the work seriously.

Of course, there are works in which the personal hand of Cage is present: the original tape-only versions of _Fontana Mix _and _Williams Mix,_ and _Variations IV_ recorded at a Los Angeles art gallery, in which Cage was closely involved in the choice of source material, and its mixing. 
The early keyboard works, as well as the prepared piano works, also bear the distinct imprint of John Cage, before he attempted to remove all traces of his personality from his work.

With composers such as Elliott Carter, the quality of performer is the same as traditional Classical music; the orchestra, or the pianist matters greatly, such as with pianists Ursula Oppens or Paul Jacobs.

With Milton Babbitt, we can hear his direct-to-tape efforts in works like _Philomel_ or _Ensembles for Synthesizer.

_With Stockhausen, refer to his early live/electronic ensembles in which he was a participant, and of course his works for tape.


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> *In John Cage's case,* to a large degree the answer is "no, that's irrelevant," because of the paradigm involved.
> 
> Cage has given a high degree of control to the performer, so a lot depends on who is playing it. Cage once remarked (after a bad performance of his work), "I give people freedom, and they end up making fools of themselves." In other words, a performer has to be responsible, and has to take the work seriously.
> 
> Of course, there are works in which the personal hand of Cage is present: the original tape-only versions of _Fontana Mix _and _Williams Mix,_ and _Variations IV_ recorded at a Los Angeles art gallery, in which Cage was closely involved in the choice of source material, and its mixing.
> The early keyboard works, as well as the prepared piano works, also bear the distinct imprint of John Cage, before he attempted to remove all traces of his personality from his work.
> 
> With composers such as Elliott Carter, the quality of performer is the same as traditional Classical music; the orchestra, or the pianist matters greatly, such as with pianists Ursula Oppens or Paul Jacobs.
> 
> With Milton Babbitt, we can hear his direct-to-tape efforts in works like _Philomel_ or _Ensembles for Synthesizer.
> 
> _With Stockhausen, refer to his early live/electronic ensembles in which he was a participant, and of course his works for tape.


Good to see you again.

You remember scarecrow? He once said to me the opposite of what you say there about Cage, we were talking about the Etudes Australes. He said that the score is in fact very constraining, there's practically no place for the pianist to be creative and that Cage wouldn't have wanted them to be. He'd have wanted them to have suppressed their egos like he did.


----------



## calvinpv

janxharris said:


> Stating the obvious here - but The Weeknd are extremely unlikely to have the longevity of a great classical composer; chances are that they will be easily replaced by the next new thing and then fade into obscurity.
> 
> Not so easy to replace a great composer.


But the key point here is *you* think he's great. I think he's great too. But many people clearly don't think he's great.

The phrase "fade into obscurity" is also doing a lot of work here. Just because someone will eventually replace him at the top of the charts doesn't mean his view count will cease to grow. The Weeknd will still rack up millions and millions of views even after his best days are behind him. So will Bach, I suppose, but there's no reason for me to think we will see a spike in Bach popularity such that the rate of increasing view count exceeds that of The Weeknd.

There's also no reason to think Bach's star will shine forever, as great as he may be to us. I can easily see, a couple generations from now, Bach's so-called popularity slowing declining as pop music becomes even more pervasive than it is now and people's listening habits slowly shift to pop full time or some variant of it. At the very most, Bach will achieve the status of a Napoleon or Ceasar whose name everyone will recognize but no one will know anything about other than he's the guy who once collaborated with Mozart and Beethoven to write "Fur Elise" and "The Four Seasons". I can't think of a greater insult than to remember Bach in that way, but that's probably how it will happen.


----------



## DaveM

calvinpv said:


> But the key point here is *you* think he's great. I think he's great too. But many people clearly don't think he's great.
> 
> The phrase "fade into obscurity" is also doing a lot of work here. Just because someone will eventually replace him at the top of the charts doesn't mean his view count will cease to grow. The Weeknd will still rack up millions and millions of views even after his best days are behind him. So will Bach, I suppose, but there's no reason for me to think we will see a spike in Bach popularity such that the rate of increasing view count exceeds that of The Weeknd.
> 
> There's also no reason to think Bach's star will shine forever, as great as he may be to us. I can easily see, a couple generations from now, Bach's so-called popularity slowing declining as pop music becomes even more pervasive than it is now and people's listening habits slowly shift to pop full time or some variant of it. At the very most, Bach will achieve the status of a Napoleon or Ceasar whose name everyone will recognize but no one will know anything about other than he's the guy who once collaborated with Mozart and Beethoven to write "Fur Elise" and "The Four Seasons". I can't think of a greater insult than to remember Bach in that way, but that's probably how it will happen.


Or probably that will not happen. You go on about popularity as if it is some commodity that applies similarly whether it is Bach or The Weeknd. The reasons for the popularity of a composer over 2+ centuries is somewhat more profound than that of a popular performer who will be lucky to be on the frontline of interest 2 years from now.

And why the rather extreme jump from 'no reason to thinking Bach's star will shine forever' to his popularity 'slowly declining..a couple generations from now'? None of it makes any sense. But if it did, it wouldn't bode well for the future of the music that is the subject of this thread.


----------



## janxharris

calvinpv said:


> But the key point here is *you* think he's great. I think he's great too. But many people clearly don't think he's great.
> 
> The phrase "fade into obscurity" is also doing a lot of work here. Just because someone will eventually replace him at the top of the charts doesn't mean his view count will cease to grow. The Weeknd will still rack up millions and millions of views even after his best days are behind him. So will Bach, I suppose, but there's no reason for me to think we will see a spike in Bach popularity such that the rate of increasing view count exceeds that of The Weeknd.
> 
> There's also no reason to think Bach's star will shine forever, as great as he may be to us. I can easily see, a couple generations from now, Bach's so-called popularity slowing declining as pop music becomes even more pervasive than it is now and people's listening habits slowly shift to pop full time or some variant of it. At the very most, Bach will achieve the status of a Napoleon or Ceasar whose name everyone will recognize but no one will know anything about other than he's the guy who once collaborated with Mozart and Beethoven to write "Fur Elise" and "The Four Seasons". I can't think of a greater insult than to remember Bach in that way, but that's probably how it will happen.


Well actually Bach isn't really my thing though I recognise his craft in some pieces. I don't personally see so much craft in a lot of ultra pop music (but with exceptions). I always assume that longevity is proportional to such crafting.


----------



## consuono

Knorf said:


> ...
> And that's it. If people are interested enough in Elliott Carter's music to find value in listening to it and discussing it, just let them.
> ..


Well I agree completely, which is why I'll talk about the subject in general terms but I'm not going to comment on the threads like the 21st century listening or Ligeti etc just to snark. People like what they like.


----------



## Simon Moon

hammeredklavier said:


> I think we should have some "awareness" that "classical music" and "avant-garde music" are different kinds of music adhering to different principles.


I will make the assumption that you are only referring to avantgarde classical music, and not other forms.

Below I will list my approximate, chronological order of discovery in which my love for classical music has followed. Please tell me, exactly at which part of my journey, I stopped listening to classical music, and started listening to avantgarde music.

Ravel, Prokofiev, Mussorgsky -> Stravinsky, Bartok, Shostakovich, Hindemith -> Schoenberg, Webern, Berg -> Carter, Birtwistle, Wuorinen, Wolpe, Tower, Penderecki, Ligeti -> Ades, Gubaidulina, Davies, Francesconi, Berio

Of course, these composers are far from everyone.


----------



## DaveM

Simon Moon said:


> I will make the assumption that you are only referring to avantgarde classical music, and not other forms.
> 
> Below I will list my approximate, chronological order of discovery in which my love for classical music has followed. Please tell me, exactly at which part of my journey, I stopped listening to classical music, and started listening to avantgarde music.
> 
> Ravel, Prokofiev, Mussorgsky -> Stravinsky, Bartok, Shostakovich, Hindemith -> Schoenberg, Webern, Berg -> Carter, Birtwistle, Wuorinen, Wolpe, Tower, Penderecki, Ligeti -> Ades, Gubaidulina, Davies, Francesconi, Berio


Well roughly Ligeti for avant-garde since that's close to the separation from the 2nd Viennese School category. As for the 'stopping listening for classical music', that's just a dog whistle so I won't address it, but if that is the extent of your journey, it seems like a rather short one.


----------



## calvinpv

DaveM said:


> Or probably that will not happen. You go on about popularity as if it is some commodity that applies similarly whether it is Bach or The Weeknd.


I personally don't believe in popularity as a metric in greatness. In fact, I think all this talk of objective greatness is silly and this whole thread (like many before it) is pointless. I'm just pointing out that _if_ you measure objective greatness by popularity -- as a couple people here are compelled to do -- then, well, you better walk the talk and ditch Bach in favor of The Weeknd because the numbers say Bach isn't popular. I'm trying to show the implications of this popularity contest.

I'm also not understanding why "similar application" of popularity to Bach and The Weeknd is necessarily a bad thing if your aim is to establish an objective ranking of artists. Isn't the point of this thread to find that basic unit of measurement for such a ranking?



> The reasons for the popularity of a composer over 2+ centuries is somewhat more profound ...


And yet, the staggering differences in popularity between The Weeknd and Bach indicate that many, many people don't find Bach profound or enjoyable whatsoever compared to The Weeknd. Unless you want to deny the legitimacy of their own profound experiences.

Just speaking anecdotally, as a young person who's around many other young people, I have yet to meet a single person who actively listens to Bach, Beethoven, or Mozart. To them, these composers are too "sophisticated", too "intellectual", too "ivory tower", too "establishment", too "boring", too "irrelevant", too "elitist" -- you know, the very same derogatory terms thrown at contemporary classical composers by people on this site. If they do listen, they pick a 100 greatest hits compilation album as white background noise for studying/working and forget about it afterwards. That's it. Hardly the profound listening experience that I think you're envisioning. The somewhat higher numbers for Bach on Spotify than on Youtube, I believe, point to the presence of this type of background listening for Bach, since Spotify is more amenable for playlists and passive listening. I think Bach's numbers on Youtube -- which encourages a more active type of listening than Spotify -- are a better indication of Bach's true popularity relative to The Weeknd.



> ... than that of a popular performer who will be lucky to be on the frontline of interest 2 years from now.


The Weeknd has been at or near the top for about a decade now, so he'll probably still be there in two years. And even when The Weeknd eventually comes back down from the stratosphere, it's not like Bach is patiently waiting in the shadows ready to pounce on that No. 1 spot. He will remain in relative obscurity compared to top pop artists. Probably even to The Weeknd as well.

By the way, I don't have to use The Weeknd as an example. Drake, Justin Bieber, Ariana Grande, Ed Sheeran, Post Malone, Rihanna, etc work just as well. And those are just artists from the present.

And why stop at Bach? Compare the numbers with, say, Vivaldi, Haydn, Schubert, Chopin, Liszt, Schumann, Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler, Sibelius, Stravinsky. With the exception of Vivaldi and Chopin, who have comparable numbers to Bach, they're all worse.



> And why the rather extreme jump from 'no reason to thinking Bach's star will shine forever' to his popularity 'slowly declining..a couple generations from now'? None of it makes any sense.


You left out the phrase "I can easily see that" which sort of implies I'm ultimately making a projection as to future prospects. Just like the few comments in this thread who contest the long-term popularity of contemporary classical composers. Here, I'm contesting the long-term popularity of Bach.



> But if it did, it wouldn't bode well for the future of the music that is the subject of this thread.


It doesn't bode well for any classical composer, whether that composer is Bach or Cage. I'd say, instead of going at each other's throats, Bach and Cage lovers should learn to appreciate each other's music and accept the fact that they share the same circumstances.


----------



## SanAntone

> It doesn't bode well for any classical composer, whether that composer is Bach or Cage. I'd say, instead of going at each other's throats, Bach and Cage lovers should learn to appreciate each other's music and accept the fact that they share the same circumstances.


Yep. I've tried to make this point, i.e., classical music as a genre only occupies a tiny fraction of the music-listening audience, lower than all other genres. Also, using my listening habits as a guide, that the same people who listen to avant-garde classical also listen to the traditional classical music - we are essentially the same audience. If you check what I post in the listening thread you'll find more traditional classical music than avant-garde, but both types appear.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

SanAntone said:


> Yep. I've tried to make this point, i.e., classical music as a genre only occupies a tiny fraction of the music-listening audience, lower than all other genres. Also, using my listening habits as a guide, that the same people who listen to avant-garde classical also listen to the traditional classical music - we are essentially the same audience. If you check what I post in the listening thread you'll find more traditional classical music than avant-garde, but both types appear.


Yeah, the idea that it's somehow mutually exclusive to like both doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me.


----------



## regenmusic

So within this thread is the clarification of what makes better threads about what is "Great avant-garde music vs. Average/Mediocre avant-garde music." Rules of intelligent discussion. It would be nice to have them in one places rather than a sprawling thread. And one could deduce rules from posts not just explicit stating of rules in this thread.

If we can make better statements then they have more objective value.


----------



## Mandryka

regenmusic said:


> So within this thread is the clarification of what makes better thread about what is "Great avant-garde music vs. Average/Mediocre avant-garde music." Rules of intelligent discussion. It would be nice to have them in one places rather than a sprawling thread. And one could deduce rules from posts not just explicit stating of rules in this thread.


Yes, see my first post here.


----------



## Mandryka

I will propose some other idea, a specific one. 

Everyone knows that electronic sounds provide all sorts of new opportunities for composing classical music. The techology has been around for nearly 75 years. 

Some people who use this technology do it conservatively. This is not very interesting avant garde, whatever its other qualities. An example would be Messiaen's electronic music.

But some people are inspired not only what the technology can bring to classical music, they use that technology to transform standard instruments, and indeed transform the sonority of classical music completely. An example would be the way Stockhausen uses voice in the 2nd Invasion of Oktophonie. That level of imagination is, I think, an indication of great avant garde.


----------



## DaveM

calvinpv said:


> I personally don't believe in popularity as a metric in greatness. In fact, I think all this talk of objective greatness is silly and this whole thread (like many before it) is pointless. I'm just pointing out that _if_ you measure objective greatness by popularity -- as a couple people here are compelled to do -- then, well, you better walk the talk and ditch Bach in favor of The Weeknd because the numbers say Bach isn't popular. I'm trying to show the implications of this popularity contest.
> 
> I'm also not understanding why "similar application" of popularity to Bach and The Weeknd is necessarily a bad thing if your aim is to establish an objective ranking of artists. Isn't the point of this thread to find that basic unit of measurement for such a ranking?
> 
> And yet, the staggering differences in popularity between The Weeknd and Bach indicate that many, many people don't find Bach profound or enjoyable whatsoever compared to The Weeknd. Unless you want to deny the legitimacy of their own profound experiences.
> 
> Just speaking anecdotally, as a young person who's around many other young people, I have yet to meet a single person who actively listens to Bach, Beethoven, or Mozart. To them, these composers are too "sophisticated", too "intellectual", too "ivory tower", too "establishment", too "boring", too "irrelevant", too "elitist" -- you know, the very same derogatory terms thrown at contemporary classical composers by people on this site...


If this whole thread is pointless then I don't know what you're doing here. And stating that you find 'all this talk of objective greatness is silly' is so dismissive and superficial that one is less liable to find your argument that follows it especially convincing.

Popularity is just a thing that is a consequence of something else. Inanimate objects have popularity. Comparing the popularity of Bach with that of The Weeknd is just as useless and irrelevant as comparing the popularity of The Weeknd with a 1966 Ford Mustang.

In the case of Bach, the popularity is a reflection of the continuing interest in his music, and the influence of his music on composers and their music, over 2 centuries. He was, in a sense, one of the great early founders of western classical music that flourished in the late 18th and all of the 19th century.

I listen to a lot of popular music. I love a lot of popular music. But, in my experience, popular singers and bands come and go over relatively short periods of time. And my listening to popular music waxes and wanes likewise. On the other hand, classical music is a far more profound experience. It never grows old. There is a lasting quality to it that survives decades upon decades and century upon century. I attribute that to something far more profound than that found in popular music and, likewise, I recognize the skill involved in composing the great symphonies, concertos and solo works that, so far, have in a number of ways, outlasted many other forms of music.

Therein lies objective evidence of greatness. There are those here who believe in total subjectivity and want specifics to prove objectivity of greatness. I would suggest that if they can't find objective reasons for greatness in this music and can't distinguish what makes it profoundly unique from popular music then IMO they have a very superficial understanding of classical music and what makes it special.

As for the fact that as a young person you don't know a single person who likes or understands classical music, well, that is the experience of many of those in other age groups. Why classical music attracts some of us so profoundly and not others will remain a mystery and has nothing to do with the subject of popularity. I am also interested in cosmology -black holes, the event horizon and singularity. None of my friends or in my family care about it, either.


----------



## ArtMusic

Mandryka said:


> I will propose some other idea, a specific one.
> 
> Everyone knows that electronic sounds provide all sorts of new opportunities for composing classical music. The techology has been around for nearly 75 years.
> 
> Some people who use this technology do it conservatively. This is not very interesting avant garde, whatever its other qualities. An example would be Messiaen's electronic music.
> 
> But some people are inspired not only what the technology can bring to classical music, they use that technology to transform standard instruments, and indeed transform the sonority of classical music completely. An example would be the way Stockhausen uses voice in the 2nd Invasion of Oktophonie. That level of imagination is, I think, an indication of great avant garde.


The point made above in another post is that the avant-garde gets outdated. I think Stockhausen's work is now not avant-garde but experimental. It's all semantics anyway. :lol:


----------



## Simon Moon

DaveM said:


> Well roughly Ligeti for avant-garde since that's close to the separation from the 2nd Viennese School category. As for the 'stopping listening for classical music', that's just a dog whistle so I won't address it, but if that is the extent of your journey, it seems like a rather short one.


I was specifically responding to a post by hammeredklavier, where he claims that, what most of us consider to be, avantgarde classical, should not even be considered as classical music.

My 'dog whistle' was meant for hammeredklavier to try to point out the exact demarcation, in the list of composers, which ones he still considered classical, and which ones were not.

And my journey was much longer than that. My fault for not being more specific. Many, many more composers were involved.

In general, my journey was more like this: several years trying to get into classical music by listening to the well known major composers (Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Brahms, Chopin, etc) with only minor success. Then the discovery of Stravinsky, Bartok soon followed. This in turn caused be to go back to composers a bit earlier than them (Ravel, Prokofiev, Debussy, etc). Then it was the discovery of the 2nd Viennese School, and beyond, which really fueled my passion.

Since I still have almost all of my collection of Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, etc, I make a concerted effort to continue to play them fairly regularly, in hopes that they will finally 'click' with me, but so far, no dice.


----------



## SanAntone

> Therein lies objective evidence of greatness. There are those here who believe in total subjectivity and want specifics to prove objectivity of greatness. I would suggest that if they can't find objective reasons for greatness in this music and can't distinguish what makes it profoundly unique from popular music then IMO they have a very superficial understanding of classical music and what makes it special.


I can't but think that you are referring to me in this paragraph.

Yes, I asked you for objective criteria that can be used to assess classical works across several centuries. I majored in music theory and composition and know the standard methods of analyzing classical music, all of which were developed after the fact. That is, long after Beethoven or Bach composed their music theoretical tools of analysis were developed and used to describe the music. Something like sonata-allegro form was codified, with the form described almost lik a recipe, when we know it developed over time and only later did the archetypal form find its way into music treatises.

That kind of process has always seemed circular to me.

Add to that that something like Schenkerian analysis used to analyze a Beethoven piano sonata cannot be used to analyze a Debussy work for solo piano.

Did Beethoven write a great piano sonata? I think most would say yes. Did Debussy write a great solo piano work? I also think most people would agree.

What objective analytical tools can we use to demonstrate both of their greatness? Can we use the same analytical tools that will work for both styles? Maybe one of our resident music professors can offer their expertise.

What does it say about the majority of humanity if 90% of people do not listen to Bach and are not interested in the "great music" he supposedly wrote? There are members of TC who say that Bach is boring.

Is an idea of greatness as it relates to music really that important since it seems arbitrarily applied with no objective criteria at hand that can demonstrate its greatness?

We like what we like. Is there someone out there who likes all of the supposedly "great works" equally? Speaking for myself I like some Beethoven, hardly any Mahler, plenty of Bach, none of Tchaikovsky, etc.

The Beatles have been one of the most popular bands in history and are considered to have written some of the best popular music ever. If their popularity and high critical assessment continue for another 50 years, might they enter into the pantheon along with Bach, Beethoven and the rest?

I ask these questions because DaveM has never provided any kind of answer to my request for objective criteria. He only says, if you don't see it, I can't explain it to you.

Well, I know the music I like, and I don't care if it is great or not. I am happy with thinking that musical likes and dislikes are subjective, but I am open to anyone wishing to show me any objective metrics (other than the test of time) for assessing greatness.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> I can't but think that you are referring to me in this paragraph.
> 
> Yes, I asked you for objective criteria that can be used to assess classical works across several centuries. I majored in music theory and composition and know the standard methods of analyzing classical music, all of which were developed after the fact. That is, long after Beethoven or Bach composed their music theoretical tools of analysis were developed and used to describe the music. Something like sonata-allegro form was codified, with the form described almost lik a recipe, when we know it developed over time and only later did the archetypal form find its way into music treatises.
> 
> That kind of process has always seemed circular to me.
> 
> Add to that that something like Schenkerian analysis used to analyze a Beethoven piano sonata cannot be used to analyze a Debussy work for solo piano.
> 
> Did Beethoven write a great piano sonata? I think most would say yes. Did Debussy write a great solo piano work? I also think most people would agree.
> 
> What objective analytical tools can we use to demonstrate both of their greatness? Can we use the same analytical tools that will work for both styles? Maybe one of our resident music professors can offer their expertise.
> 
> What does it say about the majority of humanity if 90% of people do not listen to Bach and are not interested in the "great music" he supposedly wrote? There are members of TC who say that Bach is boring.
> 
> Is an idea of greatness as it relates to music really that important since it seems arbitrarily applied with no objective criteria at hand that can demonstrate its greatness?
> 
> We like what we like. Is there someone out there who likes all of the supposedly "great works" equally? Speaking for myself I like some Beethoven, hardly any Mahler, plenty of Bach, none of Tchaikovsky, etc.
> 
> The Beatles have been one of the most popular bands in history and are considered to have written some of the best popular music ever. If their popularity and high critical assessment continue for another 50 years, might they enter into the pantheon along with Bach, Beethoven and the rest?
> 
> I ask these questions because DaveM has never provided any kind of answer to my request for objective criteria. He only says, if you don't see it, I can't explain it to you.
> 
> Well, I know the music I like, and I don't care if it is great or not. I am happy with thinking that musical likes and dislikes are subjective, but I am open to anyone wishing to show me any objective metrics (other than the test of time) for assessing greatness.


It is disingenuous and deceptive to say '_ DaveM has never provided any kind of answer to my request for objective criteria_. You just don't accept or, maybe, understand what I have provided. In any event, the extent of whatever you've had to say on the subject can be found in the last paragraph. If you can't find objective evidence for the greatness of the great composers and appear to not think that they or their music are particularly great anyway, then I can't help you. Perhaps your predicament is that you find all of this 'circular'.


----------



## mmsbls

I've been reading this thread with some interest, but I'm a bit confused about the point many are trying to make. 

The OP asked whether there is a standard of quality differentiating between great and lesser avant-garde music. Very few posts have discussed this issue, and I'm not surprised. It's actually rather hard for most of us to describe the difference between a great and a lesser piece of music whether it's Mozart, Dvorak, Stravinsky, or Saunders. We can talk about what we like and perhaps some elements of the music, but actually giving a good rationale that Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 20 is much better than say Rimsky-Korsakov's Piano Concerto is not an easy task. Given that many fewer members listen avidly to avant-garde music further reduces the likelihood that there will be a robust discussion of this question. I don't think that says much about avant-garde music.

Most of the discussion here has concerned whether avant-garde music is good at all compared to CPT music and whether avant-garde music should be considered classical music. I agree with many points made by those who seem to push back against avant-garde music.

Avant-garde music is much less popular than music of Bach, Beethoven, or Mozart. It's less popular than the vast majority of composers frequently discussed on TC.

Avant-garde music is liked less than CPT music. Probably significantly less. I suspect that those who enjoy avant-garde music required significantly more time to appreciate it than CPT music. Presumably many fewer people find it beautiful, moving, interesting, etc..

Fine. I think we all know that. I'd like people to post what they conclude from those facts. Should anything change on TC? Should people be more or less likely to listen to avant-garde? Should something change or is it simply important to ensure people understand which music is less popular? 

Finally, whenever people talk negatively about modern or avant-garde music, I'm never certain which music they include within that category. Simon Moon brought this issue up. I assume that when they were composing Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Varese, Xenakis, Berio, Boulez, Ligeti, and Ferneyhough were all considered avant-garde (or at least some of their music was). Where do those who are, shall we say, less fond of avant-garde draw the line?


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> It is disingenuous and deceptive to say '_ DaveM has never provided any kind of answer to my request for objective criteria_. You just don't accept or, maybe, understand what I have provided. In any event, the extent of whatever you've had to say on the subject can be found in the last paragraph. If you can't find objective evidence for the greatness of the great composers and appear to not think that they or their music are particularly great anyway, then I can't help you.


Or you can't provide any objective criteria because you don't know of any. It is simply not enough for you to claim there is objective criteria but refuse to offer any evidence of it. Why can't you describe how _you_ (you specifically) know a work is great?

I have stated very clearly that I like what I like because the music itself interests me, or in some way grabs my attention and I keep going back to it. I like the sound of some music more than the sound of other music - whether its Bach, Webern, Boulez, Brahms, or Hank Williams or Miles Davis. It has nothing to do with any idea of greatness.

This is a subjective response to music. I am waiting for you (or anyone) to describe an objective response to music.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> ..but actually giving a good rationale that Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 20 is much better than say Rimsky-Korsakov's Piano Concerto is not an easy task.


Perhaps for many of us on TC, but my guess is that it would not be all that difficult for the sort of experts that are unlikely to frequent this forum (or if they do, they aren't saying very much very often). Still, of all the concertos you could have mentioned to compare with Rimsky-Korsakov's, I find it interesting that you chose the rather special Mozart 20th.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> Perhaps for many of us on TC, but my guess is that it would not be all that difficult for the sort of experts that are unlikely to frequent this forum (or if they do, they aren't saying very much very often). Still, of all the concertos you could have mentioned to compare with Rimsky-Korsakov's, I find it interesting that you chose the rather special Mozart 20th.


That's my point. I agree that there are many who have studied music, and especially CPT music, who can discuss why they view some music as better than other music. I think there are relatively few on TC who can do that easily. I think there are even fewer who can do that with avant-garde music.

I chose the objectively greatest piano concerto ever written to be compared to a nice (I really do like the Rimsky-Korsakov concerto) concerto as a great versus average (maybe good) CPT concerto comparison.


----------



## consuono

mmsbls said:


> The OP asked whether there is a standard of quality differentiating between great and lesser avant-garde music. Very few posts have discussed this issue, and I'm not surprised. It's actually rather hard for most of us to describe the difference between a great and a lesser piece of music whether it's Mozart, Dvorak, Stravinsky, or Saunders. We can talk about what we like and perhaps some elements of the music, but actually giving a good rationale that Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 20 is much better than say Rimsky-Korsakov's Piano Concerto is not an easy task. ...


But it isn't impossible or in some way a transgression. Even non-experts can detect symmetry, craftsmanship and beauty in Mozart's entire body of work and say comparatively that Rimsky-Korsakov's doesn't quite measure up. I think the point the OP was making was that with avant garde and really with contemporary "serious" music in general that kind of comparative judgement is gauche at best. We're not allowed to judge "intensely personal artistic expression". It is its own standard and so you won't really have much of a "debate" or a critical comparison of Cage vs Carter vs Ligeti vs Ferneyhough in terms of skill and effectiveness of their music.

Incidentally I'm not even sure that Mozart's 20th is objectively even *his* greatest piano concerto. I can think of 5 or 6 that I would rank higher.


----------



## calvinpv

DaveM said:


> If this whole thread is pointless then I don't know what you're doing here.


Well, I and a few others gave near the beginning of the thread an example of what the OP asked for: good vs. bad avant-garde. I'm not even sure my answer was satisfactory, but I obliged and gave an answer. But it didn't seem to matter because this thread just descended into the typical arguments over avant-garde's popularity metrics, how closely related it is to traditional classical music, etc. Almost no discussion of the particular pieces posted, except for a very brief back-and-forth about a Carter piece. So yes, I'm hard pressed to take this thread seriously when it's clear no one else is. I almost never engage in these type of threads because they always turn out into the bloodbath I expect them to be. In hindsight, I made the mistake of taking part and probably won't take part any further after this post, unless it returns to the music that's been posted.



> And stating that you find 'all this talk of objective greatness is silly' is so dismissive and superficial that one is less liable to find your argument that follows it especially convincing.


So the rest of what I say should be dismissed because of my tone (which I didn't even think was that rude)? Don't mean to call you out, but that's technically an ad hominem argument.

And what's superficial about claiming there's no objective artistic greatness? It's not a position one can just dismiss. Here are two reasons why I think so:

1. artists, philosophers, scientists, mathematicians, etc have been exploring what makes a great artwork for thousands of years from every possible angle. To this day, we still haven't found an answer everybody agrees on, and as this thread shows, the debate can even get ugly and personal over the rightness/wrongness of our answers. This isn't an issue in itself except for the fact that we're debating about things that we humans created. It's one thing to debate about the truthfulness of a statement about some object existing independently of our existence, because it will be true/false regardless of whether we exist or not; therefore, a statement about that object will exclude anything about the human race.

But that's not the case with art. Art cannot exist and have meaning independent of human beings. Thus, when we talk about art, we inevitably talk about ourselves (whether in a biological sense, in an anthropological sense, or in a sort of existential sense about the "human condition", it doesn't matter). And so when we talk about good/bad art, we are essentially talking about the infallibility/fallibility of human beings. But here's the rub: how can bad art even be possible if humans are also the makers of good art and if we have criteria to distinguish the two? This is analogous to the problem of evil in the philosophy of religion.

The only possible solutions I see to this are:
A. Humans are infallible. Only good art is created and no bad art (an intriguing position that I would have to think about more, but some people here may not like it)
B. An artist can make good and bad art but doesn't know why (which seems ludicrous on its face: how can an artist not know their own art?)
C. Objective criteria for determining good/bad art doesn't exist. Which leads to either:
C1. Art is only subjectively good/bad
C2. There is no good/bad art whatsoever (not quite the same as A. but there may be some overlap, hence why A. could be interesting)

I think C is the best, unless there are some good reasons for other options that I'm not thinking of (I'm not sure if I prefer C1 or C2; in fact, they could be indistinguishable).

2. Since art is inextricably tied to humans, it can only last as long as humans last. If humans were to completely disappear tomorrow, so will art. In which case, to speak of "objectivity" is a category error. Because objectivity has to do with statements that are true/false across all of space and time. Statements about artistic values, however, are true/false for as long as humans are around and will be unfalsifiable after humans disappear (unless you're one of those realists who think there exist mind-independent aesthetic truths, but that seems way too untenable).

This second issue is more with the semantics surrounding the debate. If you mean something other than what's normally meant by "objectivity" and "subjectivity" then I think some clarification is needed.



> Popularity is just a thing that is a consequence of something else.


Sure, but it's a question of what that "something else" is.



> Inanimate objects have popularity. Comparing the popularity of Bach with that of The Weeknd is just as useless and irrelevant as comparing the popularity of The Weeknd with a 1966 Ford Mustang.


But why is it useless? Is it because The Weeknd is not classical music and so should be held to different standards? But isn't that a "subjectivist" position? Wouldn't a true "objectivist" want to compare music across all boundaries because artistic value is independent of genre?



> In the case of Bach, the popularity is a reflection of the continuing interest in his music, and the influence of his music on composers and their music, over 2 centuries. He was, in a sense, one of the great early founders of western classical music that flourished in the late 18th and all of the 19th century.


There's a question of whether "continuing interest" = "popularity". Do the relatively small number of people in our conservatories devoting their studies to Bach = worldwide popularity?



> I listen to a lot of popular music. I love a lot of popular music. But, in my experience, popular singers and bands come and go over relatively short periods of time. And my listening to popular music waxes and wanes likewise.


But an incredibly large number of people on this planet have a steadfast love for pop music that never waxes or wanes. And moreover, these people never feel a need to explore and enjoy classical music. This experience you describe is *your* experience and not a universal one. Your experience is even one I share. In fact, I don't even listen to pop music at all, except when I hear it in a public place, like in a supermarket over the speakers. My listening is solely traditional/avant-garde classical. But I just can't make the leap into saying there's something more profound about classical music than pop music, because I don't have anything to justify that statement.

And as my previous posts were saying, if the justification was to use popularity as a metric, then it would actually be Bach that lacks the profundity because the basic metrics show pop artists as more popular and therefore more profound.



> On the other hand, classical music is a far more profound experience. It never grows old.


It's more profound to *you*. And me. But not to the vast majority of people on this planet.



> There is a lasting quality to it that survives decades upon decades and century upon century. I attribute that to something far more profound than that found in popular music


I think there's a couple problems with this position. 
1. A link needs to be made between lasting popularity and profundity, which many pop music listeners might very well reject. They could, for example, respond with "Profundity is defined by how many people enjoy it in the present, not by how many dead people enjoyed it in the past". Not that this position is any better, mind you, but it would be on an equal footing with yours.
2. Even if a link can be established, it still has to be determined that classical music satisfies that link. In other words, there may be a link between lasting popularity and profundity, but classical music was never popular, past or present. This comes down to a definition of the threshold between a popular and unpopular work, a threshold that is not easy to determine and the very notion of which is susceptible to Sorites paradoxes.



> and, likewise, I recognize the skill involved in composing the great symphonies, concertos and solo works that, so far, have in a number of ways, outlasted many other forms of music.


It's hard for me to respond affirmatively or negatively to these kinds of statements because I'm not sure what kind of "skill" or "craftsmanship" is being is sought for. And also why I have to hold these skills in high regard over others. And also whether I have to hear the skills in the piece or whether they're allowed to go over my head unnoticed (this last question raises a further meta-epistemological question of how we can even assess whether the skill is "heard" in the music).



> Therein lies objective evidence of greatness. There are those here who believe in total subjectivity and want specifics to prove objectivity of greatness. I would suggest that if they can't find objective reasons for greatness in this music and can't distinguish what makes it profoundly unique from popular music then IMO they have a very superficial understanding of classical music and what makes it special.


See my reasons above. As for this issue of "superficial understanding", one of the criticisms I've seen of avant-garde music is that it requires specialist knowledge to fully appreciate it (I don't know if you've said that, I just know I've seen it on TC). Now regardless of whether this criticism is actually legitimate or not, I think that _if_ we were to assume for the moment that it is legitimate, then we need to ask why I need to have a "deep understanding" of classical music to appreciate its special-ness. According to this criticism, isn't it actually an indictment against composers like Bach that I need to fully understand them to see their profundity?



> As for the fact that as a young person you don't know a single person who likes or understands classical music, well, that is the experience of many of those in other age groups. Why classical music attracts some of us so profoundly and not others will remain a mystery and has nothing to do with the subject of popularity. I am also interested in cosmology -black holes, the event horizon and singularity. None of my friends or in my family care about it, either.


I'm not sure this is a good analogy. The lack of popularity about issues in cosmology doesn't change the truthfulness or falsity of statements about cosmology made by scientists (unless, of course, we're talking about the popularity within the scientific community for certain statements over others). But for some people (not me), popularity _does_ change the level of profundity of a piece of music.


----------



## janxharris

Simon Moon said:


> I was specifically responding to a post by hammeredklavier, where he claims that, what most of us consider to be, avantgarde classical, should not even be considered as classical music.
> 
> My 'dog whistle' was meant for hammeredklavier to try to point out the exact demarcation, in the list of composers, which ones he still considered classical, and which ones were not.
> 
> And my journey was much longer than that. My fault for not being more specific. Many, many more composers were involved.
> 
> In general, my journey was more like this: several years trying to get into classical music by listening to the well known major composers (Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Brahms, Chopin, etc) with only minor success. Then the discovery of Stravinsky, Bartok soon followed. This in turn caused be to go back to composers a bit earlier than them (Ravel, Prokofiev, Debussy, etc). Then it was the discovery of the 2nd Viennese School, and beyond, which really fueled my passion.
> 
> Since I still have almost all of my collection of Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, etc, I make a concerted effort to continue to play them fairly regularly, in hopes that they will finally 'click' with me, but so far, no dice.


It's very interesting to read this SM. What work would you say is the earliest work that you enjoy?


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> That's my point. I agree that there are many who have studied music, and especially CPT music, who can discuss why they view some music as better than other music. I think there are relatively few on TC who can do that easily. I think there are even fewer who can do that with avant-garde music.
> 
> I chose the objectively greatest piano concerto ever written to be compared to a nice (I really do like the Rimsky-Korsakov concerto) concerto as a great versus average (maybe good) CPT concerto comparison.


Why is it true that 'the objectively greatest piano concerto ever written' is Mozart's 20th?


----------



## SanAntone

Is CPT short for "common practice"?


----------



## janxharris

SanAntone said:


> Is CPT short for "common practice"?


common practice tonality


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> But it isn't impossible or in some way a transgression. Even non-experts can detect symmetry, craftsmanship and beauty in Mozart's entire body of work and say comparatively that Rimsky-Korsakov's doesn't quite measure up.


I would not agree. First these composers lived in very different periods with different conventions about composing. Mozart's entire period prized symmetrical phrase and formal construction and rhetorical context between the instrumental sections. Whereas Rimsky-Korsakov lived in a period with less concern with those attributes and more concern with the expression of sensuous coloristic orchestral beauty and narrative aspects written into the music. Only subjectively could someone decide that Mozart's style was superior to Rimsky-Korsakov's since each was a master at the prevailing style of their periods.



> I think the point the OP was making was that with avant garde and really with contemporary "serious" music in general that kind of comparative judgement is gauche at best. We're not allowed to judge "intensely personal artistic expression". It is its own standard and so you won't really have much of a "debate" or a critical comparison of Cage vs Carter vs Ligeti vs Ferneyhough in terms of skill and effectiveness of their music.


Cage and Ligeti are not same kind of composers as Carter and Ferneyhough, and the same issues that I raised with comparing Mozart with Rimsky-Koraskov exist between these composers. One could take some works by Carter and Ferneyhough and compare them with more relevance, but since the 20th century was a period of different stylistic expressions, composers from the 20th and now 21st century, might fall into small "schools" but, by and large, cannot be compared to each other since most are somewhat _sui generis_.

Once again it all seems subjective at the end of the day.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> I would not agree. First these composers lived in very different periods with different conventions about composing. Mozart's entire period prized symmetrical phrase and formal construction and rhetorical context between the instrumental sections. Whereas Rimsky-Korsakov lived in a period with less concern with those attributes and more concern with the expression of sensuous coloristic orchestral beauty and narrative aspects written into the music. Only subjectively could someone decide that Mozart's style was superior to Rimsky-Korsakov's since each was a master at the prevailing style of their periods. ...


When so many feel intuitively that the works of Mozart are superior to those of Rimsky-Korsakov (or Brahms or Janacek or Mahler), then something other than complete subjectivity is at work. Nobody who knows anything about music would say that Mozart and Rimsky-Korsakov are absolutely equal in artistic skill even within their own milieus. (By the way I think there's plenty of sensuous orchestral beauty in Mozart as well.) Or Beethoven and Rimsky-Korasakov. The artistic hierarchy is there whether you want to recognize it or not, which is why (again) the works of Brahms are valued more highly than those of his contemporary Raff. It really doesn't do to say that both are *equally* artistically satisfying simply because, well, both were individuals with different outlooks and visions and from different places on the globe. One is still more artistically satisfying than the other. Now that kind of consensus and recognition doesn't always come immediately -- see Bach -- but I do believe that the cream tends to rise to the top eventually. If music (including today's avant garde) is actually worthy, it will survive. If not, it will be forgotten.


----------



## janxharris

consuono said:


> When so many feel intuitively that the works of Mozart are superior to those of Rimsky-Korsakov (or Brahms or Janacek or Mahler), then something other than complete subjectivity is at work. Nobody who knows anything about music would say that Mozart and Rimsky-Korsakov are absolutely equal in artistic skill even within their own milieus. (By the way I think there's plenty of sensuous orchestral beauty in Mozart as well.) Or Beethoven and Rimsky-Korasakov. The artistic hierarchy is there whether you want to recognize it or not, which is why (again) the works of Brahms are valued more highly than those of his contemporary Raff. It really doesn't do to say that both are *equally* artistically satisfying simply because, well, both were individuals with different outlooks and visions and from different places on the globe. One is still more artistically satisfying than the other. Now that kind of consensus and recognition doesn't always come immediately -- see Bach -- but I do believe that the cream tends to rise to the top eventually. If music (including today's avant garde) is actually worthy, it will survive. If not, it will be forgotten.


Without using the argumentum ad populum logical fallacy, why are Mozart's works superior to those composers (and others presumably) you cite consuono?


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> When so many feel intuitively that the works of Mozart are superior to those of Rimsky-Korsakov (or Brahms or Janacek or Mahler), then something other than complete subjectivity is at work. Nobody who knows anything about music would say that Mozart and Rimsky-Korsakov are absolutely equal in artistic skill even within their own milieus. (By the way I think there's plenty of sensuous orchestral beauty in Mozart as well.) Or Beethoven and Rimsky-Korasakov.


Your argument boils down to "it is so because it has always been so."



> The artistic hierarchy is there whether you want to recognize it or not, which is why (again) the works of Brahms are valued more highly than those of his contemporary Raff. It really doesn't do to say that both are *equally* artistically satisfying simply because, well, both were individuals with different outlooks and visions and from different places on the globe. One is still more artistically satisfying than the other.


I recognize that there is an artistic hierarchy, but see it as a popularity contest, which is usually about PR and the quirks of human behavior in which favorites are chosen (for some reason: timing, charisma), and then held up to be the best. Over time that mercurial judgment solidifies in into unquestionable fact.



> Now that kind of consensus and recognition doesn't always come immediately -- see Bach -- but I do believe that the cream tends to rise to the top eventually. If music (including today's avant garde) is actually worthy, it will survive. If not, it will be forgotten.


I can live with that. I am happy to enjoy it in the present and do not concern myself with whether it is "great" or will survive or not.



janxharris said:


> Without using the argumentum ad populum logical fallacy, why are Mozart's works superior to those composers (and others presumably) you cite consuono?


I await your response.


----------



## SanAntone

The arguments I have seen regarding "objective" criteria for judging greatness in music more closely resemble religious arguments than any kind of empirical process. I have come to the conclusion the belief (and it is belief) in the greatness of the canonical composers is based on faith, not reason.

Which is fine. I don't have a dog in this hunt, really. I just listen to what I like no matter who thinks it is great music or not.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> The arguments I have seen regarding "objective" criteria for judging greatness in music more closely resemble religious arguments than any kind of empirical process. I have come to the conclusion the belief (and it is belief) in the greatness of the canonical composers is based on faith, not reason.
> 
> Which is fine. I don't have a dog in this hunt, really. I just listen to what I like no matter who thinks it is great music or not.


The greatness of the canonical composers is based on faith? I don't have a dog in this hunt? Repeating over and over that it is all subjective and 'I just listen to what I like no matter who thinks it is great' is not proof of anything.


----------



## Simon Moon

janxharris said:


> It's very interesting to read this SM. What work would you say is the earliest work that you enjoy?


I would say, I still get enjoyment from Ravel's music from the 1910's.

But, for the most part, the majority of my listening is music from post WWII, up through the present.


----------



## consuono

janxharris said:


> Without using the argumentum ad populum logical fallacy, why are Mozart's works superior to those composers (and others presumably) you cite consuono?


Form. Symmetry. Craftsmanship. The ability to create a musical universe out of some simple themes after coming up with those themes. Look into the construction of the piano concertos, for one thing. Those who are continually asking that sort of question may need to investigate music a little more deeply. Pointing to a consensus reaction is no more an ad populum argument than believing in a scientific consensus is. The consensus is that Tchaikovsky is a premier composer. Although I'm not a Tchaikovsky fan and am outside that consensus, I respect it and acknowledge the effect his music has on others. Now prove to me how Ferneyhough is "just as good as" Mozart. The proof of the skill of an artist lies in the power to move people, to have a number of people get a sense of skilled construction. Otherwise there's no point in listening at all. Any random blob of notes on a page are just as good as the Art of Fugue or the Missa solemnis.

No offense, but I think that "art is totally subjective" line of reasoning was invented to give cover to composers and other creative artists who really can't compose or otherwise create very well. "Hey, it's all good!" Presto change-o, believing that Mozart is better than Saunders becomes an act of faith.


SanAntone said:


> I await your response.


And now I await yours telling me why it is you think Brahms should be ranked higher than Raff.


----------



## Simon Moon

consuono said:


> Form. Craftsmanship. The ability to create a musical universe out of some simple themes after coming up with those themes. Look into the construction of the piano concertos, for one thing. Those who are continually asking that sort of question may need investigate music more deeply.


You seem to be pointing out the things you like about Mozart, as an argument as to why, those things you like about Mozart are superior. So now, you've added a circular argument to your list of fallacious arguments (ad populum and ad antiquitam).

And still, nothing objective on why he is superior.


----------



## consuono

Simon Moon said:


> You seem to be pointing out the things you like about Mozart, as an argument as to why, those things you like about Mozart are superior. So now, you've added a circular argument to your list of fallacious arguments (ad populum and ad antiquitam).
> 
> And still, nothing objective on why he is superior.


It would be circular if I were applying it only to Mozart. It applies to many composers. Now explain to me how "Happy Birthday" is just as good as Beethoven's fifth piano concerto. It is, isn't it? There's really no difference between this collection of notes and that one, after all. Right? If I were using an ad populum argument, "Happy Birthday" and Taylor Swift's latest opus would be my masterworks.
Why is it that you buy any music at all? If it's all the same, couldn't you just buy a cheap keyboard and bang on it randomly to your heart's content? You might bang out something that's just as good as Ravel. Would your resulting composition be just as good as one by Ravel? Can you compose as well as Ravel could?


----------



## Simon Moon

consuono said:


> Pointing to a consensus reaction is no more an ad populum argument than believing in a scientific consensus is.


This so wrong, it is not even wrong.

Scientific consensus is based on: demonstrable, repeatable, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence and observed facts.

It is not based on opinion.



> No offense, but I think that "art is totally subjective" line of reasoning was invented to give cover to composers and other creative artists who really can't compose or otherwise create very well. "Hey, it's all good!" Presto change-o, believing that Mozart is better than Saunders becomes an act of faith.
> And now I await yours telling me why it is you think Brahms should be ranked higher than Raff.


Now you are adding a straw man argument to your ever increasing fallacious arguments.

Please point out one statement by anyone here where they claim "art is totally subjective".

We're not comparting some trite mainstream pop to Mozart. We are comparing composers, all with relatively equal knowledge of advanced musical theory.

Saunders had a PhD in music from University of Edinburgh, earning a PhD in Composition. She also studied with other composers. So, it is not lack of knowledge as to why you think she is inferior, it is your opinion.


----------



## consuono

Simon Moon said:


> Please point out one statement by anyone here where they claim "art is totally subjective".


Oh, so it isn't, then? Tell me what's objective about it.



> We're not comparting some trite mainstream pop to Mozart.


Why not?


> We are comparing composers, all with relatively equal knowledge of advanced musical theory.


Ah, "advanced musical theory". How is that "better" than rudimentary musical theory? How does "knowledge" in itself make a work "better"?


> Saunders had a PhD in music from University of Edinburgh, earning a PhD in Composition. She also studied with other composers. So, it is not lack of knowledge as to why you think she is inferior, it is your opinion.


And now the appeal to authority. I couldn't care less how many degrees she has. It doesn't mean you can compose anything. It's not lack of knowledge, it's lack of talent.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Form. Symmetry. Craftsmanship. The ability to create a musical universe out of some simple themes after coming up with those themes.


You have just described every composer of the 18th century.



> And now I await yours telling me why it is you think Brahms should be ranked higher than Raff.


I don't know that Brahms is better than Raff; I do enjoy Brahms but I haven't spent much time listening to Raff. Some people may indeed prefer Raff over Brahms. It has become obvious you certainly cannot prove to me using objective criteria that Brahms is the better composer.


----------



## DaveM

Simon Moon said:


> You seem to be pointing out the things you like about Mozart, as an argument as to why, those things you like about Mozart are superior. So now, you've added a circular argument to your list of fallacious arguments (ad populum and ad antiquitam).
> 
> And still, nothing objective on why he is superior.


So you don't think Mozart was a skilled composer.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> I don't know that Brahms is better than Raff; I do enjoy Brahms but I haven't spent much time listening to Raff. Some people may indeed prefer Raff over Brahms. It has become obvious you certainly cannot prove to me using objective criteria that Brahms is the better composer.


So I guess now you're recanting and saying that Brahms and Raff should be ranked equally. OK, it's consistent now at least.


SanAntone said:


> You have just described every composer of the 18th century.


That would also describe Wagner and Bruckner though. And Mahler and Strauss and Brahms and Dvorak. And Janacek. And Tchaikovsky. And Raff.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> So I guess now you're recanting and saying that Brahms and Raff should be ranked equally. OK, it's consistent now at least.


I never ranked Brahms above Raff. You did that. I don't rank composers other than according to my favorites.



> That would also describe Wagner and Bruckner though. And Mahler and Strauss and Brahms and Dvorak. And Janacek. And Tchaikovsky. And Raff.


The specific attributes you used to describe Mozart were the characteristic attributes of the 18th century style. The trick would be to demonstrate empirically how Mozart is a better composer than Pleyel or Krommer or Dussek or Kozeluch.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> I never ranked Brahms above Raff. You did that. I don't rank composers other than according to my favorites.


No, you did that quite a while back. I'll have to dig up the quote.



> The specific attributes you used to describe Mozart were the characteristic attributes of the 18th century style. The trick would be to demonstrate empirically how Mozart is a better composer than Pleyel or Krommer or Dussek or Kozeluch.


Would you say Mozart's no better than the others?


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> No, you did that quite a while back. I'll have to dig up the quote.


I'd be surprised since I don't rank composers other than those I like more than others. I suspect you misunderstood me or are taking my comment out of context.

I haven't listened to much Raff, but I am listening to his string quartets right now. I am enjoying them, and would be hard pressed to say if I like Brahms's quartets more or not.



> Would you say Mozart's no better than the others?


I don't know if he is or not. What I know is for some reason, Mozart's profile is much higher than the rest - but that could be simply a result of good marketing, his personal mythology, and mob mentality. I keep asking for objective criteria to prove that Mozart is better, but so far no one has come up with anything.


----------



## SanAntone

I have observed it firsthand how a very talented songwriter or performer has not become as popular or as well known as an equally talented (or sometimes less talented) songwriter or performer simply because of their personality, charisma or other non-musical aspects. 

I suspect that is why Mozart is better known and considered greater than his contemporaries. For some reason his star rose higher than others because of his personal impact on the society of his time.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> I'd be surprised since I don't rank composers other than those I like more than others. I suspect you misunderstood me or are taking my comment out of context.
> 
> I haven't listened to much Raff, but I am listening to his string quartets right now. I am enjoying them, and would be hard pressed to say if I like Brahms's quartets more or not.
> 
> I don't know if he is or not. What I know is for some reason, Mozart's profile is much higher than the rest - but that could be simply a result of 'good marketing, his personal mythology, and mob mentality'. I keep asking for objective criteria to prove that Mozart is better, but so far no one has come up with anything.


So rather than Mozart having some skill/ability that is objectively better than many other composers of the time or later, it is more likely to be good marketing, his personal mythology and mob mentality. Or maybe 'personality, charisma or other non-musical aspects'.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> So rather than Mozart having some skill/ability that is objectively better than many other composers of the time or later, it is more likely to be good marketing, his personal mythology and mob mentality.


Yep, you got it. Unless you can demonstrate using empirical objective criteria to prove otherwise.


----------



## SanAntone

I knew a Russian pianist who believed that *Johann Nepomuk Hummel *was equal to or a better composer than Beethoven. She was so committed to this idea that she had a Hummel tattoo on her arm.

Prove to her she is wrong and Beethoven is a demonstrably better composer than Hummel.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> I knew a Russian pianist who believed that *Johann Nepomuk Hummel *was equal to or a better composer than Beethoven. She was so committed to this idea that she had a Hummel tattoo on her arm.
> 
> Prove to her she is wrong and Beethoven is a demonstrably better composer than Hummel.


No, I asked you if you think Mozart is no better than the others. One Russian pianist Hummel fan is no more significant than my individual lack of enthusiasm for Tchaikovsky.

So what is it that you enjoy about whatever composers you advocate for here? What is it that Cage does better than anybody else? And can you prove empirically that he wasn't a charlatan engaged in a big joke? I'm not saying he was, but I'm wondering about empirical proof...and if you don't have it I wonder why you get so upset if someone suggests a possibility that you can't prove empirically is not true.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> No, I asked you if you think Mozart is no better than the others. One Russian pianist Hummel fan is no more significant than my individual lack of enthusiasm for Tchaikovsky.
> 
> So what is it that you enjoy about whatever composers you advocate for here? What is it that Cage does better than anybody else? And can you prove empirically that he wasn't a charlatan engaged in a big joke? I'm not saying he was, but I'm wondering about empirical proof...and if you don't have it I wonder why you get so upset if someone suggests a possibility that you can't prove empirically is not true.


You have me confused with someone who wants to prove that my personal favorites are "great" composers. That is the last thing I wish to do.

I enjoy the contemporaries of Mozart just as much as I do Mozart. I have no reason to know that Mozart is demonstrably a better composer. However, I do enjoy Mozart's operas and haven't found any to challenge them, except possibly Gluck.

You and others are obsessed with greatness. That is your bailiwick, not mine. I happily enjoy on a purely subjective basis the composers I like.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> You have me confused with someone who wants to prove that my personal favorites are "great" composers. That is the last thing I wish to do.
> 
> I enjoy the contemporaries of Mozart just as much as I do Mozart. I have no reason to know that Mozart is demonstrably a better composer. However, I do enjoy Mozart's operas and haven't found any to challenge them, except possibly Gluck.
> 
> You and others are obsessed with greatness. That is your bailiwick, not mine. I happily enjoy on a purely subjective basis the composers I like.


I'm obsessed with great music, great achievement. I don't have to pretend that all of it is of equal value just to prop up a genre or composers that I like. In the end that means nothing is of any real value. As some writer, maybe Mailer, once said, "we use the word s--- so that we can use the word noble". Your obsession would be with maintaining the proper respect and automatic assumptions of sincerity and artistic integrity toward the genre and composers that you enjoy based on no empirical evidence whatsoever. But yet you demand that kind of evidence. ALL you are entitled to say on that basis is "I like this", and that's it. Period.


> I enjoy the contemporaries of Mozart just as much as I do Mozart. I have no reason to know that Mozart is demonstrably a better composer. However, I do enjoy Mozart's operas and haven't found any to challenge them, except possibly Gluck.


So what is it particularly that you like about Mozart's operas? There must be some reason, or else you can rank Berg's Wozzeck or Humperdinck's Hansel and Gretel exactly precisely absolutely the same as The Marriage of Figaro.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> I'm obsessed with great music, great achievement. I don't have to pretend that all of it is if equal value just to prop up a genre or composers that I like. In the end that means nothing is of any real value. As some writer, maybe Mailer, once said, "we use the word s--- so that we can use the word noble". Your obsession would be with maintaining the proper respect and automatic assumptions of sincerity and artistic integrity toward the genre and composers and genre that you enjoy based on no empirical evidence whatsoever. But yet you demand that kind of evidence.


No, I don't think about it that much. I have listened to more Mozart than Hummel simply because Mozart has been so much more pervasive than Hummel. But when I listen to Hummel I don't hear a big difference in quality from Beethoven.

This thread is all about telling the difference between "great" avant-garde music from "mediocre" avant-garde music. But if we can't demonstrate that Mozart in inherently better than Pleyel, using empirical evidence, then how can we do that with modern music?


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> No, I don't think about it that much. I have listened to more Mozart than Hummel simply because Mozart has been so much more pervasive than Hummel. But when I listen to Hummel I don't hear a big difference in quality from Beethoven.
> 
> This thread is all about telling the difference between "great" avant-garde music from "mediocre" avant-garde music. But if we can't demonstrate that Mozart in inherently better than Pleyel, using empirical evidence, then how can we do that with modern music?


If you can't distinguish between Beethoven and Hummel, why do you take it upon yourself to distinguish between John Cage and John Williams? Or John Lennon, for that matter.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Mozart and Brahms are "better" than their contemporaries because their ideas are deeper and better elaborated. They knew tonality at a far deeper level and thus the working-out of the character, conflicts, and movement of the thematic ideas is more in accordance with their true nature. This results in a more continuous and intense elevation of experience for the listener.

Differences in quality such as these only become apparent once familiarity with the language has been gained, which is why many CP-period listeners have a hard time distinguishing between good and mediocre music in new styles. You have to learn Chinese before you can distinguish between the content of two speeches given in the language.


----------



## consuono

By the way, I've listened to a lot of Hummel. He was good. But no, he ain't no Mozart or Beethoven.


----------



## SanAntone

Isaac Blackburn said:


> Mozart and Brahms are "better" than their contemporaries because their ideas are deeper and better elaborated.


Just saying it does not make it so.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> By the way, I've listened to a lot of Hummel. He was good. But no, he ain't no Mozart or Beethoven.


So you say. Prove it.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> So you say. Prove it.


If this had Mozart's or Beethoven's name on it, we'd call it a "lesser work".





And now Mozart:





Empirical evidence enough for me.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I hear some idiomatic similarities of language between Hummel and Beethoven (although Beethoven may be more interesting overall):

Hummel Etude Op. 125 No. 21 in B flat major, Allegro moderato: 



Beethoven piano sonata Op.106 1st movement: 




Hummel - Piano Sonata No. 5 In F-sharp Minor Op. 81:












Beethoven piano sonata Op.110:









the slow movement of Hummel's Op.81 also somewhat reminds me of that of Beethoven's Op.106 in atmosphere.



SanAntone said:


> This thread is all about telling the difference between "great" avant-garde music from "mediocre" avant-garde music. But if we can't demonstrate that Mozart in inherently better than Pleyel, using empirical evidence, then how can we do that with modern music?


But some artists have inspired more than others through history, and in the OP, I linked to a lecture that investigates "elements" of a composer who inspired more than his contemporaries.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> You have just described every composer of the 18th century.


No. They didn't create with the same level of quality or substance.



hammeredklavier said:


> Johann Gottlieb Naumann (1741~1801), a kapellmeister of Dresden, could only write in a half-baked pseudo-Bachian style that reminds us of the Edward Lowinsky quote [1] (listen to the second kyrie of his final work, Missa No.21 in C minor, for example)


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> I hear some idiomatic similarities of language between Hummel and Beethoven (although Beethoven may be more interesting overall):


You know what I hear in that Hummel concerto? Chopin without Chopin's knack for melody. Chopin must've been a Hummel fan as well. Stylistically though the Hummel concerto is all over the parking lot, like he's thinking "ok, now for some arpeggios...now a chromatic scale...now a double chromatic scale ...now some thirds fourths and fifths. "


----------



## SanAntone

I guess you don't see that all you are doing is saying "Mozart or Beethoven is just better." 

Needless to say, it doesn't convince.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> You know what I hear in that Hummel concerto? Chopin without Chopin's knack for melody. Chopin must've been a Hummel fan as well because in spots that Hummel piece is eerily like Chopin.


Yes, Hummel was a sort of a friend and a mentor to Chopin. Chopin's early style was influenced by Hummel's works like the "Grande rondo brillante". https://www.earlymusicamerica.org/files/EMagSummer07Hummel.pdf#page=3

Hummel, Fantasy for Piano in E flat Major op. 18 (1805) - IV. Allegro assai: 



Chopin - Ballade No. 4, Op. 52: 




Hummel: Piano Variations Op.57 - 4. Variation: Scherzando 



Chopin Écossaises Op.posth.72 No.3 



Hummel Etude Op.125 No.19 




Hummel Etude Op. 125: No. 3, Tempo di polacca


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> I guess you don't see that all you are doing is saying "Mozart or Beethoven is just better."
> 
> Needless to say, it doesn't convince.


Well if you think otherwise, that's fine. Now convince us that avant garde isn't a sham.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> I guess you don't see that all you are doing is saying "Mozart or Beethoven is just better."
> Needless to say, it doesn't convince.


You got to admit. Naumann's final efforts are nothing but mundanity. But look how Mozart breaks up the main subject in the Et vitam venturi and develops the fragments intricately in strettos, -particularly this expressively dissonant section: 



I've talked about these things in many threads - post1995150


----------



## ArtMusic

consuono said:


> Well if you think otherwise, that's fine. Now convince us that avant garde isn't a sham.


I have not yet met one who can convincingly answer:

(1) How do you tell if an extreme avant-garde piece is well performed?

(2) If I blindfolded the listener or introduced the listener to a "new piece" pretending to be a recognized artist, when in fact it was just me shooting random musical notes, they have always assumed I was actually introducing a "new piece" by recognized artist. (Others have done the same experiment with the visual arts, too.) This proves that a prior recognition is a non-musical one but one of perception.

Music and art must have standards by which it can be judged, not one that we are forced to be polite to, because that is just simply dishonesty.


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> I guess you don't see that all you are doing is saying "Mozart or Beethoven is just better."
> 
> Needless to say, it doesn't convince.


I'm not sure what kind of criteria you are after? Posters have provided several specific examples of the greater ingenuity, invention, and expressivity of "greater" composers over "lesser" composers.

If you wish for airtight definitions like those found in formal logic as to the "objective greatness" of music, you're certainly not going to get any, but this would be a patently unreasonable definition as we can't define basically any of science (or in a sense, even mathematics) with such definitions. If you wish for informal definitions understandable to competent people, then you already have these, no?


----------



## DaveM

DaveM said:


> So rather than Mozart having some skill/ability that is objectively better than many other composers of the time or later, it is more likely to be good marketing, his personal mythology and mob mentality. Or maybe 'personality, charisma or other non-musical aspects'.





SanAntone said:


> Yep, you got it. Unless you can demonstrate using empirical objective criteria to prove otherwise.





SanAntone said:


> The specific attributes you used to describe Mozart were the characteristic attributes of the 18th century style. The trick would be to demonstrate empirically how Mozart is a better composer than Pleyel or Krommer or Dussek or Kozeluch.


Thought it would be a good idea to have all of the above in one place for posterity.

You keep asking for 'empirical objective criteria' for the greatness of Mozart. I know it exists because I am a long-time classical music listener and a reasonably good pianist, but the fact is that it would be presumptuous for me to even try to explain in words something that is the subject of many books by authors and lectures by musicologists far more experienced on the subject than me and video presentations by some of the great conductors and artists.

I could point these out to you, but why would I spend the time when you can Google yourself. In fact, I'm wondering why you haven't taken the time to educate yourself on the subject already. Or perhaps you have: I'd be happy to be directed to books on why Mozart was no greater than any other composer and is more likely considered great because of good marketing, personal mythology and mob mentality.

As for Pleyel, Krommer, Dussek or Kozeluch, just picking one genre, I'm not familiar with any great operas they're known for. Perhaps you can direct me.

Anyway, I don't know of any work having been written quite like this in 1778 when Mozart was only 22. And it wasn't even one of his greatest ones. Was it popular due to good marketing? Well, it sold me:


----------



## consuono

consuono said:


> Well if you think otherwise, that's fine. Now convince us that avant garde isn't a sham.


And I'll quote myself just to repeat that I'm not saying the avant garde is a sham. On the subject of logical fallacies, this thread has taken a turn in which it's a tu quoque argument in the form of "no, we really don't have a standard by which to say this avant garde piece is bad and this is only so-so. But it's the same with you...you can't empirically say that Mozart is better than _______, so there!" That's disingenuous. The fact is we do say Mozart's better than _______ whereas your philosophical position in regards to the avant garde is that there can be no such artistic hierarchies. To recognize such hierarchies is to admit the possibility that some of this avant garde stuff could be incompetent junk, which in turn could start a chain reaction that endangers the whole genre. So to head that off, there can be no such thing as "incompetent junk" as long as the creator is sufficiently "serious". You're just forced by logical consistency to say that ultimately Mozart is no better a composer than the college sophomore putting together an avant garde piece for glockenspiel and paper bag.


----------



## janxharris

consuono said:


> Form. Symmetry. Craftsmanship. The ability to create a musical universe out of some simple themes after coming up with those themes. Look into the construction of the piano concertos, for one thing. Those who are continually asking that sort of question may need to investigate music a little more deeply. Pointing to a consensus reaction is no more an ad populum argument than believing in a scientific consensus is. The consensus is that Tchaikovsky is a premier composer. Although I'm not a Tchaikovsky fan and am outside that consensus, I respect it and acknowledge the effect his music has on others.


I too respect Tchaikovsky as you do; such composers who's music has stood the test of time have almost certainly demonstrated great craftsmanship - but I was asking why you went further and put Mozart objectively above the likes of Brahms and Mahler?



> Now prove to me how Ferneyhough is "just as good as" Mozart. The proof of the skill of an artist lies in the power to move people, to have a number of people get a sense of skilled construction. Otherwise there's no point in listening at all. Any random blob of notes on a page are just as good as the Art of Fugue or the Missa solemnis.


I'm not that familiar with Ferneyhough and I do share some of your reservations about AG music.



> No offense, but I think that "art is totally subjective" line of reasoning was invented to give cover to composers and other creative artists who really can't compose or otherwise create very well. "Hey, it's all good!" Presto change-o, believing that Mozart is better than Saunders becomes an act of faith.


Due to the abstract nature of music where one listener's interpretation of what the composer 'meant' may be vastly different though not necessarily less worthy than another's means that I find it difficult to be categorical - hence my 'almost certain' above.

In my mind, my favourite works are superior to all other works - but that is just in my mind at this juncture. I'm happy to accept that others have a entirely different experience.


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> I'm not sure what kind of criteria you are after? Posters have provided several specific examples of the greater ingenuity, invention, and expressivity of "greater" composers over "lesser" composers.


"Greater ingenuity, invention, and expressivity" in their opinion (or in the opinion of someone else), which is a subjective response.



> If you wish for airtight definitions like those found in formal logic as to the "objective greatness" of music, you're certainly not going to get any,


Thank you. Music is judged "great" subjectively.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> And I'll quote myself just to repeat that I'm not saying the avant garde is a sham. On the subject of logical fallacies, this thread has taken a turn in which it's a tu quoque argument in the form of "no, we really don't have a standard by which to say this avant garde piece is bad and this is only so-so. But it's the same with you...you can't empirically say that Mozart is better than _______, so there!" That's disingenuous. The fact is we do say Mozart's better than _______ whereas your philosophical position in regards to the avant garde is that there can be no such artistic hierarchies. To recognize such hierarchies is to admit the possibility that some of this avant garde stuff could be incompetent junk, which in turn could start a chain reaction that endangers the whole genre. So to head that off, there can be no such thing as "incompetent junk" as long as the creator is sufficiently "serious". You're just forced by logical consistency to say that ultimately Mozart is no better a composer than the college sophomore putting together an avant garde piece for glockenspiel and paper bag.


You can claim that the avant-garde is a sham, but that is a subjective response. I can claim that the avant-garde is not a sham just as easily. Your hypothetical "some of this avant-garde stuff could be incompetent junk" could just as easily be said about 18th century composers, or from the 17th or 19th centuries. But it is a hypothetical statement, not proof of anything.

You have a subjective bias against the avant-garde. Which is fine as long as you recognize it as such and not try to shroud it in some kind of definitive status.

I am not arguing that all composers are on the same level. What I am saying is that there is no objective criteria to prove that one composer is better, or greater, than another. All we can do is cite subjective responses, by ourselves, or some authority figure, to rank composers.


----------



## Kilgore Trout

Why does every thread about avant-garde ends up in a fight about wether avant-garde is a scam or not? What "avant-garde" is all this even about?


----------



## janxharris

Kilgore Trout said:


> Why does every thread about avant-garde ends up in a fight about wether avant-garde is a scam or not? What "avant-garde" is all this even about?


Just like the reaction to Beethoven's Grosse Fuge...music, especially new music, does not necessarily deserve respect - it's earned isn't it?


----------



## consuono

janxharris said:


> I too respect Tchaikovsky as you do; such composers who's music has stood the test of time have almost certainly demonstrated great craftsmanship - but I was asking why you went further and put Mozart objectively above the likes of Brahms and Mahler?


Because of Mozart's greater skill at all the above. Tracing thematic development in Mozart is just as objective as measurements of the Parthenon would be.


janxharris said:


> Just like the reaction to Beethoven's Grosse Fuge...music, especially new music, does not necessarily deserve respect - it's earned isn't it?


Why doesn't it deserve respect if everything is subjective? Apparently the composer respected it.


SanAntone said:


> You can claim that the avant-garde is a sham, but that is a subjective response. I can claim that the avant-garde is not a sham just as easily. Your hypothetical "some of this avant-garde stuff could be incompetent junk" could just as easily be said about 18th century composers, or from the 17th or 19th centuries. ...


It certainly could be, and we'd call it that...the point being that applying that label to anything in the avant garde is verboten, since it's all good since everything's good. Or neither good nor bad. Well, good to me but bad to you and...


SanAntone said:


> "Greater ingenuity, invention, and expressivity" in their opinion (or in the opinion of someone else), which is a subjective response.


Is musical innovation and "freshness" subjective and a matter of opinion as well? Then to some other commenter Cage and others are charlatans and saying so should not cause such consternation among the avant-garde's hyper-subjective fans. The critics are just giving "their truth" which you can't empirically disprove.


----------



## janxharris

consuono said:


> Why doesn't it deserve respect if everything is subjective? Apparently the composer respected it.


Not sure why you have posted this - perhaps I wasn't clear in my posts above. I think his Fuge is good (though I am not entirely convinced by it).

If someone has solid, explainable reasons for disliking works that you might deem superior to almost all other works (as you suggested with Mozart), then what can we say?


----------



## consuono

janxharris said:


> Not sure why you have posted this - perhaps I wasn't clear in my posts above. I think his Fuge is good (though I am not entirely convinced by it).
> 
> If someone has solid, explainable reasons for disliking works that you might deem superior to almost all other works (as you suggested with Mozart), then what can we say?


I'm posting it because I'm asking a question. What is this "earned respect" of which you speak? Either an individual likes a piece or not in his/her own subjective way. How has the Große Fuge "earned respect", exactly?


----------



## janxharris

consuono said:


> Because of Mozart's greater skill at all the above. Tracing thematic development in Mozart is just as objective as measurements of the Parthenon would be.


I am yet to see what you speak of - so please would you provide an example of such 'measurements'? Music does not translate exactly in all minds - it's abstract. Your fantastic motivic development may mean nothing to me and vice versa.


----------



## consuono

janxharris said:


> I am yet to see what you speak of - so please would you provide an example of such 'measurements'? Music does not translate exactly in all minds - it's abstract. Your fantastic motivic development may mean nothing to me and vice versa.


Do you read music? Look at a score.


----------



## janxharris

consuono said:


> I'm posting it because I'm asking a question. What is this "earned respect" of which you speak? Either an individual likes a piece or not in his/her own subjective way. How has the Große Fuge "earned respect", exactly?


I said before that pieces that have stood the test of time deserve some respect even if we have reservations about them - we should acknowledge that they work for a good many people - a great achievement for any composer.


----------



## consuono

janxharris said:


> I said before that pieces that have stood the test of time deserve some respect even if we have reservations about them - we should acknowledge that they work for a good many people - a great achievement for any composer.


They deserve "some respect" just for being old?? If you don't like the Große Fuge in your subjective taste, why should you respect it? Are you just following the herd?


----------



## janxharris

consuono said:


> Do you read music? Look at a score.


I do read music and do study scores, yes.

consuono, I respect your opinion that Mozart is superior to Mahler, Brahms and others - but I do not accept you have demonstrated it objectively.


----------



## consuono

Duplicate deleted....


----------



## consuono

janxharris said:


> I do read music and do study scores, yes.
> 
> consuono, I respect your opinion that Mozart is superior to Mahler, Brahms and others - but I do not accept you have demonstrated it objectively.


Hm. Is Mozart objectively superior to John Cage, or are they objectively on the same level? And now the same question but with Taylor Swift in place of John Cage.


----------



## janxharris

consuono said:


> Is Mozart superior to John Cage, or are they objectively on the same level?


I don't know Cage's work apart from 4.33.


----------



## consuono

janxharris said:


> I don't know Cage's work apart from 4.33.


But you know Mozart and maybe also Taylor Swift...and if not Taylor Swift then maybe you know Lady Gaga. Same question. And if music is so "abstract", then on what objective basis is there a "classical music" and a forum dedicated to it? Those categorizations would have to be illusory.


----------



## millionrainbows

_Music history_ is how we can escape the confines of subjectivity. Although it is not a science, history is based on observable evidence of events. The historian then weighs this evidence, and comes to conclusions which seem the most likely.

The historical emergence of Beethoven, Brahms, and Mozart is based on observations such as these.

The historical emergence of Stravinsky, John Cage, and Pierre Boulez is also based on historical observations such as these, although not as much time has passed; but it can be argued that "history is moving faster" in this modern era.


----------



## janxharris

consuono said:


> Hm. Is Mozart objectively superior to John Cage, or are they objectively on the same level? And now the same question but with Taylor Swift in place of John Cage.


I have reservation about almost all of Mozart's music (with a few exceptions) - same with Swift's (she has a team of writers I believe). Wouldn't want to speak objectively - but I'd place Mozart over Swift.


----------



## Kilgore Trout

So we're supposed to get from this thread that "John Cage (or Taylor Swift, I'm not sure anymore) is not as good as a composer as Mozart" = "Avant-garde is a scam".

Okey-dokey.


----------



## janxharris

consuono said:


> But you know Mozart and maybe also Taylor Swift...and if not Taylor Swift then maybe you know Lady Gaga. Same question. And if music is so "abstract", then on what objective basis is there a "classical music" and a forum dedicated to it? Those categorizations would have to be illusory.


Mozart over Gaga.

I don't really distinguish classical music from other styles of music - it's all just music to me. My favourite pieces are classical but there is plenty of non-classical music I prefer to classical lower down on my list.


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> I don't really distinguish classical music from other styles of music - it's all just music to me. My favourite pieces are classical but there is plenty of non-classical music I prefer to classical lower down on my list.


I *do* distinguish, because I have different criteria and expectations which apply to each genre. That being said, my *enjoyment* of music is not affected as much by these criteria, but it does have some influence.

I think to say "there is no distinction between classical and other styles" applies *only* to the "pleasure principle" in music, and is somewhat misleading if taken more literally. I think it is said to avoid making unfair value judgements and rankings, so in that sense it is a noble sentiment.

...But Lady Gaga and Mozart? I can distinguish the difference in a nanosecond, and most other listeners can, too.

When it come to "great vs. average avant-garde music," I think more specific criteria are applicable, although it might boil down to simpler, more obvious factors such as "I like the sound of this soprano better than this other," or "This version has Leonard Rose on cello," and things like that.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> I *do* distinguish, because I have different criteria and expectations which apply to each genre. That being said, my *enjoyment* of music is not affected as much by these criteria, but it does have some influence.
> 
> I think to say "there is no distinction between classical and other styles" applies *only* to the "pleasure principle" in music, and is somewhat misleading if taken more literally. I think it is said to avoid making unfair value judgements and rankings, so in that sense it is a noble sentiment.
> 
> ...But Lady Gaga and Mozart? I can distinguish the difference in a nanosecond, and most other listeners can, too.


Not entirely clear of your meaning MR. In particular in the last sentence - what difference are you pointing out? Of course there _are _differences.


----------



## consuono

Kilgore Trout said:


> So we're supposed to get from this thread that "John Cage (or Taylor Swift, I'm not sure anymore) is not as good as a composer as Mozart" = "Avant-garde is a scam".
> 
> Okey-dokey.


No, what we're supposed to get is John Cage = Mozart = Lady Gaga = Taylor Swift = avant garde = Classicism = honky tonk, as there is no objective difference (and certainly no variation in anything so ephemeral and subjective as "quality") between any two of the above.

Okey-dokey?



janxharris said:


> Wouldn't want to speak objectively - but I'd place Mozart over Swift.


Why?

Not speaking to you particularly, but I'm just waiting for the "apples and oranges" statement from someone.


----------



## consuono

Ooops...wrong thread


----------



## janxharris

consuono said:


> No, what we're supposed to get is John Cage = Mozart = Lady Gaga = Taylor Swift = avant garde = Classicism = honky tonk, as there is no objective difference between any two of the above.
> 
> Okey-dokey?
> 
> Why?
> 
> Not speaking to you particularly, but I'm just waiting for the "apples and oranges" statement from someone.


His 40th symphony resonates with me.

Are you going to explain to the fans of Brahms and Mahler etc why their works are objectively inferior?


----------



## consuono

janxharris said:


> His 40th symphony resonates with me.
> 
> Are you going to explain to the fans of Brahms and Mahler etc why their works are objectively inferior?


Overall, Mozart resonates with me more. And with apparently millions of others.

Are you going to explain how Mozart is the same as Taylor Swift or her writing team?


----------



## janxharris

consuono said:


> Overall, Mozart resonates with me more. And with apparently millions of others.


I know that Mozart is popular. My question was specifically about why you have elevated your opinion above some others that don't agree with you.



> Are you going to explain how Mozart is the same as Taylor Swift or her writing team?


I did not say they were the same. Perhaps I wasn't clear.


----------



## consuono

janxharris said:


> I know that Mozart is popular.


Hm. What do you think accounts for that popularity? He was popular with Brahms and Mahler too, btw. In fact I think "Mozart" was Mahler's last word.



> I did not say they were the same. Perhaps I wasn't clear.


They aren't of the same quality or what? It's all abstract anyway so maybe they are, right? If this one dislikes Mozart but loves Taylor, then that's all that matters.


----------



## Mandryka

Don’t people play Mozart etc to get rid of troublesome teenagers from parking lots and shopping centres? They can’t stand the stuff! Mozart’s music is a sort of pest control.


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> Don't people play Mozart etc to get rid of troublesome teenagers from parking lots and shopping centres? They can't stand the stuff! Mozart's music is a sort of pest control.


I've never heard Mozart on a PA system except maybe in Shawshank Redemption.


----------



## Mandryka

I conclude you’re not a troublesome teenager.


----------



## janxharris

consuono said:


> Hm. What do you think accounts for that popularity? He was popular with Brahms and Mahler too, btw. In fact I think "Mozart" was Mahler's last word.


I and others have already mentioned the logical fallacy of an argumentum ad populum.



> They aren't of the same quality or what? It's all abstract anyway so maybe they are, right? If this one dislikes Mozart but loves Taylor, then that's all that matters.


Why would it bother you if someone thought a Swift song superior to a Mozart aria?

I did ask this:

_My question was specifically about why you have elevated your opinion above some others that don't agree with you._

In effect you are telling fans of Brahms and Mahler et al that they esteem inferior music. Is that correct?


----------



## consuono

janxharris said:


> I and others have already mentioned the logical fallacy of an argumentum ad populum.


Which doesn't answer the question.



> Why would it bother you if someone thought a Swift song superior to a Mozart aria?


It doesn't bother me in the least. And still didn't answer the question.


> In effect you are telling fans of Brahms and Mahler et al that they esteem inferior music. Is that correct?


Yes, that is correct. And most fans of Brahms and Mahler would probably agree, as would probably Brahms and Mahler themselves.

Now, in effect you are saying that Mozart is no "better" than the Spice Girls. Is that correct?


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> "Greater ingenuity, invention, and expressivity" in their opinion (or in the opinion of someone else), which is a subjective response.


You can put "in their opinion" to invalidate any argument. I could claim the Earth is round; you could then put "in your opinion". Given the remarkable consensus among people educated in music on the fact that Beethoven's symphonies are more innovative than those of his contemporaries, I would think you would need a very good reason to dismiss this all as "in their opinion".



SanAntone said:


> Thank you. Music is judged "great" subjectively.


So is science subjective? You can't apply airtight definitions like those found in formal logic to science either. My point is the standard you require to deem music "objective" probably results in pretty well nothing being deemed "objective" which is patently absurd.

I have a question for those in the subjective camp: I'm a terrible singer; completely awful. Is the statement: "Caruso was a better singer than me" objectively meaningless because there is no basis upon which to evaluate singing objectively. And if so, would we not have to conclude that I'm no better or worse a singer than Caruso in the same way red is no better a colour than blue? Do you not find this conclusion a wee bit silly?


----------



## janxharris

consuono said:


> Which doesn't answer the question.
> 
> It doesn't bother me in the least. And still didn't answer the question.


With respect consuono, it is you who has made the bold pronouncement that Mozart's works are superior to the composers you have cited (and by implications other ones too) but you have not provided any reasonable explanation to back that up.

I prefer a lot of 'popular' music to Mozart - I don't really include Swift among those though - but I haven't heard everything she has put out (it's not really my thing).

In terms of Mozart's popularity - I acknowledge his achievement's in that respect, but since I don't rate a lot of his work it's hard for me to explain why so many like it. Best to ask a fan.


----------



## consuono

> Do you not find this conclusion a wee bit silly?


I find it a wee bit insane, to be honest.


----------



## DaveM

janxharris said:


> Not entirely clear of your meaning MR. In particular in the last sentence - what difference are you pointing out? Of course there _are _differences.


Then why are you saying, 'I don't really distinguish classical music from other styles of music.'?


----------



## consuono

> In terms of Mozart's popularity - I acknowledge his achievement's in that respect, but since I don't rate a lot of his work it's hard for me to explain why so many like it. Best to ask a fan.


You mention "popularity" as if it's totally arbitrary and popped out of a vacuum somewhere. There's gotta be a reason for a popularity that's lasted over 2 centuries.


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> You can put "in their opinion" to invalidate any argument. I could claim the Earth is round; you could then put "in your opinion". Given the remarkable consensus among people educated in music on the fact that Beethoven's symphonies are more innovative than those of his contemporaries, I would think you would need a very good reason to dismiss this all as "in their opinion".
> 
> So is science subjective? You can't apply airtight definitions like those found in formal logic to science either. My point is the standard you require to deem music "objective" probably results in pretty well nothing being deemed "objective" which is patently absurd.
> 
> I have a question for those in the subjective camp: I'm a terrible singer; completely awful. Is the statement: "Caruso was a better singer than me" objectively meaningless because there is no basis upon which to evaluate singing objectively. And if so, would we not have to conclude that I'm no better or worse a singer than Caruso in the same way red is no better a colour than blue? Do you not find this conclusion a wee bit silly?


Throughout this thread I have asked for objective criteria. What has been produced is appeal to authority, e.g. "the remarkable consensus among people educated in music" or the test of time, or overall popularity.

Your example of singing has objective criteria: singing in tune, and the ability to project your voice and control it. Science also has objective criteria to determine that the earth is not flat.

So, no, I am not saying that everything is subjective and just an opinion. I am saying that it is very hard to find objective criteria for assessing music. However, it is very easy for each of us to describe the music we find beautiful, and we don't rely on anything but our own ears.

But we don't all agree. I doubt there is a list of the top 25 composers, ranked according to greatness, that we would all agree on.

There's the rub.


----------



## mmsbls

consuono said:


> But it isn't impossible or in some way a transgression. Even non-experts can detect symmetry, craftsmanship and beauty in Mozart's entire body of work and say comparatively that Rimsky-Korsakov's doesn't quite measure up.


Certainly experts can make statements about classical works where they consider elements of the work and assess comparative value. Some non-experts can make some of the same statements, but I suspect many on TC would have trouble making clear statements explaining why one work might be superior to another. I am in the latter class.



consuono said:


> I think the point the OP was making was that with avant garde and really with contemporary "serious" music in general that kind of comparative judgement is gauche at best. We're not allowed to judge "intensely personal artistic expression". It is its own standard and so you won't really have much of a "debate" or a critical comparison of Cage vs Carter vs Ligeti vs Ferneyhough in terms of skill and effectiveness of their music.


Certainly anyone is allowed to judge avant-garde music or any "intensely personal artistic expression". In a general sense it has the same standard as any music. I asked my daughter about assessing avant-garde works. She has years of formal music theory and history and has assessed various CPT and fewer modern works. She said she would do the same thing with an avant-garde work as with a CPT work. Basically, she would figure out what the composer's intent was (i.e. "what was she trying to say") and determine to what extent the composer succeeded.

The problem with avant-garde works is twofold. First, there is vastly less analysis and history with such analysis so it's much harder to understand what elements exist for avant-garde work and how they are used. Second, CPT composers use many of the same elements in their works (e.g. harmony, forms, fugues based on melodies), but modern and avant-garde composers write with a more varied style. In one sense one has to learn each composer's style rather than just understand early Romantic music.

Still, one can determine what the avant-garde work is all about and then assess how well it achieved its goals. I suspect that there are relatively few people on TC who would be qualified and have the desire to assess avant-garde music.



consuono said:


> Incidentally I'm not even sure that Mozart's 20th is objectively even *his* greatest piano concerto. I can think of 5 or 6 that I would rank higher.





janxharris said:


> Why is it true that 'the objectively greatest piano concerto ever written' is Mozart's 20th?


I won't get into detail about my views of objective versus subjective assessment of music. Suffice it to say that I do not believe assessments are completely subjective, but I don't believe any assessment can be fully objective. When I said that Mozart's 20th Piano Concerto was 'the objectively greatest piano concerto ever written' I was kidding. It's my favorite and does take the number 1 spot in the TC Top Piano Concerto Recommendations. I only wanted to pair a concerto that was very highly valued and another that was less so.


----------



## janxharris

DaveM said:


> Then why are you saying, 'I don't really distinguish classical music from other styles of music.'?


It is my opinion that music is merely arranged differently - that almost any music can sound classical and vice versa. It's fine if you don't agree.


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> I won't get into detail about my views of objective versus subjective assessment of music. Suffice it to say that I do not believe assessments are completely subjective, but I don't believe any assessment can be fully objective. When I said that Mozart's 20th Piano Concerto was 'the objectively greatest piano concerto ever written' I was kidding. It's my favorite and does take the number 1 spot in the TC Top Piano Concerto Recommendations. I only wanted to pair a concerto that was very highly valued and another that was less so.


I rather enjoyed the second movement.


----------



## consuono

mmsbls said:


> Basically, she would figure out what the composer's intent was (i.e. "what was she trying to say") and determine to what extent the composer succeeded.


With respect, isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Music that "grabs" me is music in which the composer's intent is presented by the music itself. Trying to figure out the intent could lead to assumptions that the composer did not have in mind, or it could lead to excuses. ("This sounds weak because the composer intended it that way, and succeeded brilliantly.")


----------



## janxharris

consuono said:


> You mention "popularity" as if it's totally arbitrary and popped out of a vacuum somewhere. There's gotta be a reason for a popularity that's lasted over 2 centuries.


But not reason enough to justify your specific assertions.

You have heard of the Hans von Bulow and the 3 Bs?

If instead of Mozart you had argued that my favourite composer wrote objectively superior music to the rest of the field my reaction would have been the same.


----------



## mmsbls

consuono said:


> With respect, isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Music that "grabs" me is music in which the composer's intent is presented by the music itself. Trying to figure out the intent could lead to assumptions that the composer did not have in mind, or it could lead to excuses. ("This sounds weak because the composer intended it that way, and succeeded brilliantly.")


If you think it's putting the cart before the horse, you ought to think that about CPT analysis as well. She is simply saying she would do the same thing analyzing both CPT and avant-garde music. It's harder with avant-garde because we have less history understanding what avant-garde music is about. There are vastly more scores, more books, more performances, and more videos focused on CPT music. When Bach's cello suites were found, it took Casals a long time before performing them because he needed time to understand how to play them. And he already knew a lot about Baroque music. My daughter has heard modern music played by students and by accomplished players who understood the music. The two can sound very dissimilar.

Incidentally, I know you are not saying that avant-garde music is a sham, but what do you mean by "sham"?


----------



## mmsbls

janxharris said:


> I rather enjoyed the second movement.


For me, it's one of the most beautiful compelling movements I've ever heard.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> Only subjectively could someone decide that Mozart's style was superior to Rimsky-Korsakov's since each was a master at the prevailing style of their periods...
> 
> ...Once again it all seems subjective at the end of the day.





SanAntone said:


> "Greater ingenuity, invention, and expressivity" in their opinion (or in the opinion of someone else), which is a subjective response.
> Thank you. Music is judged "great" subjectively.





SanAntone said:


> I am not arguing that all composers are on the same level...


Well, of course you are. You can't have it both ways.

I'm waiting for your empirical evidence supporting that 'it's all subjective at the end of the day'. For all your talk on the subject and demand for empirical evidence from others, I haven't heard any from you so far. Where are the references? Where is the support from experts on classical music? There are tutorials about Mozart and Beethoven on YouTube pointing out how their compositions are innovative compared to other composers. Where are the tutorials saying that there are no composers objectively greater than any other; it's all subjective.

It's only on a forum like this that people can come out with extreme views unsupported by any outside evidence while demanding evidence from everyone else when you know, if you did indeed major in music, that objective evidence for the superiority of some composers over others exists (or did you skip a lot of lectures?).


----------



## Mandryka

One reason to think that it’s all subjective is simply this. There is NO piece of music, none, where everyone who’s heard it with attention and understanding, agrees that it’s good. Not one. And the same with relevant changes for bad. And those that disagree with the consensus aren’t irrational or mad or in some way dead or anything like that - at least not as far as I can see. 

This is very different for objective statements like “2+2=4”


----------



## DaveM

Mandryka said:


> One reason to think that it's all subjective is simply this. There is NO piece of music, none, where everyone who's heard it with attention and understanding, agrees that it's good. Not one...


That doesn't prove anything whatsoever. You could say the same thing for the Theory of Relativity or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. That Mozart or Beethoven are objectively great composers does not depend on everyone who have heard their works 'with attention and understanding' (whatever that means) agreeing that they're good.

Is there a correlation between those who are the most defensively defending avant-garde music and the premise that 'it's all subjective', including the greatness of some composers over others?


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> I'm waiting for your empirical evidence supporting that 'it's all subjective at the end of the day'.


We had a long thread about objectivity and subjectivity in music and many disagreed. I generally thought that most actually would agree if people had made very specific statements rather than simply "music quality is subjective" or "music quality is objective." I think there are clearly elements of both in assessing music.

The simplest way to support the subjectivity of music quality is that even if analysis started with objective criteria for works, there would clearly be several of these criteria. Even if everyone agreed exactly on the "scoring" of these objective components of quality, an overall assessment would have to weight these components. One can imagine a formula for quality.

Q = a*A + b*B + c*C...

where Q is quality, A.B,C,... are potentially objective components of works (melody, form, inventiveness, etc.), and a,b,c,... are the weighting factors necessary to determine the overall quality. So how important is melody compared to inventiveness in the overall score?

The factors, themselves, will likely have subjective aspects, but the weighting factors will always be subjective.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> Well, of course you are. You can't have it both ways.


Not at all. I just saying the we each respond to music differently and decide which works we think are good, better, best - with little regard if they are also considered great. At least that's how I do it, and I would be surprised if I were alone.



> I'm waiting for your empirical evidence supporting that 'it's all subjective at the end of the day'. For all your talk on the subject and demand for empirical evidence from others, I haven't heard any from you so far. Where are the references? Where is the support from experts on classical music? There are tutorials about Mozart and Beethoven on YouTube pointing out how their compositions are innovative compared to other composers. Where are the tutorials saying that there are no composers objectively greater than any other; it's all subjective.


The only evidence I can provide are the countless different opinions expressed here and elsewhere about composers and works where people describe their differing responses to the same music. None of us rate composers the same as others, we all rank them differently according to our taste and personal preferences.



> It's only on a forum like this that people can come out with extreme views unsupported by any outside evidence while demanding evidence from everyone else when you know, if you did indeed major in music, that objective evidence for the superiority of some composers over others exists (or did you skip a lot of lectures?).


No, I was taught about the "great" composers and studied their works. I've read the Schoenberg book on the _Lives of the Great Composers_, as well as the one by Nicolas Slonimsky. I am aware that there is a group of composers for which there is a consensus regarding their greatness. But I am also aware of the dictum that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," that "there is no accounting for taste" and _De gustibus non est disputandum_, or "in matters of taste, there can be no disputes."

I consider the consensus referenced above as the product of appeals to authority and the test of time, with no real objective data used to show why these composers were great, or *more importantly data we can use for new works to find out if they are great, or even good*. We decide this issue for ourselves as we listen to the music

The books basically say, these composers are great - take my word for it.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> We had a long thread about objectivity and subjectivity in music and many disagreed. I generally thought that most actually would agree if people had made very specific statements rather than simply "music quality is subjective" or "music quality is objective." I think there are clearly elements of both in assessing music.
> 
> The simplest way to support the subjectivity of music quality is that even if analysis started with objective criteria for works, there would clearly be several of these criteria. Even if everyone agreed exactly on the "scoring" of these objective components of quality, an overall assessment would have to weight these components. One can imagine a formula for quality.
> 
> Q = a*A + b*B + c*C...
> *
> where Q is quality, A.B,C,... are potentially objective components of works (melody, form, inventiveness, etc.), and a,b,c,... are the weighting factors necessary to determine the overall quality*. So how important is melody compared to inventiveness in the overall score?
> 
> The factors, themselves, will likely have subjective aspects, *but the weighting factors will always be subjective*.


Is there a misprint there? If not, there seems to be a conflict in terms.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> Is there a misprint there? If not, there seems to be a conflict in terms.


I believe it's written correctly. I'm not sure what you see as a problem.


----------



## Mandryka

DaveM said:


> That doesn't prove anything whatsoever. You could say the same thing for the Theory of Relativity


No. Everyone who is familiar with it agrees that it is a predictive and explanatory theory, hence its assertion is justifiable.



DaveM said:


> the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.


You mean the painting of the ceiling, considered as a work of art. Correct. That is as subjective as the Mozart.



DaveM said:


> . That Mozart or Beethoven are objectively great composers does not depend on everyone who have heard their works 'with attention and understanding' (whatever that means) agreeing that they're good.


My contention is that the absence of consensus is good evidence for some sort of subjectivity here. Note, by the way, that the same absence of consensus does not exist in the moral domain. Everyone agrees that given the choice between , say, death of the baby or death of the mother and the baby, the first option is better.



DaveM said:


> Is there a correlation between those who are the most defensively defending avant-garde music and the premise that 'it's all subjective', including the greatness of some composers over others?


I'm just examining the logic of your ideas.


----------



## ArtMusic

ArtMusic said:


> I have not yet met one who can convincingly answer:
> 
> (1) How do you tell if an extreme avant-garde piece is well performed?
> 
> (2) If I blindfolded the listener or introduced the listener to a "new piece" pretending to be a recognized artist, when in fact it was just me shooting random musical notes, they have always assumed I was actually introducing a "new piece" by recognized artist. (Others have done the same experiment with the visual arts, too.) This proves that a prior recognition is a non-musical one but one of perception.
> 
> Music and art must have standards by which it can be judged, not one that we are forced to be polite to, because that is just simply dishonesty.


Nobody tackled my classic two questions since page 28, as always, I rest my case.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> Not at all. I just saying the we each respond to music differently and decide which works we think are good, better, best - with little regard if they are also considered great.


I don't think anyone would argue with that. But when a lot of people, independent of each other, make certain choices that are similar or the same regarding certain works and composers then the word 'great' starts to be applied.



> I am aware that there is a group of composers for which there is a consensus regarding their greatness. But I am also aware of the dictum that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," that "there is no accounting for taste" and _De gustibus non est disputandum_, or "in matters of taste, there can be no disputes." I consider the consensus referenced above as the product of appeals to authority and the test of time, with no real objective data used to show why these composers were great, or *more importantly data we can use for new works to find out if they are great, or even good*.


You mean to tell me that you majored in music and were never given any guidance, including objective evidence, why certain composers were considered great compared to others?



> The books basically say, these composers are great - take my word for it.


That's only what your texts said? What kind of music-based course was this? Something is seriously missing.


----------



## SanAntone

ArtMusic said:


> Nobody tackled my classic two questions since page 28, as always, I rest my case.





> Music and art must have standards by which it can be judged


Maybe you should tell us what those standards you allude to are.



> 1) How do you tell if an extreme avant-garde piece is well performed?


I can tell if a work is well performed if the musicians play the music convincingly. I have never gone in for comparing recordings of the same work trying to find the "best" recording. I take each recording or performance on its own terms, and professional musicians usually do a good job with the music, or good enough so that I can "get" the music and decide if I like it or not.



> (2) If I blindfolded the listener or introduced the listener to a "new piece" pretending to be a recognized artist, when in fact it was just me shooting random musical notes, they have always assumed I was actually introducing a "new piece" by recognized artist. (Others have done the same experiment with the visual arts, too.) This proves that a prior recognition is a non-musical one but one of perception.


I would either find it interesting, or not. I don't judge a work by who wrote it, but how it sounds to me. There are plenty of works by famous composers that I don't find interesting, and those by a composer I've never heard of before that I find very enjoyable.


----------



## Mandryka

ArtMusic said:


> (1) How do you tell if an extreme avant-garde piece is well performed?


Same way as any other piece of music



ArtMusic said:


> I have not yet met one who can convincingly answer:
> 
> (2) If I blindfolded the listener or introduced the listener to a "new piece" pretending to be a recognized artist, when in fact it was just me shooting random musical notes, they have always assumed I was actually introducing a "new piece" by recognized artist. (Others have done the same experiment with the visual arts, too.) This proves that a prior recognition is a non-musical one but one of perception.


What do you think this proves exactly? I don't understand your last point.



ArtMusic said:


> Music and art must have standards by which it can be judged, not one that we are forced to be polite to, because that is just simply dishonesty.


I don't understand this either. Why are you being so judgemental?


----------



## DaveM

DaveM said:


> Is there a misprint there? If not, there seems to be a conflict in terms.


Sorry, on careful re-reading, no misprint, I understand the point.


----------



## mmsbls

ArtMusic said:


> Nobody tackled my classic two questions since page 28, as always, I rest my case.


Technically, you did not ask a question. You made a statement - you have not met anyone who can answer your question. I'm not surprised. There likely are not too many of those people around due to some of the specifics of modern music that we've been discussing.

I believe my daughter could tell if a avant-garde work is performed well if she had a chance to learn about the work. I also believe there are a reasonable number of others in the avant-garde community who could similarly determine if a work were performed well.

There's no way someone could describe how to do it in a few paragraphs on our forum given that the skill involves an enormous amount of individual and collective learning.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> You mean to tell me that you majored in music and were never given any guidance, including objective evidence, why certain composers were considered great compared to others?


We were taught what were the primary attributes of a classical period sonata, and given examples to analyze which were held out to be excellent examples of sonata form. We were exposed to a variety of works and asked to identify themes and other aspects of the composition, methods the composer used to exploit the motives and themes, etc.

We studied 16th and 18th century counterpoint - analyzing the styles, and shown examples by Palestrina to dissect and the same with Bach. Of course we had music history courses, in which we were exposed to the major periods and composers and works, in which it was assumed these were the great works. We did take apart a Mozart symphony, the G Minor.

My composition study was one-on-one with the comp professor, who guided me with writing my own works, and then as I progressed it became more about his critiquing my works and offering advice on where think about taking it.

It's been 50 years since I attended music school and its all a bit hazy.

Since then I have come to believe that much about what I was taught was cliched and the repetition of canned information. I have assumed that we are on our own when it comes to finding the music we think of as great. I've gone through the standard repertory and found little there that I return to, most of the works I love do not appear on a list of the world's greatest music.



> That's only what your texts said? What kind of music-based course was this? Something is seriously missing.


I was specifically talking about the Schoenberg and Slonimsky books.

Look, you are free to come up with objective criteria for determining whether a work you know nothing about is good, bad, or great. When you do, let me know.


----------



## DaveM

Mandryka said:


> No. Everyone who is familiar with it agrees that it is a predictive and explanatory theory, hence its assertion is justifiable.


Everyone familiar with it? No. Just as not everyone assigns greatness to Mozart. But, most classical music listeners do as most theoretical physicists support the Theory of Relativity.



> You mean the painting of the ceiling, considered as a work of art. Correct. That is as subjective as the Mozart.


So, whether the Sistine Chapel work is a great work of art is purely a subjective opinion as is whether there there is special skill on the part of Michelangelo because if the greatness of that work is purely based on subjectivity then so is the skill of the artist that painted it. Even Mandryka could have painted it if he'd wanted to.



> My contention is that the absence of consensus is good evidence for some sort of subjectivity here.


But there is consensus.



> I'm just examining the logic of your ideas.


No you're not. You're making explicit statements that you couldn't get away with if you were in a room with experts. There is an alternate universe being created here by many of those most vocal in favor of avant-garde music. You do it no service with this kind of reasoning about all classical music and its great composers.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> We were taught what were the primary attributes of a classical period sonata, and given examples to analyze which were held out to be excellent examples of sonata form. We were exposed to a variety of works and asked to identify themes and other aspects of the composition, methods the composer used to exploit the motives and themes, etc.
> 
> We studied 16th and 18th century counterpoint - analyzing the styles, and shown examples by Palestrina to dissect and the same with Bach. Of course we had music history courses, in which we were exposed to the major periods and composers and works, in which it was assumed these were the great works. We did take apart a Mozart symphony, the G Minor.
> 
> My composition study was one-on-one with the comp professor, who guided me with writing my own works, and then as I progressed it became more about his critiquing my works and offering advice on where think about taking it.
> 
> It's been 50 years since I attended music school and its all a bit hazy.
> 
> Since then I have come to believe that much about what I was taught was cliched and the repetition of canned information. I have assumed that we are on our own when it comes to finding the music we think of as great. I've gone through the standard repertory and found little there that I return to, most of the works I love do not appear on a list of the world's greatest music.
> 
> I was specifically talking about the Schoenberg and Slonimsky books.
> 
> Look, you are free to come up with objective criteria for determining whether a work you know nothing about is good, bad, or great. When you do, let me know.


Well, that explains a lot, especially the 'it's all a bit hazy' part.  I don't know why you keep inferring that the general message is that everyone is supposed to be lock-step in favor of music designated as great by others. You are free to like whatever you like. Why, because you have come to an appreciation of 'modern music' and avant-garde, you think it's necessary to reject the premise that there are, for objective reasons, great classical music composers is surprising. You have to know, as hazy as it might be now, that your own education gave you the objective evidence that, for some reason, you keep demanding from everyone else.

As I've said before, composers are popular because they're great, not great because they're popular.


----------



## Mandryka

DaveM said:


> Everyone familiar with it? No.
> 
> .


I think you're wrong about that - at least, either relativity or some theory which includes it. The people who deny it are irrational.



DaveM said:


> So, whether the Sistine Chapel work is a great work of art is purely a subjective opinion as is whether there there is special skill on the part of Michelangelo because if the greatness of that work is purely based on subjectivity then so is the skill of the artist that painted it. Even Mandryka could have painted it if he'd wanted to.
> 
> .


You're very confused here. Of course it's skilfully made! I didn't think we were discussing that. I mean, Boulez's Structures 1a is skilfully made.



DaveM said:


> But there is consensus.


Not about music there isn't. We've all seen people here who can't understand what the artistic value of Mozart and Bach is, and they're not deaf or irrational. They would of course agree that the music is well made.



DaveM said:


> No you're not. You're making explicit statements that you couldn't get away with if you were in a room with experts..


What explicit statement?



DaveM said:


> There is an alternate universe being created here by many of those most vocal in favor of avant-garde music. You do it no service with this kind of reasoning about all classical music and its great composers.


I don't understand this.


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> Not about music there isn't. We've all seen people here who can't understand what the artistic value of Mozart and Bach is, and they're not deaf or irrational. They would of course agree that the music is well made.


Of course there's a consensus. And there are also those who are outside that consensus. Consensus doesn't mean "unanimity".


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> Of course there's a consensus. And there are also those who are outside that consensus. Consensus doesn't mean "unanimity".


OK point taken. But there's not consensus like there is for paradigm objective statements like 2+2=4 or _The Earth is bigger than the Moon._ That's the thing to focus on I think, the difference in the verification conditions of those statements and ones which evaluate the artistic quality of music.


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> OK point taken. But there's not consensus like there is for paradigm objective statements like 2+2=4 or _The Earth is bigger than the Moon._


You'd probably even find outliers opposed to those propositions.


----------



## Mandryka

Yes, you will, and they’re irrational, I am not sure you can say the same about Mozart deniers, at least, I don’t see how you can.


----------



## mmsbls

Mandryka said:


> My contention is that the absence of consensus is good evidence for some sort of subjectivity here.





DaveM said:


> But there is consensus.


I think this is interesting and similar to the disconnect about subjective versus objective. Mandryka is correct that there is not absolute consensus on which works are great. In fact, the more one includes less knowledgeable people than experts (e.g. TC members in general), the lower the consensus will likely be. But DaveM is also correct that there does exist a reasonable consensus among experts on which works and composers are highly regarded. I'm not exactly sure what a reasonable consensus is, but certainly music history courses contain a huge overlap of composers.

So, yes, assessment of quality is subjective, but there exists a consensus of experts* that seems to identify a group of composers who are considered important and others considered less so. The more important composers are taught in music history and theory classes. I think it's reasonable to consider that consensus as a starting point for assessing composers.

*Those who have spent significant time studying classical music, discussing that music with others like them, attending conferences, writing books and papers, etc..


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> Yes, you will, and they're irrational....


Oh really?
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/math/a33547137/why-some-people-think-2-plus-2-equals-5/


----------



## DaveM

Mandryka said:


> You're very confused here. Of course it's skilfully made! I didn't think we were discussing that. I mean, Boulez's Structures 1a is skilfully made.


I'm confused? Once one accepts that there are people skilled in the arts, it follows that some are more skilled than others (within that art form) for objective reasons. Otherwise, one would be assuming that everyone is equally skilled which we all know isn't true.



DaveM said:


> But there is consensus.





Mandryka said:


> Not about music there isn't. We've all seen people here who can't understand what the artistic value of Mozart and Bach is, and they're not deaf or irrational.


But they may be ignorant which would explain why they 'can't understand what the artistic value of Mozart and Bach is'. People say and believe some very silly things on this forum. I've been a part of the general classical music both as a player and listener for a long time and if, in that community, one were to say that there isn't a consensus that Mozart and Bach are two of the greatest composers, their credibility would be seriously called into question.

There may be a lack of consensus about some things regarding classical music, but there is a consistent consensus on who the very great composers are. And it's this kind of thing that some posters here are calling into question with their, 'it's all subjective' hooey.



> What explicit statement?


Like the example given above about consensus for instance.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> You have to know, as hazy as it might be now, that your own education gave you the objective evidence that, for some reason, you keep demanding from everyone else.


No, it didn't. My education gave me the tools to analyze a certain kind of music, generally the music of the 18th and some of the 19th century. That education is of no use for music after Tristan. Which is my point. As far as I can tell there is no criteria other than our own powers of perception to help us interpret the music from the 20th and 21st century.

There are some similarities between today's composers and those from earlier periods: how a composer develops his thematic material, how well he manages a long form, etc. But there's a lot of subjectivity at work when we look at these things. Each person is looking for what they value, and not everyone values the same attributes or has the same priorities when they break down a score.

And some composers are not developing motives. They are writing a kind of music that is more about sound and/or texture, sometimes in an unrelated fashion. We experience it and it either works for us or it doesn't.


----------



## consuono

mmsbls said:


> If you think it's putting the cart before the horse, you ought to think that about CPT analysis as well. She is simply saying she would do the same thing analyzing both CPT and avant-garde music. It's harder with avant-garde because we have less history understanding what avant-garde music is about. There are vastly more scores, more books, more performances, and more videos focused on CPT music. When Bach's cello suites were found, it took Casals a long time before performing them because he needed time to understand how to play them. And he already knew a lot about Baroque music. My daughter has heard modern music played by students and by accomplished players who understood the music. The two can sound very dissimilar.


No, I do mean it about Common Practice as well. Is there any need to analyze Bach's intentions in the Art of Fugue? I may be misunderstanding because I think maybe you're referring more to.performance techniques, phrasing etc. I would imagine that given the micro-managed scores in modern music that shouldn't be much of a problem. Yes, Casals did have to rely on his own innate musicality, and he turned out to be remarkably on target.


> Incidentally, I know you are not saying that avant-garde music is a sham, but what do you mean by "sham"?


Whatever I wish it to mean in my subjective universe.


----------



## arpeggio

consuono:

The debate concerning avant-garde music has been going on in the forum for over ten years.

If you had done some research you would have found none of the observations you have made are new. They have been made many times by many others.

You would have also learned that there are polls that show that most of the members consider avant-garde music to be a form of classical music.

In all of that time there has not been a single instance where a member has convinced a follower of the avant-garde that it was not a form of classical music.

Winning the argument is not going to change peoples minds.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> I think this is interesting and similar to the disconnect about subjective versus objective. Mandrake is correct that there is not absolute consensus on which works are great...


I would point out that Mandryka's statement was _My contention is that the absence of consensus is good evidence for some sort of subjectivity here._ It was not a general response about what works are great, but was a response to my statement that Mozart and Beethoven were objectively great. My response that 'There is a consensus' referred to that.

I've never inferred that there is _absolute_ consensus on which works are great. I would say that there is a very strong consensus about which composers are great and which are some of the greatest works.


----------



## consuono

arpeggio said:


> consuono:
> 
> The debate concerning avant-garde music has been going on in the forum for over ten years.
> 
> If you had done some research you would have found none of the observations you have made are new. They have been made many times by many others.
> 
> You would have also learned that there are polls that show that most of the members consider avant-garde music to be a form of classical music.
> 
> In all of that time there has not been a single instance where a member has convinced a follower of the avant-garde that it was not a form of classical music.
> 
> Winning the argument is not going to change peoples minds.


Where did I claim any originality? Where did I say that avant garde isn't "classical music"?

The question was essentially "is there any such thing as mediocre avant garde music?" After a lot of hemming and hawing and flinging around logic terms the overall consensus would seem to be "no there isn't, because there is no such objective scale to measure what is great and what is mediocre. They don't exist."

Close thread, point demonstrated.


----------



## Haydn70

mmsbls said:


> I believe my daughter could tell if a avant-garde work is performed well if she had a chance to learn about the work. I also believe there are a reasonable number of others in the avant-garde community who could similarly determine if a work were performed well.


Oh, really?

Let me direct everyone's attention to the notorious "L'Affaire Bucquet" which left a considerable amount of egg on the faces of certain New York music critics and how they could not tell if pieces by Schoenberg were performed well...or should I say accurately, at the very least.

(Most of this post is excerpts from this article: The Credibility of Music Critics, FUGUE FOR TINHORNS, by Joseph Roddy https://mostlyclassical.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/)

In the fall of 1973, in New York City, an extensive publicity campaign was launched promoting a series of four concerts of twentieth-century piano music from Schoenberg-Berg-Webern to Boulez-Berio-Stockhausen performed by French pianist Marie-Françoise Bucquet in Alice Tully Hall.

Two weeks before Bucquet's concert, Alan Rich, [then] New York's critic, pointed to a new Stockhausen-Berio record of hers and wrote that it was "enough to convince me not to miss these concerts…Miss Bucquet has a flair for this kind of hard work that goes beyond most of her colleagues." A week before the live show opened, New York Times critic John Rockwell fixed his endorsement on her Stockhausen-Berio disk as well as another she filled with Stravinsky pieces. "Miss Bucquet is clearly a pianist of stature with a mind of her own," Rockwell wrote, "and these two disks do succeed in whetting one's appetite for her forthcoming concerts."

Instead of dispatching John Rockwell to the Bucquet debut in Tully Hall, the Times sent Donal Henahan. Two days later, on Oct. 25, he turned up in print to report that Bucquet had "put one on notice that she can get around the keyboard with the very best of contemporary music specialists. Further, she demonstrated a rare instinct for bringing out the lyrical aspects of non-tonal works without undercutting the design and structure of the music."

Alan Rich's assessment: "The combination of her masterful playing and an audience that was rapturously in tune with the entire evening," he wrote in New York, Nov. 13, "made this one of the most triumphant recitals, and certainly one of the most spectacular debuts I have attended in eons." Along the way he emitted such whoops as "sensational artist" and "phenomenally gifted and totally at home in new music."

In her Boulez bio Joan Peyser wrote about this concert: "The first two concerts were sold out and Mlle Bucquet received not only ovations from the public but rave reviews from the critics."

Enter Paul Jacobs. Jacobs was at that time one the finest pianists who performed and recorded twentieth-century piano music. This about Jacobs from the article: "A pianist who gets good fees and more recital dates than he wants told me one night a while back that he had spent the whole day wrestling with a short passage in a Charles Ives sonata that was so hard he thought Paul Jacobs could not play it at sight. Jacobs [was] an associate professor of music at Brooklyn College and the New York Philharmonic's pianist whenever the programs included Stravinsky's Petrouchka, Copland's Appalachian Spring, Shostakovich's First Symphony, or any of the few dozen other orchestral scores that have piano parts. Pierre Boulez was the leader of the avant-garde pack Jacobs ran with in Paris in the 'fifties until Leonard Bernstein hired him into the Philharmonic. "You're the one who plays all Schoenberg from memory," Bernstein said when they met. "How do you know that?" Jacobs asked. "Nadia told me," the conductor answered."

Back to the opening Bucquet concert. *Paul Jacobs was not rapturously in tune with the entire evening, as Rich was, nor as convinced as Henahan that Bucquet could get around the keyboard with the very best of contemporary music specialists. Jacobs suffered Henahan's encomium in silence until Rich's appeared. Then he did a charitable thing. He called Rich and Henahan to offer them some instruction on the Schoenberg he knew and they didn't and they knew he knew they didn't. The performance Bucquet listed in the program as Schoenberg's Opus 11 was unrecognizable, he told them. The Opus 23 he recognized. That was because it contained, in his considered judgment, ten per cent of the right notes. "The rest of the time she just flailed around like a four-year-old banging away aimlessly at the keys," he said.* Rich did not quarrel with Jacobs, of course, but he lamented his timing. "Why did you wait until my piece was in print to tell me this?" Rich asked, as Jacobs remembers it. When he had made the same points to Henahan, the Times man allowed that he would have taken the scores with him but the lights are so dim in Tully Hall that reading music there is often impossible.

In her Boulez biograghy Joan Peyser, regarding this fiasco, continues with this: "The Bucquet story suggests that only composers who write this particular music, performers who play this particular music, and critics with the scores in their hands can tell when an irretrievable mess has been made of the "classics" Schoenberg wrote..."

For "Schoenberg" substitute any one of thousands of atonal, serial and avant-garde composers from the last 100 years and the same things apply.

Peyser concludes: "As to why young [and I will add old] people flock and shout "Bravo!"---The cult of the new," Jacques Barzun pointed out, "is now the compulsory, the conventional thing" in intellectual matters and in art." And I would add "the hip thing"…so very important to be hip!

And so it continues…


----------



## arpeggio

There is some avant-garde music I like and some that I do not. Why? I have no idea no idea why I prefer the music of Lutoslawski over Cage.

Just because I do not know the answer does not mean it does not exist. 

So far I have not seen one in any of the discussions in this thread.

I also have better things to do with my time than rummaging through the various threads to find examples of members who claim avant-garde is not music.

Participating in the two classical music forums I am involved with can be very time consuming. I have had to cut back participating. It takes too much time researching the various proclamations I have seen.

There are too many new CD's in my library that I have to check out.

I have just purchased the computer version of Strato-Matic Hockey and I a replaying the 2019-2020 season. Which shows you I am not a true classical music buff so maybe my opinions should be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I respect people who appreciate avant-garde music in the same manner I respect people who appreciate stuff like:





I'm just skeptical as to how much talent/effort/inspiration/skill is required to produce something like Boulez sonata No.2. 
Isn't it just "random notes"? With some tone-rows thrown in here and there, to be passed off as "elements of logic and coherence"?
_"If you make a mistake playing this sonata, it's called improvisation."_ <-- how do you refute arguments like this.

Perhaps we have to just accept that avant-garde music and classical music adhere to different standards, hence they're completely different kinds of music. Perhaps we ("classical music enthusiasts" and "avant-garde music enthusiasts") do need to be divided into separate communities.


----------



## ArtMusic

Mandryka said:


> Same way as any other piece of music


I disagree. I have never met anyone and we have fooled people with scores that have misplaced performances - nobody knew.



Mandryka said:


> What do you think this proves exactly? I don't understand your last point.
> I don't understand this either. Why are you being so judgemental?


My point is: listeners don't often really know it is avant-garde before hand without being told.

I'm not being judgemental. These were musical "experiments" we have done and have always shown what I said.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> I respect people who appreciate avant-garde music in the same manner I respect people who appreciate stuff like:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just skeptical as to how much talent/effort/inspiration/skill is required to produce something like Boulez sonata No.2.
> Isn't it just "random notes"? With some tone-rows thrown in here and there, to be passed off as "elements of logic and coherence"?
> _"If you make a mistake playing this sonata, it's called improvisation."_ <-- how do you refute arguments like this.
> 
> Perhaps we have to just accept that avant-garde music and classical music adhere to different standards, hence they're completely different kinds of music. Perhaps we ("classical music enthusiasts" and "avant-garde music enthusiasts") do need to be divided into separate communities.


Hmmm...I'll have to say that "Girl You Are My ***" strikes me as being a work.of subtle profundity and inventiveness. Now without relying on ad populum ad numerum post hoc ergo propter hoc ad hominem, show to me how objectively Mozart's Symphony No. 41 is better. Go ahead, come on come on.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> I would point out that Mandryka's statement was _My contention is that the absence of consensus is good evidence for some sort of subjectivity here._ It was not a general response about what works are great, but was a response to my statement that Mozart and Beethoven were objectively great. My response that 'There is a consensus' referred to that.
> 
> I've never inferred that there is _absolute_ consensus on which works are great. I would say that there is a very strong consensus about which composers are great and which are some of the greatest works.


I agree completely and understood your post to mean that as well.


----------



## mmsbls

Haydn70 said:


> Oh, really?


I would say, yes really.



Haydn70 said:


> In her Boulez biograghy Joan Peyser, regarding this fiasco, continues with this: "The Bucquet story suggests that only composers who write this particular music, performers who play this particular music, and critics with the scores in their hands can tell when an irretrievable mess has been made of the "classics" Schoenberg wrote..."


My daughter told me this exactly. She would need the score and need time to understand the music (maybe talk to the composer). She told me of her experiences doing this (performing a contemporary avant-garde work written by a composer she knew).

I agree that most people could not do this, and that includes professional performers who don't understand the work in question. Of course someone would need to understand the work just as someone needs to understand Mozart, Beethoven, or Brahms in evaluating their work. It's much easier to understand CPT works because people have heard similar works vastly more often, many have studied scores of those composers, many have heard performances of works by those who have studied the scores and composers.

So, yes, it's easy to perform an avant-garde work poorly. It's easy to not know how an avant-garde work should be performed. It's easy to not have a sense of whether a given avant-garde work is any good. In general, I would have little to no idea myself. It's new music that people will need time to evaluate.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> No, it didn't. My education gave me the tools to analyze a certain kind of music, generally the music of the 18th and some of the 19th century. That education is of no use for music after Tristan. Which is my point. As far as I can tell there is no criteria other than our own powers of perception to help us interpret the music from the 20th and 21st century.
> 
> There are some similarities between today's composers and those from earlier periods: how a composer develops his thematic material, how well he manages a long form, etc. But there's a lot of subjectivity at work when we look at these things. Each person is looking for what they value, and not everyone values the same attributes or has the same priorities when they break down a score.
> 
> And some composers are not developing motives. They are writing a kind of music that is more about sound and/or texture, sometimes in an unrelated fashion. We experience it and it either works for us or it doesn't.


If what you have been saying all along is along the lines that the more likely that a given music is avant-garde then the more likely whether it is good or bad is going to be due to subjectivity, then I agree.


----------



## mmsbls

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm just skeptical as to how much talent/effort/inspiration/skill is required to produce something like Boulez sonata No.2.
> Isn't it just "random notes"? With some tone-rows thrown in here and there, to be passed off as "elements of logic and coherence"?


Do you honestly believe Boulez's sonata is anything remotely like random notes? If you read this short description, do you still believe the sonata didn't require much talent or skill? You don't understand it, and neither do I. But clearly there are people who do understand the value of the work.



hammeredklavier said:


> _"If you make a mistake playing this sonata, it's called improvisation."_ <-- how do you refute arguments like this.


Well for one thing, improvisation does not involve mistakes.



hammeredklavier said:


> Perhaps we have to just accept that avant-garde music and classical music adhere to different standards, hence they're completely different kinds of music. Perhaps we ("classical music enthusiasts" and "avant-garde music enthusiasts") do need to be divided into separate communities.


Or perhaps not. TC has long believed that classical music includes avant-garde music. I see no reason whatsoever to separate avant-garde music from _other_ classical music.


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> Do you honestly believe Boulez's sonata is anything remotely like random notes? ...


I'm sure that Messr Boulez's sonata is far better than it sounds. :tiphat:


----------



## hammeredklavier

mmsbls said:


> Do you honestly believe Boulez's sonata is anything remotely like random notes? If you read this short description, do you still believe the sonata didn't require much talent or skill?


I think that description is an elaborate way of saying "Boulez mocks Beethoven in the sonata"



mmsbls said:


> Or perhaps not. TC has long believed that classical music includes avant-garde music. I see no reason whatsoever to separate avant-garde music from _other_ classical music.


What do you think is the musical equivalent of:

"It's not only artists who are at fault; it is equally the fault of the so-called art community: the museum heads, gallery owners, and the critics who encourage and financially enable the production of this rubbish. It is they who champion graffiti and call it genius, promote the scatological and call it meaningful. It is they who, in reality, are the naked emperors of art, for who else would spend $10 million dollars on a rock and think it is art."


----------



## BachIsBest

mmsbls said:


> I would say, yes really.
> 
> My daughter told me this exactly. She would need the score and need time to understand the music (maybe talk to the composer). She told me of her experiences doing this (performing a contemporary avant-garde work written by a composer she knew).
> 
> I agree that most people could not do this, and that includes professional performers who don't understand the work in question. Of course someone would need to understand the work just as someone needs to understand Mozart, Beethoven, or Brahms in evaluating their work. It's much easier to understand CPT works because people have heard similar works vastly more often, many have studied scores of those composers, many have heard performances of works by those who have studied the scores and composers.
> 
> So, yes, it's easy to perform an avant-garde work poorly. It's easy to not know how an avant-garde work should be performed. It's easy to not have a sense of whether a given avant-garde work is any good. In general, I would have little to no idea myself. It's new music that people will need time to evaluate.


But Schoenberg is over 100 years old. We have had time to evaluate it. It's not new music.


----------



## consuono

KenOC said:


> I'm sure that Messr Boulez's sonata is far better than it sounds. :tiphat:


Like a lot of modern music it looks terrific on the page. I find even Ferneyhough to be engrossing...reading. Ditto with Saunders' Crimson. They do have their notation and directions down, I'll give them that.

PS...I notice in one Ferneyhough piano piece there's a "ffffff" dynamic marking...has he or anyone else topped that with "fffffff"? Fortississississississimo, I guess.


----------



## mmsbls

BachIsBest said:


> But Schoenberg is over 100 years old. We have had time to evaluate it. It's not new music.


I'm sorry, but I don't think I understand your point.


----------



## consuono

mmsbls said:


> Do you honestly believe Boulez's sonata is anything remotely like random notes? If you read this short description, do you still believe the sonata didn't require much talent or skill? You don't understand it, and neither do I. But clearly there are people who do understand the value of the work. ...


Maybe, and I'm sure that performing the piece as written is extremely difficult. However, about that short description, I don't know what this means:


> The German master's Hammerklavier fugal subject from the Op. 106 is quoted on the first page. Boulez's Second Piano Sonata reflects such a rigorous understanding of Beethoven's style that it breaks through the academic stranglehold on Beethoven scholarship. This is not to say that Boulez's 1948 work eschews the value of academia's cumulative knowledge on Beethoven, but rather it rejuvenates Beethoven's artistic relevance again.


Was Beethoven artistically irrelevant? How does this "break through", and what is the "academic stranglehold"? I think if anything is indicative of an "academic stranglehold", it would be the style in which the Boulez sonata is written.


----------



## Haydn70

"This is not to say that Boulez's 1948 work eschews the value of academia's cumulative knowledge on Beethoven, but rather it rejuvenates Beethoven's artistic relevance again."

What a load of baloney. "Relevance"...another BS, hipster term. Beethoven was and is in no need of being rejuvenated, least of all by the ugliness and sterility of any piece by Boulez.

Here is a superb article by great Roger Scruton about the virtue of irrelevance: https://www.futuresymphony.org/the-virtue-of-irrelevance/


----------



## DaveM

Just for giggles, I read the description of that Boulez’s Sonata. I can’t comment on the sonata itself, but I want what the author of that description was smoking.


----------



## mmsbls

hammeredklavier said:


> What do you think is the musical equivalent of:
> 
> "It's not only artists who are at fault; it is equally the fault of the so-called art community: the museum heads, gallery owners, and the critics who encourage and financially enable the production of this rubbish. It is they who champion graffiti and call it genius, promote the scatological and call it meaningful. It is they who, in reality, are the naked emperors of art, for who else would spend $10 million dollars on a rock and think it is art."


I don't know. Maybe nothing?


----------



## consuono

DaveM said:


> Just for giggles, I read the description of that Boulez's Sonata. I can't comment on the sonata itself, but I want what the author of that description was smoking.


I've listened to the Boulez second sonata and I don't really detect any resemblance to the Beethoven Opp. 106 and 109. Now it's true that there are patterns that recur and there is some counterpoint, but overall it's just not an edifying listening experience for me, to put it mildly. It might be just me, but I have trouble seeing the point of it. To pass Boulez's own verdict, "useless". I'll just stick with the Op. 106 fugue. It's an example of what I mentioned in some other comment somewhere about avant garde composers tossing in a quotation here and there from great CP composers to try to maintain at least the appearance of some link to a tradition that they're trying to turn on its head.


----------



## janxharris

consuono said:


> When so many feel intuitively that the works of Mozart are superior to those of Rimsky-Korsakov (or Brahms or Janacek or Mahler), then something other than complete subjectivity is at work. Nobody who knows anything about music would say that Mozart and Rimsky-Korsakov are absolutely equal in artistic skill even within their own milieus. (By the way I think there's plenty of sensuous orchestral beauty in Mozart as well.) Or Beethoven and Rimsky-Korasakov. The artistic hierarchy is there whether you want to recognize it or not, which is why (again) the works of Brahms are valued more highly than those of his contemporary Raff. It really doesn't do to say that both are *equally* artistically satisfying simply because, well, both were individuals with different outlooks and visions and from different places on the globe. One is still more artistically satisfying than the other. Now that kind of consensus and recognition doesn't always come immediately -- see Bach -- but I do believe that the cream tends to rise to the top eventually. If music (including today's avant garde) is actually worthy, it will survive. If not, it will be forgotten.


Perhaps it would be worth taking a poll of those you describe (that think Mozart superior to Brahms etc) to see if they do so subjectively or objectively. You infer objectivity from it but it's possible that many would not be comfortable with such an inference. Like me, they might only make such superiority valid in their own mind.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> I've listened to the Boulez second sonata and I don't really detect any resemblance to the Beethoven Opp. 106 and 109. Now it's true that there are patterns that recur and there is some counterpoint, but overall it's just not an edifying listening experience for me, to put it mildly. *It might be just me*, but I have trouble seeing the point of it.


Finally, you have uncovered the issue.


----------



## millionrainbows

consuono said:


> I've listened to the Boulez second sonata and I don't really detect any resemblance to the Beethoven Opp. 106 and 109....It's an example of what I mentioned in some other comment somewhere about avant garde composers tossing in a quotation here and there from great CP composers to try to maintain at least the appearance of some link to a tradition that they're trying to turn on its head.


I see the connection of Boulez' Second Piano Sonata as "in the piano sonata tradition" in a much more general way.

How is it traditional?
It does not involve any "noises" of plucking strings inside the piano, or banging on it. It is strictly written for "fingers on keys" in the great tradition of pianism.

Therefore, it does not deal with "pure sound" as an "effect." Its scoring indicates pitch and rhythm, which are the important elements of Western music and scoring, so in this way it is "traditional" and part of the piano sonata tradition.




consuono said:


> ...overall it's just not an edifying listening experience for me, to put it mildly. It might be just me, but I have trouble seeing the point of it.


I don't think it was Boulez' intention to "entertain" us with this music, so your repulsion and dislike are understandable. Boulez, at this point, was trying to *destroy tradition.* Of course, any person who wants and needs tradition is going to be repulsed by Boulez' agenda to "destroy tradition."




consuono said:


> When so many feel intuitively that the works of Mozart are superior to those of Rimsky-Korsakov (or Brahms or Janacek or Mahler), then something other than complete subjectivity is at work. Nobody who knows anything about music would say that Mozart and Rimsky-Korsakov are absolutely equal in artistic skill even within their own milieus. (By the way I think there's plenty of sensuous orchestral beauty in Mozart as well.) Or Beethoven and Rimsky-Korasakov. The artistic hierarchy is there whether you want to recognize it or not, which is why (again) the works of Brahms are valued more highly than those of his contemporary Raff. It really doesn't do to say that both are *equally* artistically satisfying simply because, well, both were individuals with different outlooks and visions and from different places on the globe. One is still more artistically satisfying than the other. Now that kind of consensus and recognition doesn't always come immediately -- see Bach -- but I do believe that the cream tends to rise to the top eventually. If music (including today's avant garde) is actually worthy, it will survive. If not, it will be forgotten.


This statement works within the confines of a traditional paradigm and historical hierarchy, but it's exclusive and limited to its own self-contained criteria.
When we start speaking about "destroying tradition" in the sense of Boulez, then we have entered a whole new paradigm. The old criteria can't be applied, as you are trying to do. Obviously, you are a traditionalist who does not relate to music which lies outside of those bounds (and seeks to destroy it).



janxharris said:


> Perhaps it would be worth taking a poll of those you describe (that think Mozart superior to Brahms etc) to see if they do so subjectively or objectively. You infer objectivity from it but it's possible that many would not be comfortable with such an inference. Like me, they might only make such superiority valid in their own mind.


I don't think it's important to discuss or analyze that we "like/dislike" music based on subjective factors; not only because "like/dislike" become increasingly irrelevant in the context of "traditions being destroyed," but because our engagement with modern music and art must now be made in an informed way, using the correct criteria which can be applied.


----------



## Mandryka

Strangely enough I listened to some of the Boulez second sonata last week. It’s not a piece of music I know well at all, I’m not much of a piano lover, piano music is something I have hardly explored. But just speaking naively, it did seem to have parts which are in the tradition of virtuoso physical piano music, the sort of music where the interest is mainly in seeing the pianist sweat, some of Beethoven’s more visceral op 126 bagatelles are like that. And some of it is rather in the tradition of Webern’s piano variations I think.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> Finally, you have uncovered the issue.


Well when you consider that I'm hardly alone, you might uncover some more issues.


janxharris said:


> Perhaps it would be worth taking a poll of those you describe (that think Mozart superior to Brahms etc) to see if they do so subjectively or objectively. You infer objectivity from it but it's possible that many would not be comfortable with such an inference. Like me, they might only make such superiority valid in their own mind.


What are you even doing on a classical music forum? What objective differences are there in classical music that brings you here? Or you do you spend as much time on pop fora since there's really no objective difference between any two different types of music?


millionrainbows said:


> don't think it was Boulez' intention to "entertain" us with this music, so your repulsion and dislike are understandable. Boulez, at this point, was trying to destroy tradition. Of course, any person who wants and needs tradition is going to be repulsed by Boulez' agenda to "destroy tradition."


So then you'd have to agree with those who say avant garde stuff is not part of classical music, but outside it.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Well when you consider that I'm hardly alone, you might uncover some more issues.


I don't if you aren't alone. I am glad there are composers writing music that is new and sounds different from anything I've ever heard before. Whether there are millions of people who think like you never crosses my mind. You and your friends are completely irrelevant.


----------



## Simon Moon

consuono said:


> So then you'd have to agree with those who say avant garde stuff is not part of classical music, but outside it.


Not so.

Jackson Polack (whom I am not a fan) was also trying to destroy the tradition, yet he was still well within the purview of the painting arts.

An artist can try to 'destroy tradition', from within the discipline they are working.


----------



## consuono

> Jackson Polack (whom I am not a fan) was also trying to destroy the tradition, yet he was still well within the purview of the painting arts.


In what way, exactly? Is a comic book illustrator also within that tradition?


----------



## Bulldog

consuono said:


> What are you even doing on a classical music forum?


That's an intrusive question, but I'll bite. I'm here because I love classical music and running games. What are you doing here?

Of course, janxharris is free to answer your question or ignore it. Freedom is great!!


----------



## Haydn70

SanAntone said:


> I don't if you aren't alone. I am glad there are composers writing music that is new and sounds different from anything I've ever heard before. Whether there are millions of people who think like you never crosses my mind. *You and your friends are completely irrelevant.*


As is the very tiny group of listeners who like ugly music.


----------



## SanAntone

Haydn70 said:


> As is the very tiny group of listeners who like ugly music.


If only we were irrelevant. But when I see the parade of posts expressing outrage at the music, I tend to think otherwise.

My wish is for you and those like you to just get on with enjoying the music you like.


----------



## Bulldog

Haydn70 said:


> As is the very tiny group of listeners who like ugly music.


To hear you tell it, avant-garde music equals ugly music. Personally, I find a lot of traditional music rather ugly such as the Mendelssohn and Tchaikovsky violin concertos. This stuff is personal in nature. If we all respected the preferences of other members, this would be a happy website.


----------



## consuono

Bulldog said:


> That's an intrusive question, but I'll bite. I'm here because I love classical music and running games. What are you doing here?
> 
> Of course, janxharris is free to answer your question or ignore it. Freedom is great!!


I guess "intrusive questions" are only fair if directed at certain people. I'm here because I love classical music and I know that it's objectively different from other music. Clear enough? Hope so. And no, I wasn't addressing anyone but janxharris, but thanks for your input anyway.


----------



## Simon Moon

Haydn70 said:


> As is the very tiny group of listeners who like ugly music.


How do you know we listeners of avant-garde music, find it ugly?

How do you know what we find beauty in? I find beauty in the complex rhythmic structures, jarring atonal bursts, the suggestion of melody, metric modulations, complex chords, etc, of Carter, Wuorinen, etc. The music that you find beautiful, sounds trite, predictable, and boring to me.

And even if I were to agree that some of the avant-garde is ugly, why is beauty the metric to determine good music or art? If you haven't noticed, the modern world is not exactly beautiful (starvation, wars, disease, etc, etc). Art should, at least to some extent, reflect some of that world.

I've used this analogy before, but I am sure that few people find Picasso's "Guernica" to be beautiful, but it is nonetheless, great art.


----------



## consuono

Simon Moon said:


> How do you know we listeners of avant-garde music, find it ugly?
> 
> How do you know what we find beauty in? I find beauty in the complex rhythmic structures, jarring atonal bursts, the suggestion of melody, metric modulations, complex chords, etc, of Carter, Wuorinen, etc. The music that you find beautiful, sounds trite, predictable, and boring to me.
> 
> And even if we do, why is beauty the metric to determine good music or art?
> 
> I've used this analogy before, but I am sure that few people find Picasso's "Guernica" to be beautiful, but it is nonetheless, great art.


If you and others find it beautiful, that's great. But don't get upset if people who find it ugly have the temerity to say so. You are perfectly free and within your rights to say that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are trite, predictable and boring. I just laugh it off. But I also have a right to say that I find Stockhausen, Ferneyhough and Saunders to be butt-ugly.


----------



## Haydn70

Simon Moon said:


> How do you know we listeners of avant-garde music, find it ugly?
> 
> How do you know what we find beauty in? I find beauty in the complex rhythmic structures, jarring atonal bursts, the suggestion of melody, metric modulations, complex chords, etc, of Carter, Wuorinen, etc. The music that you find beautiful, sounds trite, predictable, and boring to me.
> 
> And even if I were to agree that some of the avant-garde is ugly, why is beauty the metric to determine good music or art? If you haven't noticed, the modern world is not exactly beautiful (starvation, wars, disease, etc, etc). Art should, at least to some extent, reflect some of that world.
> 
> I've used this analogy before, but I am sure that few people find Picasso's "Guernica" to be beautiful, but it is nonetheless, great art.


First of all I wrote: "As is the very tiny group of listeners who like ugly music." Please note I did not say avant-garde listeners find it ugly. When I studied, listened to and composed avant-garde, atonal music as a composition major working on my BM/MA/PhD degrees I didn't find it ugly. (I certainly do now.) I do not doubt at all you find the music of Carter, Wuorinen, et al beautiful.



> If you haven't noticed, the modern world is not exactly beautiful (starvation, wars, disease, etc, etc). Art should, at least to some extent, reflect some of that world.


What cliched, ridiculous BS…right out of the Theodor Adorno playbook. There is no rational reason art should reflect the ugliness of the modern world. Quite the opposite…more than ever we need beauty to counteract it. At least I do. But you go ahead with your fellow avant-garde-listening, hipster friends and wallow in the cacophony, chaos and ugliness of the avant-garde. I'll listen to my trite and boring Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert and Vaughan Williams and be enriched and uplifted.


----------



## DaveM

Simon Moon said:


> And even if I were to agree that some of the avant-garde is ugly, why is beauty the metric to determine good music or art? If you haven't noticed, the modern world is not exactly beautiful (starvation, wars, disease, etc, etc). Art should, at least to some extent, reflect some of that world...


Well, you lost me there. In my experience, if anything, classical music listeners tend to turn to it for solace in times of trouble rather than looking for something ugly as if to confirm the ugly world they may feel they're in. When disasters strike, it seems that the go-to work is Beethoven's 9th.


----------



## consuono

*musical note emoji* Take a sad song, and make it betterrrrr


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bulldog said:


> Personally, I find a lot of traditional music rather ugly such as the Mendelssohn and Tchaikovsky violin concertos.


So, to you, the Tchaikovsky violin concerto is an "ugly concoction"?


hammeredklavier said:


> Dvorak's serenade is superior to Tchaikovsky's? O RLY?
> 
> 
> Bulldog said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a matter of musical preference, not superiority. I prefer the Dvorak, finding the Tchaikovsky a *syrupy concoction*.
Click to expand...


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bulldog said:


> To hear you tell it, avant-garde music equals ugly music. Personally, I find a lot of traditional music rather ugly such as the Mendelssohn and Tchaikovsky violin concertos.


Francisco Goya's <Saturn devouring his Son> can be perceived as "ugly", but is the ugliness the same kind as:



hammeredklavier said:


> "It's not only artists who are at fault; it is equally the fault of the so-called art community: the museum heads, gallery owners, and the critics who encourage and financially enable the production of this rubbish. It is they who champion graffiti and call it genius, promote the scatological and call it meaningful. It is they who, in reality, are the naked emperors of art, for who else would spend $10 million dollars on a rock and think it is art."


-----


Bulldog said:


> This stuff is personal in nature. If we all respected the preferences of other members, this would be a happy website.


I still think if there were separate forums; "common practice music" and "avant-garde art music", - people would spend less energy arguing over topics like this.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> If only we were irrelevant. But when I see the parade of posts expressing outrage at the music, I tend to think otherwise.
> 
> My wish is for you and those like you to just get on with enjoying the music you like.


You want for there to be outrage, because that's what the avant garde is supposed to be about. But there isn't any outrage. There's indifference or bemusement, but "outrage" went out about 1920 or so.


----------



## Dedalus

I've seen the Prager U vid going around. Just thought I'd drop this as a good counterpoint. I liked the video and subscribed to his channel after watching. I thought it was relevant to this conversation so here it is


----------



## consuono

Dedalus said:


> I've seen the Prager U vid going around. Just thought I'd drop this as a good counterpoint. I liked the video and subscribed to his channel after watching. I thought it was relevant to this conversation so here it is


I watched it, and it's mainly an attack on Prager U. OK...


----------



## ArtMusic

Haydn70 said:


> First of all I wrote: "As is the very tiny group of listeners who like ugly music." Please note I did not say avant-garde listeners find it ugly. When I studied, listened to and composed avant-garde, atonal music as a composition major working on my BM/MA/PhD degrees I didn't find it ugly. (I certainly do now.) I do not doubt at all you find the music of Carter, Wuorinen, et al beautiful.
> 
> What cliched, ridiculous BS…right out of the Theodor Adorno playbook. There is no rational reason art should reflect the ugliness of the modern world. Quite the opposite…more than ever we need beauty to counteract it. At least I do. But you go ahead with your fellow avant-garde-listening, hipster friends and wallow in the cacophony, chaos and ugliness of the avant-garde. I'll listen to my trite and boring Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert and Vaughan Williams and be enriched and uplifted.


Thank you Mr. Haydn. May I please ask what made you find avant-garde music ugly now whereas you didn't when you were studying your BM/MA/PhD degrees? I have very rarely come across people who switch.


----------



## janxharris

Simon Moon said:


> How do you know we listeners of avant-garde music, find it ugly?
> 
> How do you know what we find beauty in? I find beauty in the complex rhythmic structures, jarring atonal bursts, the suggestion of melody, metric modulations, complex chords, etc, of Carter, Wuorinen, etc. The music that you find beautiful, sounds trite, predictable, and boring to me.
> 
> And even if I were to agree that some of the avant-garde is ugly, why is beauty the metric to determine good music or art? If you haven't noticed, the modern world is not exactly beautiful (starvation, wars, disease, etc, etc). Art should, at least to some extent, reflect some of that world.
> 
> I've used this analogy before, but I am sure that few people find Picasso's "Guernica" to be beautiful, but it is nonetheless, great art.


Rather like Kant's 'the thing in itself' which he said we can't know and 'the thing for me' which we can.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> So, to you, the Tchaikovsky violin concerto is an "ugly concoction"?


I'm not the biggest fan of Pyotr Ilyich, but I'd never call his music "ugly". It isn't.


----------



## janxharris

consuono said:


> What are you even doing on a classical music forum? What objective differences are there in classical music that brings you here? Or you do you spend as much time on pop fora since there's really no objective difference between any two different types of music?


You misunderstood my post.


----------



## consuono

janxharris said:


> You misunderstood my post.


No doubt. Nothing personal intended.


----------



## mikeh375

ArtMusic said:


> Thank you Mr. Haydn. May I please ask what made you find avant-garde music ugly now whereas you didn't when you were studying your BM/MA/PhD degrees? I have very rarely come across people who switch.


Arvo Part returned to tonality.

@Haydn70, what kind of music do you write now? Is it CP based or perhaps a more modern/personal hybrid? It's always good to find other composers here.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm just skeptical as to how much talent/effort/inspiration/skill is required to produce something like Boulez sonata No.2.


Apparently other members of TC hear something worthwhile in the Boulez second piano sonata. At least they are voting for it in this game. They are voting even more for the Feldman piece, and even John Cage is competitive. The Rzewski work is one I've never warmed to, but it is garnering quite a few votes.

Shostakovich - 24 Preludes and Fugues, op. 87 - 36
Janáček - On an Overgrown Path - 26
Debussy - Etudes (12) for piano - 24
*Rzewski - The People United Will Never Be Defeated! - 23 *
Prokofiev - Piano Sonata no. 6 in A major - 21
*Feldman - Palais de Mari - 20*
Bartók - Out of Doors - 17 
*Boulez - Piano Sonata no. 2 - 17*
Ravel - Gaspard de la nuit - 16 
*Cage - Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano - 11*
Poulenc - Nocturnes (8) - 11
Ives - Concord Sonata - 10
Medtner - Forgotten Melodies - 10
Villa-Lobos - Bachianas Brasileiras no. 4 - 9 
Antheil - Piano Sonata no. 5 - 8
Messiaen - Vingt Regards sur l'Enfant-Jésus - 7
Shostakovich - Preludes (24), op. 34 - 4
Stravinsky - Four Etudes - 4
Hindemith - Ludus Tonalis - 1
Ligeti - Études - 1

At some point you and the others complaining about avant-garde music ought to realize that it is simply your personal taste that is driving your opinions, not some flaw in the music.


----------



## millionrainbows

SanAntone said:


> If only we were irrelevant. But when I see the parade of posts expressing outrage at the music, I tend to think otherwise.
> 
> My wish is for you and those like you to just get on with enjoying the music you like.


(sarcastically)But how can they simply "get on with enjoying the music they like" when the "avant garde" is trying to destroy it?


----------



## SanAntone

millionrainbows said:


> (sarcastically)But how can they simply "get on with enjoying the music they like" when the "avant garde" is trying to destroy it?


It's all in your head, it is not real.


----------



## Mandryka

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm just skeptical as to how much talent/effort/inspiration/skill is required to produce something like Boulez sonata No.2.
> Isn't it just "random notes"? With some tone-rows thrown in here and there, to be passed off as "elements of logic and coherence"?
> .


You think that even about the third movement?!


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> Apparently other members of TC hear something worthwhile in the Boulez second piano sonata. At least they are voting for it in this game. They are voting even more for the Feldman piece, and even John Cage is competitive. The Rzewski work is one I've never warmed to, but it is garnering quite a few votes


There are only like 7~8 people actively participating in those games. I know several of them, including science are fans of avant-garde music. In fact, if some jazz or prog-rock masterpieces were allowed in the game, they would also get as many votes as the avant-garde ones.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> There are only like 7~8 people actively participating in those games. I know several of them, including science are fans of avant-garde music. In fact, if some jazz or prog-rock masterpieces were allowed in the game, they would also get as many votes as the avant-garde ones.


There's only about three or four of you railing against avant-garde music.


----------



## Dedalus

hammeredklavier said:


> There are only like 7~8 people actively participating in those games. I know several of them, including science are fans of avant-garde music. In fact, if some jazz or prog-rock masterpieces were allowed in the game, they would also get as many votes as the avant-garde ones.


Wait wouldn't jazz or prog-rock songs getting just as many votes show that they are all on the same level, that is, music that people enjoy? Most people don't have an aversion to different and interesting styles of music. Give me prog, give me jazz, give me blues, give me classical, whether it be renaissance or avant-garde, give me j-pop, you name it, if it's done well then I'll find something in it to enjoy. I always find it weird when people are boxed into a single genre or time period.


----------



## chu42

I often come back to discussions like this and wonder how anybody could come to the conclusion that music/art can be objectively measured.


----------



## ArtMusic

chu42 said:


> I often come back to discussions like this and just wonder how anybody with half a brain could come to the conclusion that music/art can be objectively measured.


20th century thinking.


----------



## Dedalus

ArtMusic said:


> 20th century thinking.


lmao let's go back to 18th century thinking. You sick bruh? Grab the leeches! Get the knife and cut this man open immediately! His humours are ALL out of whack!

Also you pretend like they didn't have this same exact problem 200 years ago. Some people thought this composer was amazing and other people thought he was garbage. Did they, what, do some kind of math problem to figure out who was correct? Pretty sure they just argued about it and more often than not stuck to their own opinions.


----------



## ArtMusic

Dedalus said:


> lmao let's go back to 18th century thinking. You sick bruh? Grab the leeches! Get the knife and cut this man open immediately! His humours are ALL out of whack!
> 
> Also you pretend like they didn't have this same exact problem 200 years ago. Some people thought this composer was amazing and other people thought he was garbage. Did they, what, do some kind of math problem to figure out who was correct? Pretty sure they just argued about it and more often than not stuck to their own opinions.


I don't know what your political agenda post is about. But the thinking today that all art is good and acceptable forms of expression is a mid-20th century onwards fabrication taught out of art schools.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> I often come back to discussions like this and wonder how anybody with half a brain could come to the conclusion that music/art can be objectively measured.


Well, we always feel blessed when a mental giant takes the time to post here.


----------



## Dedalus

ArtMusic said:


> I don't know what your political agenda post is about. But the thinking today that all art is good and acceptable forms of expression is a mid-20th century onwards fabrication taught out of art schools.


I don't have any agenda other than what I think. I never went to art school, and I suppose you did since you talk about it. If that's exactly what they said, then that does seem very silly indeed. But if they taught in art schools in the 19th century that you could take a piece of art and objectively grade it in comparison with another then that is even more absurd. You don't need any 'art school' to tell you that, it's just obvious that you cannot reduce human expression to some kind of quantifiable number that you can punch into a formula and objectively decide one is superior than the other. Clearly everybody has their own taste and certain things will appeal to one and not to another and that is perfectly fine. In fact it's more than fine that's actually wonderful. Wouldn't it be so dreadfully boring if everybody had the same opinion?


----------



## consuono

Dedalus said:


> lmao let's go back to 18th century thinking. You sick bruh? Grab the leeches! Get the knife and cut this man open immediately! His humours are ALL out of whack!
> 
> Also you pretend like they didn't have this same exact problem 200 years ago. Some people thought this composer was amazing and other people thought he was garbage. Did they, what, do some kind of math problem to figure out who was correct? Pretty sure they just argued about it and more often than not stuck to their own opinions.


Actually though I would take Locke, Montesquieu, Madison and Hamilton over Adorno, Derrida, Barthes and Foucault. And in the same way I would take Bach, Mozart and Haydn over Stockhausen, Varese and Ferneyhough. Progress isn't always uniform.


----------



## consuono

chu42 said:


> I often come back to discussions like this and wonder how anybody with half a brain could come to the conclusion that music/art can be objectively measured.


Schumann stinks. Prove me wrong. 

Btw I don't think Schumann stinks, but I notice you advocate for him here a bit. Now are you just giving your own subjective feelings, period, or are you hoping that maybe someone will see what you see in his music?


----------



## arpeggio

consuono:

I stand corrected.

You do not think avant-garde music is not classical music.

You think it is ugly.


----------



## consuono

arpeggio said:


> consuono:
> 
> I stand corrected.
> 
> You do not think avant-garde music is not classical music.
> 
> You think it is ugly.


For the most part, yes, at least what I have heard. I haven't listened to every single avant garde piece, though.


----------



## RogerWaters

SanAntone said:


> It's all in your head, it is not real.


WRONG.

Atonal composers with considerable power have gone to war against tonal music.


----------



## chu42

consuono said:


> Schumann stinks. Prove me wrong.
> 
> Btw I don't think Schumann stinks, but I notice you advocate for him here a bit. Now are you just giving your own subjective feelings, period, or are you hoping that maybe someone will see what you see in his music?


Schumann is my favorite composer. It is not everyone's favorite composer-actually there are quite a lot of intelligent, experienced, people who cannot be bother at all with Schumann.

Thus Schumann cannot be "objectively great."

Now apply this to every composer and you will see what I am getting at.

The fact that I can't prove you wrong about Schumann's level of stinkery in the same way that I can to prove a flat earther that the earth is round says to me that music taste is not objective.


----------



## consuono

chu42 said:


> Schumann is my favorite composer. It is not everyone's favorite composer-actually there are quite a lot of intelligent, experienced, people who cannot be bother at all with Schumann.
> 
> Thus Schumann cannot be "objectively great."
> 
> Now apply this to every composer and you will see what I am getting at.
> 
> The fact that I can't prove you wrong about Schumann's level of stinkery in the same way that I can to prove a flat earther that the earth is round says to me that music taste is not objective.


So if someone says "Schumann is a rotten composer" you have zero objection to it because, hey, every subjective opinion is valid.


----------



## SanAntone

RogerWaters said:


> WRONG.
> 
> Atonal composers with considerable power have gone to war against tonal music.


Well, then, they have failed miserably since I would estimate that 99% of all recordings, and concerts present tonal music, and 99% of performers and ensembles focus on the performance of, *tonal music*. Not to mention that 100% of popular music is tonal.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> Well, we always feel blessed when a mental giant takes the time to post here.


Please show me the magical formula that you use to conclude that one composer is greater than another.

You would say that Bach is clearly "objectively greater" than Czerny-by the same metric that you come to this conclusion, please conclude to me why Bach is greater than Beethoven, or vice versa.

Can't do it?

If you have a metric for a comparison between Bach and Czerny, why aren't you able to do the same for Bach and Mozart or Bach and Beethoven? Sure, the difference may be quite small but in the case of objective observation there _would_ be some concrete, observable, difference right?

How about comparing Monteverdi with Prokofiev? Or Ligeti vs. Handel? Can't give me a solid answer on that either?

Or do you not know what "objective" means?


----------



## chu42

consuono said:


> So if someone says "Schumann is a rotten composer" you have zero objection to it because, hey, every subjective opinion is valid.


I have zero objection to it in the sense that I cannot objectively prove why Schumann is _not_ in fact a rotten composer. Rotten doesn't even mean the same thing to everybody, so even in that sense your boundaries aren't objective.

Now I can certainly make a case for Schumann. I can try to help someone listen to his music from a different angle. I can list all the things that I think make Schumann great.

And then someone can turn around and say they don't like any of these things, because that's how their brain is wired.

And from there we agree to disagree. What's there to prove?


----------



## arpeggio

*What's the Use.*

Talk Classical has been around since the summer of 2004.

If one did any research they would have learned that debates concerning whether or not avant-garde, serial or whatever music is beautiful has been raging in this forum for over ten years.

Here is a thread from 2009: Avant garde

One of the things I have learned about this issue is that there are many prominent musicians other than Adorno, who think avant-garde, serial, whatever music can be pleasing.

If a person is not willing to listen to them I seriously doubt that they will listen to anything I have to say.


----------



## arpeggio

RogerWaters said:


> WRONG.
> 
> Atonal composers with considerable power have gone to war against tonal music.


Some have and some have not. If one took the time to research the pages of this forum one could find examples of atonal composers who have not.

One of them was Schoenberg. His one concert band work, _Theme and Variations, Opus 43a_, which was composed in 1943, was a tonal work.

See: https://www.windrep.org/Theme_and_Variations,_Op_43a


----------



## chu42

Dedalus said:


> lmao let's go back to 18th century thinking. You sick bruh? Grab the leeches! Get the knife and cut this man open immediately! His humours are ALL out of whack!
> 
> Also you pretend like they didn't have this same exact problem 200 years ago. Some people thought this composer was amazing and other people thought he was garbage. Did they, what, do some kind of math problem to figure out who was correct? Pretty sure they just argued about it and more often than not stuck to their own opinions.


This is an excellent point. I wonder if you've ever read Nicholas Slominsky's book on composer criticism back in the 19th century.

Newspapers and famous critics would describe Liszt's B Minor Sonata as "cats hissing", "complete cacophony", "miserable", "anyone who finds it beautiful is beyond help", "merely a blind noise".

Wagner's Tristan was described as "a disease", "hateful fungi", "a parody", "revolting", "repugnant".

Today we listen to these works and at worst they are boring or dull. We hear nothing of the shocking elements that seemed to invade the minds of 19th century concertgoers. We don't riot at the Rite of Spring, even if not everyone understands it. We don't hiss and stomp at the Grosse Fuge, even if it's not what everyone likes.

Because tastes change. Conventions change. Aesthetic standards change.

Vivaldi used to be considered a third tier composer for most of the 20th century. In recent decades he is being recognized as one of the defining Baroque composers. Scarlatti is undergoing a similar revival. Bach died unknown lost favor for half a century before he was put on a pedestal by Romanticism.

How we view Mozart in a hundred years may be completely different from how we view him now, or it may remain the same. The fact is, we have no idea.

That's why the idea of objectivity in any sort of art is such a silly concept. It's completely present-centric. To assume that how the classical institution now feels about music will be the same for all time and eternity-that is, "objective"-is to ignore the centuries of dramatic change that the classical institution has already undergone.


----------



## Haydn70

arpeggio said:


> Some have and some have not. If one took the time to research the pages of this forum one could find examples of atonal composers who have not.
> 
> One of them was Schoenberg. His one concert band work, _Theme and Variations, Opus 43a_, which was composed in 1943, was a tonal work.
> 
> See: https://www.windrep.org/Theme_and_Variations,_Op_43a


Did you read the quote RogerWaters referred to? Here it is:

"Duteurtre tells the story of the steady takeover by Boulez and his entourage of the channels of musical and cultural communication, the new power networks installed in the wake of May 1968, the vilification of opponents, the anathematising of tonal music and its late offshoots in Messiaen, Duruflé, and Dutilleux, and the cultural coup d'état which was the founding of IRCAM"

The war that Boulez and his cohorts waged against contemporary composers of tonal music is well known.

Yes, Schoenberg composed tonal music. And that has absolutely nothing to with the point RogerWaters was making.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> Please show me the magical formula that you use to conclude that one composer is greater than another.
> 
> You would say that Bach is clearly "objectively greater" than Czerny-by the same metric that you come to this conclusion, please conclude to me why Bach is greater than Beethoven, or vice versa.
> 
> Can't do it?
> 
> If you have a metric for a comparison between Bach and Czerny, why aren't you able to do the same for Bach and Mozart or Bach and Beethoven? Sure, the difference may be quite small but in the case of objective observation there _would_ be some concrete, observable, difference right?
> 
> How about comparing Monteverdi with Prokofiev? Or Ligeti vs. Handel? Can't give me a solid answer on that either?
> 
> Or do you not know what "objective" means?


You show me your magic formula and I'll show you mine. Go ahead and stick to your premise that there are no criteria by which to judge Bach as objectively greater than Czerny. It seems that you think that there's no qualitative difference between the two by any measure. On second thought, I guess you're not a mental giant.


----------



## consuono

chu42 said:


> I have zero objection to it in the sense that I cannot objectively prove why Schumann is not in fact a rotten composer.


So you should have absolutely no response to such other than "well, I like it". Instead what you'll do is post examples of Schumann's work to point out why you think he isn't a rotten composer.


----------



## ArtMusic

Dedalus said:


> I don't have any agenda other than what I think. I never went to art school, and I suppose you did since you talk about it. If that's exactly what they said, then that does seem very silly indeed. But if they taught in art schools in the 19th century that you could take a piece of art and objectively grade it in comparison with another then that is even more absurd. You don't need any 'art school' to tell you that, it's just obvious that you cannot reduce human expression to some kind of quantifiable number that you can punch into a formula and objectively decide one is superior than the other. Clearly everybody has their own taste and certain things will appeal to one and not to another and that is perfectly fine. In fact it's more than fine that's actually wonderful. Wouldn't it be so dreadfully boring if everybody had the same opinion?


Not at all; love your noise music by all means. But why do you feel such music cannot be judged, when it can, and it is nothing more than the last several decades of "love all art equally"? Or maybe is it because if it is judged, then the sham is revealed that it is simply bad art?


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> You show me your magic formula and I'll show you mine. Go ahead and stick to your premise that there are no criteria by which to judge Bach as objectively greater than Czerny.


Sorry, I don't need a magic formula since I'm not claiming that there is any objective way to determine quality between composers.

Let's say that complexity is one of your criteria. Let's have a bit of a questionnaire.

-How do people decide if complexity is good or bad?

-How do people decide if something is too complex, or too simple?

-How do people decide when complexity is being used in a way that is beneficial to the work?

-How do people decide in what context is complexity good, and in what context is it bad?

If any of your answers to these questions is "it depends on personal taste", then ta-da! It's subjective. It cannot be measured. It varies between almost every individual.

And you can apply this to essentially any criteria used to judge a work. Intensity, sentimentality, color, balance, power, etc.

People have varying beliefs on the factors that make a work enjoyable. Some people think Bach is too rhythmically uninteresting and thus get tired listening to him. Others think that the lack of rhythmic innovation allows the counterpoint to stand out and elevates the music. Maybe someone else doesn't like the counterpoint at all since they prefer melody-oriented works.

Do you see how the exact same criteria can be interpreted differently by different people because _not everyone's brains are identical?_



DaveM said:


> It seems that you think that there's no qualitative difference between the two by any measure. On second thought, I guess you're not a mental giant.


Oh, another ridiculous strawman.

I have MY reasoning for why Bach is greater than Czerny. You have YOUR reasoning for why Bach is greater than Czerny. It is not exactly the same between two people, and therefore it is NOT OBJECTIVE.

This isn't exactly difficult to understand.


----------



## Dedalus

Just because you can't prove something objectively doesn't mean you can't make an argument. You're trying to make this like it's some binary thing where if you can't prove something objectively 100% then you cannot make any judgements on it whatsoever. This is not how anybody acts.

If somebody is choosing a color for their walls or between two shirts, you are never going to be able to obvectively state what the right answer is, but you can say "This color goes well with the couch I think, and this other color would clash with the curtains." or "this top brings out the color in your eyes and goes with your shoes". These aren't like 100% objective things, but they are arguments that you can make about artistic decisions and they can be persuasive.

If somebody doesn't like a movie that you like, you'll just point out what you like about it, maybe scenes you enjoy, acting performances that you think are particularly good, set design, writing, whatever. Any aspect about the movie can be argued about and the person you are trying to convince will probably have their own counterarguments or might just say "you have a point there". The same goes with music, physical art, literature, standup comedy, and every other form of art out there. It comes down to conversation and making arguments, and it's OK for two people to disagree about certain points. It doesn't mean either one of them is right or wrong, they just have a different opinion. It's not that radical.


----------



## chu42

consuono said:


> So you should have absolutely no response to such other than "well, I like it". Instead what you'll do is post examples of Schumann's work to point out why you think he isn't a rotten composer.


Yes, even though it _objectively_ proves nothing.

Posting a derivation for gravity objectively proves that gravity exists. Posting some clips of Kreisleriana or Liederkreis does not objectively prove that Schumann is a great composer.


----------



## RogerWaters

consuono said:


> So if someone says "Schumann is a rotten composer" you have zero objection to it because, hey, every subjective opinion is valid.


Judgements (or inferences) can only exist within a frame of reference: sets of axioms, or foundational premises, if you will - which cannot be proven while, at the same time (and thus tragically?), providing the foundation for _any inference made up the line than can ever be made_.

We all operate (I would hope) within the frame that an external world exists basically as it appears (we are not brains in vats or deceived by an evil daemon), and that our fellows are conscious agents like ourselves (they are not walking zombies with no one at home). As a result, we can draw 'objectively' valid inferences like "it is raining now" or "he walked to the fridge because he wanted beer".

Slightly less of us, but still most, operate within the frame that accepts scientific consensus and the laws of nature. Thus, we can draw 'objectively' valid inferences like "Cancer is caused by smoking" and "energy = MC2", etc.

When we get to the realm of _value_ judgements, even less of us occupy the same frames as our fellows. Some of us operate within the frame that tonality is good and atonality is bad. Such people can 'objectively' state to each other that Beethoven was much greater than Boulez, for instance. But they cannot 'objectively' state such a judgement to someone who does not operate in this frame: who, instead, operates in the frame that atonality is good.

Unfortunately, there is no higher-order, or 'meta-frame', within which we can make objectively valid inferences about whether the tonality frame of reference is better than the atonality frame of reference.

Crucially, I do not believe this is pure relativism in the sense that 'anything goes'. Why not? Because each frame of reference has a wealth of structure to it developed over time (long periods of time, in many cases). The 'frame' of tonality is not arbitrary, as it rests on a system which developed cumulatively in structural correspondence with the human cognitive system - evinced by the eventual spread of tonality across the world when conditions permitted (I do NOT buy the postmodern 'power' explanation for this cultural spread). Within this frame, every opinion is *not* valid and Schumann is obviously better than rotten.


----------



## chu42

RogerWaters said:


> When we get to the realm of _value_ judgements, less of us occupy the same frames as our fellows. Some of us operate within the frame that tonality is good and atonality is bad. Such people can 'objectively' state to each other that Beethoven was one of the greatest composers, for instance. But they cannot 'objectively' state such a judgement to someone who does not operate in this frame: who, instead, operates in the frame that atonality is good.


This is one way of looking at it. The very fact that there are existent people in the tonal, classical, frame of reference who do _not_ think Beethoven was one of the greatest composers should speak to the idea that objectivity is a moot point in terms of discussing art quality.



RogerWaters said:


> Slightly less of us, but still most, operate within the frame that accepts scientific consensus and the laws of nature. Thus, we can draw 'objectively' valid inferences like "Cancer is caused by smoking" and "energy = MC2", etc.


The difference between a scientific frame and a value judgment frame is this:

Someone who believes that the earth is flat is still constrained to the physics of a round earth no matter how much they argue otherwise. The doctors in the past who believed smoking was harmless could still get lung cancer from smoking a pack a day.

On the other hand, someone who believes tonal music isn't interesting is not constrained to enjoy tonal music. Someone who dislikes Schumann is not constrained to enjoy him simply because he is objectively "not rotten" from a certain frame of judgment.

One frame is more objective than the other.


----------



## ArtMusic

chu42 said:


> I have MY reasoning for why Bach is greater than Czerny. You have YOUR reasoning for why Bach is greater than Czerny. It is not exactly the same between two people, and therefore it is NOT OBJECTIVE.
> 
> This isn't exactly difficult to understand.


And it isn't exactly difficult to understand that Bach is very widely regarded as one of the greatest composer who ever lived.


----------



## RogerWaters

chu42 said:


> The difference between a scientific frame and a value judgment frame is this:
> 
> Someone who believes that the earth is flat is still constrained to the physics of a round earth no matter how much they argue otherwise. The doctors in the past who believed smoking was harmless could still get lung cancer from smoking a pack a day.
> 
> On the other hand, someone who believes tonal music isn't interesting is not constrained to enjoy tonal music. Someone who dislikes Schumann is not constrained to enjoy him simply because he is objectively "not rotten" from a certain frame of judgment.
> 
> *One frame is more objective than the other.*


I agree with you and tried to incorporate this thought in terms of more vs less people inhabiting certain 'frames'. More people inhabit the scientific frame than the tonal music frame, meaning the former is more 'objective' than the latter. But of course this is not perfect to capture the issues, as you point out.

I agree that one can frame the same points in the different terms of pragmatics, as you do. This will have benefits over the frame...well... frame (i.e. the laws of science still held before the scientific revolution, proved by people dying of undiagnosed cancer etc). However, pragmatics will break down when you get to extremely foundational issues. That's why i went with frames as opposed to pragmatics. You can't raise pragmatic considerations to convince someone who doesn't believe in the existence of an external world.



chu42 said:


> The very fact that there are existent people in the tonal, classical, frame of reference who do _not_ think Beethoven was one of the greatest composers should speak to the idea that objectivity is a moot point in terms of discussing art quality.


I was using the word 'objective' loosely (notice the scare quotes in the original post), within the context of frames of reference. I would rather say something like non-arbitrary than objective, per say. Why? Because the people in the tonal frame of reference who dismiss Beethoven are dwarfed by those who think Beethoven was one of the greats. I suspect that, after 200 years, only composers who hook into something non-arbitrarily human would be considered great by followers of music that old. Contingencies of marketing, visibility, patronage, power, fashion, and other arbitrary factors become less and less relevant over time, I imagine. (Yes, I am assuming something essential to human musical cognition that transcends place and time, here, too).


----------



## arpeggio

*Oh no, Not the Boulez quote again.*



Haydn70 said:


> Did you read the quote RogerWaters referred to? Here it is:
> 
> "Duteurtre tells the story of the steady takeover by Boulez and his entourage of the channels of musical and cultural communication, the new power networks installed in the wake of May 1968, the vilification of opponents, the anathematising of tonal music and its late offshoots in Messiaen, Duruflé, and Dutilleux, and the cultural coup d'état which was the founding of IRCAM"
> 
> The war that Boulez and his cohorts waged against contemporary composers of tonal music is well known.
> 
> Yes, Schoenberg composed tonal music. And that has absolutely nothing to with the point Roger Waters was making.


So what? I am aware that Boulez and his crowd at one time waged a war on tonal music. He must of changed his mind about Messiaen because there are recordings of him conducting Messiaen.

What I am not going to do is spend hours of research to come up with documentation that Boulez modified his views of tonal music and a list of atonal composers who did not wage a war against tonal music. I had already done this once a few years ago and I am not going to do it again.

Off the top of my head I just thought of another: Wallingford Riegger.


----------



## chu42

RogerWaters said:


> I was using the word 'objective' loosely (notice the scare quotes in the original post), within the context of frames of reference. I would rather say something like non-arbitrary than objective, per say. Why? Because the people in the tonal frame of reference who dismiss Beethoven are dwarfed by those who think Beethoven was one of the greats. I suspect that, after 200 years, only composers who hook into something non-arbitrarily human would be considered great by followers of music that old. Contingencies of marketing, visibility, patronage, power, fashion, and other arbitrary factors become less and less relevant over time, I imagine. (Yes, I am assuming something essential to human musical cognition that transcends place and time, here, too).


Yes, art is absolutely non-arbitrary. Because people in certain times trend towards certain beliefs about what is considered "good" in music. That's how our brains work.

This is different from objectivity in the sense that these certain beliefs change over time and may be molded by external circumstances.

If you are "objectively right" about a certain composer today but also "objectively wrong" about that same composer in accordance to the musical aesthetics of the 1700s, how can either criteria be considered "objective" in the first place? And yet I'm sure that the critics of the time periods would've been naive enough to consider their own tastes "objectively correct."

And therein lies the bulk of my argument.


----------



## chu42

ArtMusic said:


> And it isn't exactly difficult to understand that Bach is very widely regarded as one of the greatest composer who ever lived.


So if he's "objectively" one of the greatest composers why was he considered old-fashioned and inaccessible in the 1750s? Why was Telemann considered far superior to Bach in his time? Was an entire century of people "objectively wrong" about this man? Can you prove it? Why are they less correct than we are today?


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> Yes, even though it _objectively_ proves nothing.
> 
> Posting a derivation for gravity objectively proves that gravity exists. Posting some clips of Kreisleriana or Liederkreis does not objectively prove that Schumann is a great composer.


You don't know very much about classical music do you. Schumann is a mystery for you as is Bach vs. Czerny. Still waiting for your secret formula proving that it's all subjective.


----------



## Dedalus

DaveM said:


> You don't know very much about classical music do you. Schumann is a mystery for you as is Bach vs. Czerny. Still waiting for your secret formula proving that it's all subjective.


Wait... Are you asking somebody to objectively prove that something is subjective? I think that unless you are able to show that you can objectively determine that one piece of art is better than another then you have to accept that it is, at least in part, subjective.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> You don't know very much about classical music do you. Schumann is a mystery for you as is Bach vs. Czerny. Still waiting for your secret formula proving that it's all subjective.


The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that it is objective. YOU are the one who doesn't have an objective measure or criteria or formula or _anything at all_ that would indicate that one can objectively rank art.

Imagine if a young Darwin told his peers that "I have this hypothesis called evolution, but until you prove me wrong, I'm objectively right even though I haven't done a single dissertation or proof on the subject." He would be laughed out of the conservatory.

Because that's not how the scientific method works. And something akin to the scientific method is what's required when going about a task as sterile as placing objective values on artforms.

The beauty about art is that it flows and changes. People get tired of certain things and then move on to something else. There are the progressives, who eventually become the conservatives. There are reactionaries, who inevitably die out as art moves on without them. The aesthetics of the 19th century are not identical to our tastes today. Who we consider to be "great" today is very different from who the critics of the 1700s would've considered to be great. And ironically, what we consider "timeless" today is also different from what was considered "timeless" in the 1700s. There is no unchanging foundational criteria or pillar of evaluation.

Today, we can assess art by something _vaguely resembling_ a foundational criteria, but the fact that this criteria has varied dramatically throughout the history of music is proof positive that objectivity in music is close to impossible to attain.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> ...There is no unchanging foundational criteria or pillar of evaluation. Today, we can assess art by something _vaguely resembling_ a foundational criteria, but the fact that this criteria has varied dramatically throughout the history of music is proof positive that objectivity in music is close to impossible to attain.


A false premise that objectively proves nothing and repeating it over and over isn't going to give it credibility.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> A false premise that objectively proves nothing and repeating it over and over isn't going to give it credibility.


Why is it false? Please explain.

You're saying that music standards are objective despite the fact that musical standards change over time?

What other objectively known things change over time? Has the melting point of copper changed in the last hundred years? How about the density of water? Has that been drastically altered like musical aesthetics have?

Or do you very seriously believe that Wagner and Beethoven and Mozart and Monteverdi had the same tastes that we do today?

Even in the present time we cannot agree on a given criteria for musical excellence, let alone over hundreds of years.


----------



## consuono

> You're saying that music standards are objective despite the fact that musical standards change over time?


 Apparently there's something objective to it since we still listen to and admire works written in the 1780s.


----------



## chu42

consuono said:


> Apparently there's something objective to it since we still listen to and admire works written in the 1780s.


Except we don't, because the vast majority of the works that were popular in the 1780s are no longer in the repertoire. Please inform me, for example, about how many Salieri operas are programmed every year. I'm sure that the people at the time believed he was an "objectively great" composer.


----------



## RogerWaters

DaveM said:


> A false premise that objectively proves nothing and repeating it over and over isn't going to give it credibility.


You come across as the intellectually-hamstrung party on this issue, sorry. You really do need to justify how value judgements about music can possibly be objective for you not to look stupid here.


----------



## consuono

chu42 said:


> Except we don't, because the vast majority of the works that were popular in the 1780s are no longer in the repertoire. Please inform me, for example, about how many Salieri operas are programmed every year.


Except millions do. The Marriage of Figaro isn't tied to time and place or even fashion, and there may even be more listening to that now than to Sgt Pepper. It wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## RogerWaters

consuono said:


> Except millions do. The Marriage of Figaro isn't tied to time and place or even fashion, and there may even be more listening to that now than to Sgt Pepper. It wouldn't surprise me.


The Beatles enjoy 23,049,769 monthly listens on Spotify, Mozart 4,923,625.

Obviously Spotify is going to be skewed to some degree to younger listeners, but considering the Beatles are a boomer band, that might not distort the figures too much.


----------



## chu42

consuono said:


> Except millions do. The Marriage of Figaro isn't tied to time and place or even fashion, and there may even be more listening to that now than to Sgt Pepper. It wouldn't surprise me.


?? Millions do what? Listen to Mozart?

If the musical standards have remained the same, why aren't millions also listening to Salieri, Stamitz, Kozeluch? They were equal or even more popular than Mozart in his day.

And please go ahead and try to make the argument that they were too much "tied to time and place or fashion" and that's why we don't listen to them anymore.

You _really_ don't know how close you are to agreeing with me that music is subjective.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> You don't know very much about classical music do you. Schumann is a mystery for you as is Bach vs. Czerny. Still waiting for your secret formula proving that it's all subjective.


No one can prove or disprove these issues about subjectivity or objectivity of musical assessment. We can only prove things in logic and math. I did think that I gave a reasonable demonstration that music assessment is subjective with this post. In your post above do you differentiate between "all subjective" and simply "subjective"?


----------



## ArtMusic

chu42 said:


> So if he's "objectively" one of the greatest composers why was he considered old-fashioned and inaccessible in the 1750s? Why was Telemann considered far superior to Bach in his time? Was an entire century of people "objectively wrong" about this man? Can you prove it? Why are they less correct than we are today?


Simple. Very simple if you know music history.

(1) Because Bach was a kapellmeister in mind and was keen to introduce the newest music that people loved in Italy and combine that with tradition, but that was not what his church employers wanted.
(2) Telemann was politically savvy. He wrote music, including opera, which Bach didn't.
(3) It didn't take long for Bach's greatness to be appreciated soon after his death, and he had a school to his name anyways. Baron van Swieten was key in distributing Bach's music to Viennese high society.

It's been 100 years since Schoenberg. Let's face it and be honest ....


----------



## DaveM

RogerWaters said:


> You come across as the intellectually-hamstrung party on this issue, sorry. You really do need to justify how value judgements about music can possibly be objective for you not to look stupid here.


This has already been discussed several times here and in other threads. Where were you? Just because people arrive out of the blue and decide that this is a new issue doesn't mean people like me have to go down the same rabbit hole every time. I've already justified my position several times and in a classical music forum I'm not about to discuss this subject seriously with someone who doesn't think there's any qualitative difference between a Bach and a Czerny. As for the intellectually-hamstrung comment. Others will make that judgment. So far you haven't shown anything to indicate you qualify.


----------



## ArtMusic

chu42 said:


> ?? Millions do what? Listen to Mozart?
> 
> If the musical standards have remained the same, why aren't millions also listening to Salieri, Stamitz, Kozeluch? They were equal or even more popular than Mozart in his day.
> 
> And please go ahead and try to make the argument that they were too much "tied to time and place or fashion" and that's why we don't listen to them anymore.
> 
> You _really_ don't know how close you are to agreeing with me that music is subjective.


Music enjoyment is subjective. Music quality isn't.


----------



## mikeh375

DaveM said:


> You don't know very much about classical music do you. Schumann is a mystery for you as is Bach vs. Czerny. Still waiting for your secret formula proving that it's all subjective.


If you care to hunt out chu42's piano playing Dave, you will realise the last thing he is, is ignorant on the music of composers with a body of works for keyboard...He's on YT.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> No one can prove or disprove these issues about subjectivity or objectivity of musical assessment. We can only prove things in logic and math. I did think that I gave a reasonable demonstration that music assessment is subjective with this post. In your post above do you differentiate between "all subjective" and simply "subjective"?


The subject of subjectivity and objectivity can be argued at cross-purposes which is what is going on here. In any event, my response was to the following posts. I was not the one originally demanding proof of anything. FWIW, I don't take this kind of disrespectful posting seriously in the first place and my responses likely reflect that.



chu42 said:


> I often come back to discussions like this and wonder how anybody with half a brain could come to the conclusion that music/art can be objectively measured.





chu42 said:


> Please show me the magical formula that you use to conclude that one composer is greater than another.
> 
> You would say that Bach is clearly "objectively greater" than Czerny-by the same metric that you come to this conclusion, please conclude to me why Bach is greater than Beethoven, or vice versa.
> 
> Can't do it?
> 
> Or do you not know what "objective" means?


----------



## consuono

chu42 said:


> ?? Millions do what? Listen to Mozart?
> 
> If the musical standards have remained the same, why aren't millions also listening to Salieri, Stamitz, Kozeluch? They were equal or even more popular than Mozart in his day.
> 
> ....


The question to be answered is why millions listen to Mozart after over 200 years. He should've faded out with the rest if it's all tied to time and place and standards are so shifting. Why do we still read Shakespeare after 500 years?


----------



## chu42

ArtMusic said:


> Music enjoyment is subjective. Music quality isn't.


It's quite interesting how somebody who is so repelled by the meticulously crafted music of Boulez or Xenakis can fail to grasp the causal connection between quality and enjoyment. The very study of music theory is the process of analysing what makes music enjoyable. Without the enjoyment factor, all music theory is useless.

If I do not enjoy the music written by Bach, he will never be a "great composer" to me even if I can appreciate how skillfully his music was made. Just as you will never think Schoenberg is a "great composer" even if if a dozen music theory experts believe otherwise.



ArtMusic said:


> Simple. Very simple if you know music history.
> 
> (1) Because Bach was a kapellmeister in mind and was keen to introduce the newest music that people loved in Italy and combine that with tradition, but that was not what his church employers wanted.
> (2) Telemann was politically savvy. He wrote music, including opera, which Bach didn't.
> (3) It didn't take long for Bach's greatness to be appreciated soon after his death, and he had a school to his name anyways. Baron van Swieten was key in distributing Bach's music to Viennese high society.


If you knew music history you would also know that the Galant style was a direct reaction to the heavier contrapuntal style that Bach divulged in. Between Bach's death and his revival, there was a period of time where his music was not considered great in a way that cannot be explained by extenuating circumstances. Most people simply didn't like it and wanted to get away from it.



ArtMusic said:


> It's been 100 years since Schoenberg. Let's face it and be honest ....


Prokofiev was considered avant-garde and is now highly mainstream.

And for the record, I enjoy Schoenberg, and so do many others.



mikeh375 said:


> If you care to hunt out chu42's piano playing Dave, you will realise the last thing he is, is ignorant on the music of composers with a body of works for keyboard...He's on YT.


Very nice of you but I daresay that how much I play, or even know, these composers is quite irrelevant to the topic at hand.


----------



## consuono

> It's quite interesting how somebody who is so repelled by the meticulously crafted music of Boulez or Xenakis can fail to grasp the causal connection between quality and enjoyment.


No offense, but a pile of doo-doo can be meticulously crafted but it still is what it is.


----------



## mmsbls

Recently there have been some negative personal comments in posts. Please try to comment on content rather than other members.


----------



## chu42

consuono said:


> The question to be answered is why millions listen to Mozart after over 200 years. He should've faded out with the rest if it's all tied to time and place and standards are so shifting. Why do we still read Shakespeare after 500 years?


Because Mozart and Shakespeare contain elements that we consider now to be "timeless". We take for granted that what humans consider "timeless" will not ever change, and never has changed. We are blinded to the fact that timelessness still reflects, in part, the social conventions of our time and what values we currently hold dear. We have no way of knowing which attributes of "timelessness" will actually erode away over time and which ones will remain.

I can list examples historically considered "timeless" which may not be so timeless today, for better or for worse:

-Undying faith in a divine Providence.

-A strong male at the head of a household and a subservient wife.

-The traditional concepts of masculinity and femininity.

All these are concepts that stem partially from Judeo-Christian values, and have thus entrenched themselves in Western nature for over a millenia. If you were someone living in the 1600s-1700s, you would've without a doubt considered these precepts to be "timeless".

On the other hand, if you were living in a historically Buddhist culture, you would have an entirely different outlook on what is timeless and what is not. The stories that resonate with you are very different from the stories that resonate with the West.

So in conclusion, "timelessness" is changing all the time, as ironic as that is. And also varies widely between different culture backdrops.

Again, no objectivity here.


----------



## hammeredklavier

chu42 said:


> If you knew music history you would also know that the Galant style was a direct reaction to the heavier contrapuntal style that Bach divulged in. Between Bach's death and his revival, there was a period of time where his music was not considered great in a way that cannot be explained by extenuating circumstances. Most people simply didn't like it and wanted to get away from it.


All renaissance and baroque composers' "fell into obscurity" after their deaths. Consider how long it took for the "revival of Vivaldi" to take place. Bach was no exception, and this had nothing to do with the quality of Bach's music. The practice of playing and enjoying "old music" - "early music appreciation" began much later than the beginning of the history of classical music:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_music_revival

"Mozart wrote to his father on 29 March 1783 about the musical gatherings in the apartments of Baron van Swieten: "we love to amuse ourselves with all kind of masters, ancient and modern." ... Some of these were still among the living; the works Mozart and his colleagues examined were written for the most part in the first half of the eighteenth century. Nonetheless, some of the composers were already considered to be "old," or, to put it another way, "not modern.""
http://mrc.hanyang.ac.kr/wp-content/jspm/20/jspm_2006_20_10.pdf


----------



## chu42

consuono said:


> No offense, but a pile of doo-doo can be meticulously crafted but it still is what it is.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You're just further proving my point that quality cannot be any more objective than enjoyment. They are irrevocably connected.

If you don't enjoy something, you won't consider it "great" no matter how "meticulously crafted" it is. That doesn't make you objectively wrong.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You're just further proving my point that quality cannot be any more objective than enjoyment. They are irrevocably connected.
> 
> If you don't enjoy something, you won't consider it "great" no matter how "meticulously crafted" it is.


That's apparently the core of your oft-repeated argument. You have to enjoy something in order for it to have any chance of being considered great. For you, a composer or an artist will not have any objective great skill or accomplishment because it all depends on whether you enjoy it. I, on the other hand, can appreciate greatness in musical accomplishments I don't necessarily enjoy.


----------



## BachIsBest

*To all those asking for objective principals regarding the objective evaluation of music.*

Do you have a complete set of objective principles governing the functioning of the physical world?

Do you believe the physical world is governed by objective principals?

Arguing that since we can't provide something explicitly, ergo, it must not exist, is a fallacy.


----------



## consuono

chu42 said:


> I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You're just further proving my point that quality cannot be any more objective than enjoyment. They are irrevocably connected.
> 
> If you don't enjoy something, you won't consider it "great" no matter how "meticulously crafted" it is. That doesn't make you objectively wrong.


I think what I would say is that when you have so many subjective responses that are similar *over time*, then there must be something there that isn't dependent on strictly individual tastes or whims. Yeah there are pop stars today who are more popular than Mozart, but Mozart will still be there when they're has-beens, along with Milton Babbitt and the composers he advocated (many of whom are already forgotten), and along with Boulez and his exquisite craftsmanship. If it doesn't resonate, it won't make it.


----------



## arpeggio

............deleted


----------



## Boychev

BachIsBest said:


> *To all those asking for objective principals regarding the objective evaluation of music.*
> 
> Do you have a complete set of objective principles governing the functioning of the physical world?
> 
> Do you believe the physical world is governed by objective principals?
> 
> Arguing that since we can't provide something explicitly, ergo, it must not exist, is a fallacy.


You are confusing two meanings of the words "evaluation" here. Evaluation may refer to the evaluation of objective properties. In the case of music such objective properties would be the typical duration of the piece, the instrumentation, the tonality of the piece, the harmonic techniques and voice leading techniques employed, the form of the piece and so on. Evaluation in a completely different sense may refer to normative statements about the piece - good, bad, pleasant, too long, difficult, boring, complex, simplistic, etc. This confusion is leading you to commit the fallacy of deriving an ought from an is, in other words to mistake your normative judgments about music for factual statements.


----------



## Mandryka

Boychev said:


> You are confusing two meanings of the words "evaluation" here. Evaluation may refer to the evaluation of objective properties. In the case of music such objective properties would be the typical duration of the piece, the instrumentation, the tonality of the piece, the harmonic techniques and voice leading techniques employed, the form of the piece and so on. Evaluation in a completely different sense may refer to normative statements about the piece - good, bad, pleasant, too long, difficult, boring, complex, simplistic, etc. This confusion is leading you to commit the fallacy of deriving an ought from an is, in other words to mistake your normative judgments about music for factual statements.


You are assuming that you can't derive an value statements from a physical description. That's an assumption which has been seriously brought into question recently in ethics, I'm not so familiar with aesthetics. In ethics Parfit's _On What Matters_ is a good place to start.


----------



## hammeredklavier

chu42 said:


> Why was Telemann considered far superior to Bach in his time?


"I consider it superfluous to describe the singular merit of Sig. Bach, for he is thoroughly known and admired not only in Germany but throughout our Italy. I will say only that I think it would be difficult to find someone in the profession who could surpass him, since these days he could rightfully claim to be among the first in Europe."
-Giovanni Battista Martini, April 1750


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> That's apparently the core of your oft-repeated argument. You have to enjoy something in order for it to have any chance of being considered great. For you, a composer or an artist will not have any objective great skill or accomplishment because it all depends on whether you enjoy it. I, on the other hand, can appreciate greatness in musical accomplishments I don't necessarily enjoy.


So do you think that Schoenberg and Boulez and Stockhausen are "objectively great" composers? Where would they rank on your scale?

And no, that was never the core of my argument. The core of it is the ever-changing nature of music aesthetics and convention standards. We don't judge something the same way we did 200 years ago, or 100 years ago. There is no one "right" way to judge art, and therefore it cannot be objective.

Until you come up with reasoning otherwise, which you never have, this discussion will go nowhere.


----------



## Boychev

Mandryka said:


> You are assuming that you can't derive an value statements from a physical description. That's an assumption which has been seriously brought into question recently in ethics, I'm not so familiar with aesthetics. In ethics Parfit's _On What Matters_ is a good place to start.


Okay, show me a deduction of an ought from an is. Start with the chord progression I-vi-IV-V for example and deduce from its objective properties why it's good or bad.


----------



## Mandryka

Boychev said:


> Okay, show me a deduction of an ought from an is. Start with the chord progression I-vi-IV-V for example and deduce from its objective properties why it's good or bad.


That's silly. It would be along the lines of pointing out the symmetries and balance, unexpected modulations, polyphonic structure, reception even, of, for example . . I dunno . . . Stockhausen's Mantra or Haydn op 20/4 or whatever . . . and thus inferring value. In the same way the fact that a certain act feeds the hungry and heals the sick . . . implies it is good.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

chu42 said:


> And no, that was never the core of my argument. The core of it is the ever-changing nature of music aesthetics and convention standards. We don't judge something the same way we did 200 years ago, or 100 years ago. There is no one "right" way to judge art, and therefore it cannot be objective.


Nonsense. The claim that all aesthetic standards are simply arbitrary products of their time, and cannot be stacked against each other and evaluated from a more objective perspective than the standards themselves, is itself a universal declaration about the field of art as a whole. It also demands proof or at least evidence, for which the lack of an articulable "perfect yardstick" is not sufficient.


----------



## chu42

Isaac Blackburn said:


> Nonsense. The claim that all aesthetic standards are simply arbitrary products of their time, and cannot be stacked against each other and evaluated from a more objective perspective than the standards themselves, is itself a universal declaration about the field of art as a whole. It also demands proof or at least evidence, for which the lack of an articulable "perfect yardstick" is not sufficient.


Why would I have to prove the non-existence of something? If you are the one who says unicorns exist, why am I the one who has to prove that they don't exist if you haven't shown me any proof that they do?

The lack of a "perfect yardstick" isn't proof that the yardstick doesn't exist. But at the same time why would I have to do any more work when you haven't provided proof of its existence? If all art could be measured objectively, then a perfect yardstick would HAVE to exist, even if you personally haven't figured out how to do that yet.

You can't say Mozart is "objectively good" and not be able to tell me whether or not Mozart is objectively better than Bach. Because by the same metric that you define Mozart as "good" you also have to be able to say whether or not he is better than any other composer. If you revert to the argument that Mozart and Bach are both "objectively good" but liking one over the other is a matter of personal taste, then you've just agreed with me that music is ultimately subjective.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> Until you come up with reasoning otherwise, which you never have, this discussion will go nowhere.


I have come up with reasoning otherwise more than once; you just are late to the party. The fact is I don't want to discuss it particularly with you and your ' anyone with half a brain' style.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

chu42 said:


> The lack of a "perfect yardstick" isn't proof that the yardstick doesn't exist. But at the same time why would I have to do any more work when you haven't provided proof of its existence? If all art could be measured objectively, then a perfect yardstick would HAVE to exist, even if you personally haven't figured out how to do that yet.
> 
> You can't say Mozart is "objectively good" and also say Mozart isn't objectively better than Bach, or vice versa. Because by the same metric that you define Mozart as "good" you also have to be able to say whether or not he is better than any other composer. If you revert to the argument that Mozart and Bach are both "objectively good" but liking one over the other is a matter of personal taste, then you've just agreed with me that music is subjective.


I never said that, and it is in fact a false dichotomy. No such yardstick exists, in fact, I'm not even sure what it would look like, conceptually speaking. Musical quality lies in a realm between the subjective and objective.

That means subjective concerns come into play when the objective differences become difficult to sort out. When the objective differences in quality are large, however, there is not much subjective arguments can do.


----------



## SanAntone

Isaac Blackburn said:


> I never said that, and it is in fact a false dichotomy. No such yardstick exists, in fact, I'm not even sure what it would look like, conceptually speaking. Musical quality lies in a realm between the subjective and objective.
> 
> That means subjective concerns come into play when the objective differences become difficult to sort out. When the objective differences in quality are large, however, there is not much subjective arguments can do.


I just posted this question in another thread:

_I am wondering how many of you could tell the difference in a blindfold test between a string quartet by Johann Baptist Vanhal (or any other contemporary, e.g Pleyel, Krommer, Rosetti) and Mozart? Aside from recognizing the Mozart work outright, I am wondering if there is an obvious observable drop off in quality between these composers. And then describe the giveaways._

I created a playlist with string quartets by Vanhal, Mozart, Krommer, Pleyel and Rosetti. I am waiting to hear something that stands out, and will be by Mozart.


----------



## chu42

I often see the argument that Mozart is objectively good because millions of people have enjoyed and clung to his music throughout history. Why people cling to Mozart is non-arbitrary and can be due to a number of complex reasons. That much is true.

But just because a large number of people-even through hundreds of years-share your opinion does not make that opinion any less subjective. It's extremely fallacious to think that objectivity can somehow be decided through a democratic vote.

Humans have been on this planet for so long that it is laughable to think that our current culture and values reflects an "objective standard" that resonates with humanity's entire existence. Just a simple read-through of the Old Testament will show that people's values have been changing since the conception of civilization.

I suspect that many classical music fans feel the need to prove an objective measure of art because too much of their identity and sense of self-worth is connected to this idea that their way of life is intellectually superior to all others. After all, if music could be objectively ranked, then you could once-and-for-all prove that your taste is "objectively better" than someone who does not listen to Bach, Beethoven, Mozart.

This is very different from "thinking all music is the same." I personally do not think all music is the same. I think Bach, Beethoven, Mozart are far and away superior to Czerny, Cramer, and Hanon. I can give my personal feelings, arguments, on the subject. But at the end of the day, I've proved nothing _objective_ since the elements I value in music only have intrinsic value in society because they are backed up by expert and majority opinion. And objectivity is not formed by a vote.

To argue that Mozart is objectively good because of critical and majority consensus is to say that all arguments to the contrary of critical and majority consensus are incorrect. And we all have opinions that do not follow mainstream trends-just take a look at the "unpopular opinions" topic.


----------



## Boychev

Mandryka said:


> That's silly. It would be along the lines of pointing out the symmetries and balance, unexpected modulations, polyphonic structure, reception even, of, for example . . I dunno . . . Stockhausen's Mantra or Haydn op 20/4 or whatever . . . and thus inferring value. In the same way the fact that a certain act feeds the hungry and heals the sick . . . implies it is good.


Simply because you strongly feel so?


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

SanAntone said:


> I just posted this questyion in another thread:
> 
> _I am wondering how many of you could tell the difference in a blindfold test between a string quartet by Johann Baptist Vanhal (or any other contemporary, e.g Pleyel, Krommer, Rosetti) and Mozart? Aside from recognizing the Mozart work outright, I am wondering if there is an obvious observable drop off in quality between these composers. And then describe the giveaways._
> 
> I created a playlist with string quartets by Vanhal, Mozart, Krommer, Pleyel and Rosetti. I am waiting to hear something that stands out, and will be by Mozart.


I listened to some Vanhal and some Mozart. Mozart was easily distinguishable by his _style_, but in _quality_, the differences were not initially jarring except that in Vanhal some things seem to come out of nowhere, and there is also a frivolousness that is not felt in Mozart. Both were pleasant works at a minimum.

However, a piece of music is more than just a single experience. In the best works there is a depth, a continuity, and a purity of idea that lends validity, authenticity, and inexhaustibility to our experiences listening to them. If Mozart knows where to put the recapitulation, just so, and Vanhal's placement could be improved, then every time we return to Mozart we will be more and more astounded at the truth (accordance with the tonal idea) that he shows us, while every time we return to Vanhal we will get increasingly annoyed with his mistake.

The last thing I want to do is to argue that enjoyment of Vanhal's quartets is somehow "invalid". The quartets are precisely as rewarding as the listener feels. There's a lot of good music out there, and I think the natural desire to stick to the best with the limited time we have prompts people to describe lesser works as "garbage" or "worthless" when, of course, there is worth in all things.


----------



## Mandryka

Boychev said:


> Simply because you strongly feel so?


Are you asking whether feeding the hungry and healing the sick is good because I feel strongly? No, the opposite, I feel strongly that the hungry should be fed and the sick should be healed because it is good. Even if I didn't have any feelings about the matter, I would still assert that the hungry should be fed.


----------



## chu42

Isaac Blackburn said:


> In the best works there is a depth, a continuity, and a purity of idea that lends validity, authenticity, and inexhaustibility to our experiences listening to them.


And you believe all of these values can be objectively measured?


----------



## Boychev

Mandryka said:


> Are you asking whether feeding the hungry and healing the sick is good because I feel strongly? No, the opposite, I feel strongly that the hungry should be fed and the sick should be healed because it is good. Even if I didn't have any feelings about the matter, I would still assert that the hungry should be fed.


How do you come to that conclusion then? Let's get back to music: can you walk someone step by step through the thought process that leads you from hearing a I-vi-IV-V7 chord progression and by absolute necessity leads to the conclusion "I-vi-IV-V7 constitutes good/bad music"? State your premises.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> ...I suspect that many classical music fans feel the need to prove an objective measure of art because too much of their identity and sense of self-worth is connected to this idea that their way of life is intellectually superior to all others. After all, if music could be objectively ranked, then you could once-and-for-all prove that your taste is "objectively better" than someone who does not listen to Bach, Beethoven, Mozart..


I have a different view as to who seems to think they're intellectually superior. It's always persuasive in a discussion to introduce the intellect and self-worth of those that don't agree with you.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

chu42 said:


> And you believe all of these values can be objectively measured?


Can you _measure _the quality of a piano? Yet if given the choice most would take a Bosendorfer priced at 20,000 over a Samick, and would not hesitate to say they picked the better piano.



Boychev said:


> How do you come to that conclusion then? Let's get back to music: can you walk someone step by step through the thought process that leads you from hearing a I-vi-IV-V7 chord progression and by absolute necessity leads to the conclusion "I-vi-IV-V7 constitutes good/bad music"? State your premises.


The properties of a chord progression cannot be discussed separately from their structural context within the music and their relation to the underlying idea. If all that is taken into account, sure, I could point out chord progressions that are successful and organic, and also progressions that are ornamentations, confusions, or cliches. A piece of music with progressions of the latter type is worse than its counterpart without those progressions -- "however thinks otherwise," Schoenberg wrote, "is a ridiculous dilettante without insight into the nature of things."


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> I have a different view as to who seems to think they're intellectually superior.


Oh, you're still offended by my "half a brain" opinion? This is the Internet. If you want to add to the discussion, then do so. If you want to cry about not getting the "proper respect you deserve" or anything of the like, then move on. You've whined about the same post three or four times now and responded multiple times with your own ad hominem attacks on the taste and intellect of other users and myself. We can call it even-steven.



Isaac Blackburn said:


> If Mozart knows where to put the recapitulation, just so, and Vanhal's placement could be improved, then every time we return to Mozart we will be more and more astounded at the truth (accordance with the tonal idea) that he shows us, while every time we return to Vanhal we will get increasingly annoyed with his mistake.


But why is Mozart's placement of the recapitulation objectively superior? Just because many critics can agree on it does not make Mozart objectively correct and Vanhal objectively wrong. Again, it's all opinion. Even if it's non-arbitrary expert opinion.

In the end, it comes down to the fact that a large majority of people _enjoy_ the way Mozart plays with structure more than Vanhal does. Enjoyment is conducive to how we analyze quality, and enjoyment cannot be anything other than subjective.


----------



## Mandryka

Boychev said:


> How do you come to that conclusion then? Let's get back to music: can you walk someone step by step through the thought process that leads you from hearing a I-vi-IV-V7 chord progression and by absolute necessity leads to the conclusion "I-vi-IV-V7 constitutes good/bad music"? State your premises.


It would be ridiculous to claim that! The music is good, not the chord! What makes the music good may be facts about it, it's structure, the way it progresses over time etc. So I could say that Mantra is good because of the way is systematically explores a range of possibilities with a certain tone row over the hour or so of the music. That sort of systematic exploration is a conventionally accepted indication of value - all the conservatories etc value it. Just an example, you understand, schematic, for how an argument to support the value in Mantra would go.


----------



## chu42

Isaac Blackburn said:


> Can you _measure _the quality of a piano? Yet if given the choice most would take a Bosendorfer priced at 20,000 over a Samick, and would not hesitate to say they picked the better piano.


When you're talking about something that has tangible properties, you get into a different realm than art.

A Toyota Camry is objectively more reliable than a Fiat Panda because you can look at the overall statistics and maintenance records and come to an objective conclusion that a Camry will have a lower chance of breaking down than a Fiat. A Koenigsegg is faster than a Datsun because you can measure their top speeds in an objective fashion and conclude that one speed value is higher than the other.

But when you apply something with tangible properties to art, you have some objective qualities and some subjective qualities.

One can measure objectively, for example, the projection of a Bosendorfer over a Samick.

A Bosendorfer may objectively have more projection, because we can measure it through decibels, noise dosimeters, etc.

Whether or not you believe said projection is better or worse for music-making is entirely subjective, and can even change in certain contexts.

Other qualities such as build quality, craftsmanship, and durability can also be evaluated objectively as long as they are not from an artistic standpoint. One can objectively measure how long the wood of a Bosendorfer lasts, for example.

None of these non-artistic qualities are applicable to art.



Isaac Blackburn said:


> The properties of a chord progression cannot be discussed separately from their structural context within the music and their relation to the underlying idea. If all that is taken into account, sure, I could point out chord progressions that are successful and organic, and also progressions that are ornamentations, confusions, or cliches. A piece of music with progressions of the latter type is worse than its counterpart without those progressions -- "however thinks otherwise," Schoenberg wrote, "is a ridiculous dilettante without insight into the nature of things."


What sounds organic or "successful" to you is again, a matter of opinion, whether it is your own opinion or the opinion of a large number of experts.


----------



## Mandryka

chu42 said:


> But why is Mozart's placement of the recapitulation objectively superior? Just because many critics can agree on it does not make Mozart objectively correct and Vanhal objectively wrong. Again, it's all opinion. Even if it's non-arbitrary expert opinion.
> 
> I.


It's because of the shared agreement that it is objective. Maybe not objective like 2+2=4, but not as subjective as "cabbage is yummy"

There are different types of objectivity/subjectivity.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

chu42 said:


> But why is Mozart's placement of the recapitulation objectively superior? Just because many critics can agree on it does not make Mozart objectively correct and Vanhal objectively wrong. Again, it's all opinion. Even if it's non-arbitrary expert opinion.


It's difficult to say why placing a structural component somewhere where it shouldn't be is "worse". Analysts can point to different features of the score -- here the tonal flow is unexpectedly cut off, here the surprise doesn't deliver after the initial shock, here the rise to B major is weakened in effect, here the hypermetrical downbeat is misplaced -- but this is all _evidence_ that the placement is worse, and not the ultimate reason itself, which is a disturbance in the purely musical unity of the entire organism and thus cannot be completely explained in words.


----------



## chu42

Mandryka said:


> It's because of the shared agreement that it is objective. Maybe not objective like 2+2=4, but not as subjective as "cabbage is yummy"
> 
> There are different types of objectivity/subjectivity.


You believe in the idea that shared agreement creates objectivity. Objectivity can be decided by a vote, that is. Do you not see problems with this conclusion?

Again, objectivity is not a spectrum. It is binary. Something is either objective, like 2+2=4, or it is not objective, like "cabbage is yummy". There is no in-between.

*What you really refer to is non-arbitrary subjectivity vs. arbitrary subjectivity, which is indeed a spectrum.
*
I.e., the example that "cabbage is yummy" is a fairly arbitrary form of subjectivity because how you feel about cabbage is generally determined by uncontrollable circumstances such as your genes.

How you feel about Mozart's placement of the recapitulation is non-arbitrary subjectivity since you can make well-informed, convincing, argument as to why you like the way it sounds. There is always a deep oeuvre of music theory behind the non-arbitrary opinions in music.

And since subjectivity isn't binary, one can have a less-arbitrary opinion or a more-arbitrary opinion. Someone who says "I just like Mozart because it hits me in just the right way" holds a more arbitrary opinion than someone who says "I like Mozart because his usage of color is striking and organic."

Both are still opinions and do not contain true objectivity.


----------



## chu42

Isaac Blackburn said:


> It's difficult to say why placing a structural component somewhere where it shouldn't be is "worse". Analysts can point to different features of the score -- here the tonal flow is unexpectedly cut off, here the surprise doesn't deliver after the initial shock, here the rise to B major is weakened in effect, here the hypermetrical downbeat is misplaced -- but this is all _evidence_ that the placement is worse, and not the ultimate reason itself, which is a disturbance in the purely musical unity of the entire organism and thus cannot be completely explained in words.


You say it's hard to explain, if not impossible to explain, further proving how subjective music is. Sometimes, it's just a "feeling".

This is not to say that the distinction between Mozart and Vanhal is arbitrary. Please do try to understand to my distinction between arbitrary and non-arbitrary opinionation.



chu42 said:


> *What you really refer to is non-arbitrary subjectivity vs. arbitrary subjectivity, which is indeed a spectrum.
> *
> I.e., the example that "cabbage is yummy" is an arbitrary form of subjectivity because how you feel about cabbage is generally determined by uncontrollable circumstances such as your genes.
> 
> How you feel about Mozart's placement of the recapitulation is non-arbitrary subjectivity since you can make well-informed, convincing, argument as to why you like the way it sounds. There is always a deep oeuvre of music theory behind the non-arbitrary opinions in music.
> 
> And since subjectivity isn't binary, one can have a less-arbitrary opinion or a more-arbitrary opinion. Someone who says "I just like Mozart because it hits me in just the right way" holds a more arbitrary opinion than someone who says "I like Mozart because his usage of color is striking and organic."
> 
> Both are still opinions and do not contain true objectivity.


----------



## Mandryka

chu42 said:


> You believe in the idea that shared agreement creates objectivity. Objectivity can be decided by a vote, that is. Do you not see problems with this conclusion?
> 
> .


By shared agreement, not by vote, shared agreement lived out in a form of life. IMO It is that form of life which gives the concepts their meaning. That's to say, the practice of musical people using "good" for music with certain properties is what gives meaning to the word "good" in this context.



chu42 said:


> Again, objectivity is not a spectrum. It is binary. Something is either objective, like 2+2=4, or it is not objective, like "cabbage is yummy". There is no in-between.


Well I don't agree about that. Someone who denied the arithmetic truth would find it impossible to live, his life would collapse into an incoherence. Not so for other statements like:

Camels are big animals
The axiom of choice 
Waterboarding is a cruel punishment 
Hamlet was indecisive
Achilles was brave
It is bad to talk with your mouth full
Bombing Dresden was bad
Feinberg's Quantum Mechanics is better than Gell-Mann's

Some of these statements have a sort of objectivity IMO


----------



## chu42

Mandryka said:


> By shared agreement, not by vote, shared agreement lived out in a form of life. IMO It is that form of life which gives the concepts their meaning. That's to say, the practice of musical people using "good" for music with certain properties is what gives meaning to the word "good" in this context.


Except the meaning of the word "good" has no consensus among musical people, and deciding who consists of a musical person is also a matter of opinion.



Mandryka said:


> Well I don't agree about that. Someone who denied the arithmetic truth would find it impossible to live, his life would collapse into an incoherence. Not so for other statements like:
> 
> Camels are big animals
> Waterboarding is a cruel punishment
> Hamlet was indecisive
> Achilles was brave
> Bombing Nagasaki was bad
> It is bad to talk with your mouth full


I don't see how this in any way disagrees with me. All of the above statements you made are quite clearly subjective, to varying degrees of arbitration.


----------



## Mandryka

chu42 said:


> Except the meaning of the word "good" has no consensus among musical people, and deciding who consists of a musical person is also a matter of opinion.
> 
> I don't see how this in any way disagrees with me. All of the above statements you made are quite clearly subjective, to varying degrees of arbitration.


Many of them, maybe all, don't depend on affective states in their assertability conditions. They do not depend on the states of the _subject _making the assertion. Hence I think it's stretching a point to call them subjective -- at least, I think it's important to make some distinctions.


----------



## SanAntone

Isaac Blackburn said:


> I listened to some Vanhal and some Mozart. Mozart was easily distinguishable by his _style_, but in _quality_, the differences were not initially jarring except that in Vanhal some things seem to come out of nowhere, and there is also a frivolousness that is not felt in Mozart. Both were pleasant works at a minimum.
> 
> However, a piece of music is more than just a single experience. In the best works there is a depth, a continuity, and a purity of idea that lends validity, authenticity, and inexhaustibility to our experiences listening to them. If Mozart knows where to put the recapitulation, just so, and Vanhal's placement could be improved, then every time we return to Mozart we will be more and more astounded at the truth (accordance with the tonal idea) that he shows us, while every time we return to Vanhal we will get increasingly annoyed with his mistake.
> 
> The last thing I want to do is to argue that enjoyment of Vanhal's quartets is somehow "invalid". The quartets are precisely as rewarding as the listener feels. There's a lot of good music out there, and I think the natural desire to stick to the best with the limited time we have prompts people to describe lesser works as "garbage" or "worthless" when, of course, there is worth in all things.


After more listening, Mozart's B-Flat quartet, K. 589, clearly demonstrates a depth not evident in the others. But there have also been some sections of all of the other composers, with the exception of Pleyel (who seems to be fairly mediocre), that approach Mozart's creativity.

I haven't listened to all, or even many, of the quartets by these Classical period composers. And there may be one that matches Mozart's 589.


----------



## chu42

Mandryka said:


> Many of them, maybe all, don't depend on affective states in their assertability conditions. They do not depend on the states of the _subject _making the assertion. Hence I think it's stretching a point to call them subjective -- at least, I think it's important to make some distinctions.


But they do.

If I grew up around elephants all my life, I would be less likely to think of camels as "big".

If I lived in a society where people had their hands chopped off for petty theft, I may not see waterboarding as being particularly cruel.

Et cetera.



Mandryka said:


> Hence I think it's stretching a point to call them subjective -- at least, I think it's important to make some distinctions.


In any case, they are certainly not objective statements. If you are still stuck on the varying degrees of subjectivity, again refer to my distinction between arbitrary and non-arbitrary opinions.


----------



## Haydn70

mikeh375 said:


> Arvo Part returned to tonality.
> 
> @Haydn70, what kind of music do you write now? Is it CP based or perhaps a more modern/personal hybrid? It's always good to find other composers here.


Thanks for your interest/question mike.

My musical language is tonal/modal and I have preference for polyphonic textures and techniques. (Lately I have been working on a double prolation canon...fun stuff!)

My music has been influenced by John Corigliano and Christopher Rouse. I like the way they use both tonality and atonality to compose powerful, expressive music. Although I do not use atonality hardly at all...dissonance, yes, but little atonality per se.

Another influence has been Eric Whitacre, specifically "Water Night"...a glorious piece.

Other influences are Ockeghem (I am not kidding), Bach, Vaughan Williams, Hindemith, Henry Cowell (specifically his Hymn and Fuguing Tunes), Alan Hovhaness.


----------



## Boychev

Mandryka said:


> It's because of the shared agreement that it is objective.


Therefore Ariana Grande is objectively the greatest living musician and classical music is for poser intellectuals who won't accept the status quo. :tiphat:


----------



## Mandryka

chu42 said:


> But they do.
> 
> If I grew up around elephants all my life, I would be less likely to think of camels as "big".
> 
> If I lived in a society where people had their hands chopped off for petty theft, I may not see waterboarding as being particularly cruel.
> 
> Et cetera.
> 
> .


I should have said, they do not depend on the affective states, the desires, of the speakers.



chu42 said:


> In any case, they are certainly not objective statements. If you are still stuck on the varying degrees of subjectivity, again refer to my distinction between arbitrary and non-arbitrary opinions.


They are all justifiably assertable. And the justification makes essential reference to the world outside the speaker's head.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> Oh, you're still offended by my "half a brain" opinion? This is the Internet. If you want to add to the discussion, then do so.


Actually, as you well know, I was responding to this, which doesn't inspire me to have a discussion.



Chu42 said:


> ...I suspect that many classical music fans feel the need to prove an objective measure of art because too much of their identity and sense of self-worth is connected to this idea that their way of life is intellectually superior to all others.


----------



## chu42

Mandryka said:


> I should have said, they do not depend on the affective states, the desires, of the speakers.
> 
> They are all justifiably assertable. And the justification makes essential reference to the world outside the speaker's head.


Assertable with justification, and therefore non-arbitrary. What makes you think that a statement that is justifiable suddenly means that it is objective? Non-arbitrary opinions exist, which I've already laid out multiple times.



DaveM said:


> Actually, as you well know, I was responding to this, which doesn't inspire me to have a discussion.


I guess elitism doesn't exist at all in classical music because you're offended by the notion of it.

If you don't want to have a discussion, then that's fine. I've read through all of your arguments in this lengthy thread and they are often wrought with fallacies and assumptions taken for granted and circular reasoning and all other manner of argumentative mishaps. Go read some Aristotle or something.


----------



## Mandryka

If we restrict the discussion to synthetic statements (i.e. exclude maths, logic) I think all there are are more or less justifiable statements of opinions about the world, and desires. Truth = justified assertability.


----------



## chu42

Mandryka said:


> If we restrict the discussion to synthetic statements (i.e. exclude maths, logic) I think all there are are more or less justifiable statements of opinions about the world, and desires. Truth = justified assertability.


I'm trying to figure out your line of reasoning here. I don't see how justified assertability = objective truth, because even if a justified statement is true for a particular person it is not necessarily true for everyone. For example, if I think camels are big, this is undeniably true in my own perspective yet cannot be taken for granted to be true for everyone. Therefore we cannot consider it objective, even if it is "truth".

By the way, there are synthetic statements that can be objectively true when contextualized. For example, I can say that my phone is at 15% battery. This would be objectively true if and only if my phone is truly at 15% indicated battery.

Let's get back to my original statement: What statements pertaining to music do you believe are objective?


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> I guess elitism doesn't exist at all in classical music because you're offended by the notion of it.
> 
> If you don't want to have a discussion, then that's fine. I've read through all of your arguments in this lengthy thread and they are often wrought with fallacies and assumptions taken for granted and circular reasoning and all other manner of argumentative mishaps. Go read some Aristotle or something.


An example of an 'argumentative mishap' and 'fallacies and assumptions' would be the premise that one expresses opinions in favor of there being evidence of objectivity in the arts:



Chu42 said:


> ...because too much of their identity and sense of self-worth is connected to this idea that their way of life is intellectually superior to all others.


Go read Dale Carnegie.


----------



## Mandryka

chu42 said:


> Let's get back to my original statement: What statements pertaining to music do you believe are objective?


That Stockhausen's Mantra is a well constructed piece.

(Maybe "camels are big" is neither true nor false)


----------



## Haydn70

ArtMusic said:


> Thank you Mr. Haydn. May I please ask what made you find avant-garde music ugly now whereas you didn't when you were studying your BM/MA/PhD degrees? I have very rarely come across people who switch.


Many thanks for your question, ArtMusic.

A major reason I composed the way I did in my college days was because I was young, impressionable, trendy (only in the case of my choice of musical language…and my long hair) and thus felt atonal was the only to compose. Composing tonally was not fashionable, at least at the college where I did my undergraduate studies. There were six composers on the faculty and all but one composed in what was called then (1974) the "international atonal" style. The one who composed tonally had been a student of Hindemith and composed in that style. We composition majors considered that guy "out of it", so to speak. I don't think he had one private composition student.

I should mention, though, that my main composition professor did tell a roomful of composition majors (in a composition seminar) that we were free to compose in any style we chose. I remember he said something to the effect that "you can compose in the style of Debussy if you like…I don't understand why anyone would now, but you can." The only stipulation was that we had to compose art music…no popular music allowed.

My studies were full of listening to and analyzing the music of Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Boulez, Stockhausen, Berio, Ligeti, Nono. As I undergrad my music was heavily "Webernian" and "Bouleizian".

I took almost two years off from school after I finished my B.M. In that period I discovered Lutoslawski and became a huge admirer of his music. As such the music I produced in graduate school was heavily "Lutoslawskian".

However, I never LOVED the music of the above-mentioned composers. Admired, in many ways, yes. Found it very interesting (that deadly adjective), yes. If not I would not have composed like I did. But never loved it and responded to it the way I did (and do) the music of the traditional repertoire. And I realized that then but thought that the compositional path I chose was the only one. I couldn't conceive of composing tonally.

The beginning of the change came when I had to compose incidental music for a Shakespeare play. Up to that point I had not composed tonally since lower division theory classes. I debated on whether I should remain true to my "esthetics" or compose tonally for this project. I chose tonality…and loved doing it. I had not enjoyed composing as much as I did for this project…using functional harmony, striving to compose memorable, conjunct melodies, etc.

Even after this I struggled with the idea of composing tonally…so strong was my anti-tonality bias. It took me a few years to get over it…and to admit to myself that atonal, avant-garde music held no interest for me as a listener and composer.


----------



## chu42

Mandryka said:


> That Stockhausen's Mantra is a well constructed piece.
> 
> (Maybe "camels are big" is neither true nor false)


If I were to say that it is not well constructed because my criteria for something to be well-constructed is different than yours, how would you respond?

There is not an objective definition to the idea of "construction" pertaining to art, unless you contextualize it within a certain framework of rules and restraints.

Certainly Stockhausen's Mantra is not well-constructed in the context of the Common Practice period and the Western rules of tonality. It defies every rule there is.

So again, what's objective about your statement?

(And for the record, I think Mantra is an excellent work.)


----------



## Torkelburger

Determining the quality of a composition involves both objectivity and subjectivity. There is actually quite a fair amount of objective criteria to determine quality in music, much of it coinciding with determining quality in the written word and speech, but it can only take you so far. Once we’ve determined Bach and Mozart meet the standards of high quality, if you want to decide who is “higher”, it can be a matter of subjective opinion or feeling (but subjectivity is involved in the equation more than that).

There are hundreds upon hundreds of examples of objective criteria that can be measured for how good or bad a composition is in music. It would take several pages to go into all of them, but here's just a few:

1.	Is the writing playable by the voice/instrument it is written for? Further, is the writing idiomatic for the instrument? This is extremely important, and separates some of the best composers from the worst. This is also black and white.

2.	In pieces with multiple voices/instruments, how competent is the voice leading? Does the bass line sound smooth, make sense, and not sound arbitrary as the other voices? All of this can be determined quite objectively and is extremely important in determining playability, comprehension, musicality, and so forth. This is black and white, and separates good composers from bad. Further, it applies to all periods of music, even pertaining to a lot of music in recent times.

3.	If the piece is contrapuntal, how well did the composer follow the rules of counterpoint in accordance with the period/style? This is also black and white. In highly contrapuntal music, did the composer take care to let the texture breathe, or did they make the mistake of always making it equally dense? Is the interest well distributed? Is there harmonic richness or is it static? Are the parts always equal or is there attention to foreground and background? How well are the individual lines written (there is objective criteria for this)?

4.	If there is harmony, is it coherent throughout the piece? Is there a variety of tension with moments to breathe? Is it constantly tense and therefore, suffocating; or is it constantly relaxing and therefore, boring?

5.	Are there any problems with balance issues, bad ranges, or colors not fitting the character of the music in regards to the orchestration? Is the orchestration dry because of a mistreatment of resonance? Are there formal issues with the orchestration (contrasts and continuity)?

6.	Does the composer always write the same music for transitions? Does he develop music the same way every time?

7.	Originality of a piece/composer can be objectively measured by comparing and contrasting a piece of music with pieces of music that have come before or written at the same time.


----------



## mikeh375

Haydn70 said:


> Thanks for your interest/question mike.
> 
> My musical language is tonal/modal and I have preference for polyphonic textures and techniques. (Lately I have been working on a double prolation canon...fun stuff!)
> 
> My music has been influenced by John Corigliano and Christopher Rouse. I like the way they use both tonality and atonality to compose powerful, expressive music. Although I do not use atonality hardly at all...dissonance, yes, but little atonality per se.
> 
> Another influence has been Eric Whitacre, specifically "Water Night"...a glorious piece.
> 
> Other influences are Ockeghem (I am not kidding), Bach, Vaughan Williams, Hindemith, Henry Cowell (specifically his Hymn and Fuguing Tunes), Alan Hovhaness.


..we have a lot in common I think, especially on the contrapuntal side. I'm also a Renaissance (I studied 16thC vocal polyphony techniques) and Rouse fan amongst many others..I still like Boulez though.


----------



## ArtMusic

chu42 said:


> It's quite interesting how somebody who is so repelled by the meticulously crafted music of Boulez or Xenakis can fail to grasp the causal connection between quality and enjoyment. The very study of music theory is the process of analysing what makes music enjoyable. Without the enjoyment factor, all music theory is useless.


Bach was pursuing musical science to a large degree. You should study his didactic works such as _Art of Fugue_, where his greatness and craftsmanship are clear. Posterity hasn't seen anything like since since.



chu42 said:


> If I do not enjoy the music written by Bach, he will never be a "great composer" to me even if I can appreciate how skillfully his music was made. Just as you will never think Schoenberg is a "great composer" even if if a dozen music theory experts believe otherwise.


As I wrote before, Bach is universally regarded by scholars, performers and listeners alike as one of the greatest, easily surpassing Schoenberg. Bach was already recognized as such within a few years after his death, let alone seventy years as in the case of Schoenberg who is begging for more in his grave, as it the whole outdated SVS composers.


----------



## DaveM

Torkelburger said:


> Determining the quality of a composition involves both objectivity and subjectivity. There is actually quite a fair amount of objective criteria to determine quality in music, much of it coinciding with determining quality in the written word and speech, but it can only take you so far. Once we've determined Bach and Mozart meet the standards of high quality, if you want to decide who is "higher", it can be a matter of subjective opinion or feeling (but subjectivity is involved in the equation more than that).
> 
> There are hundreds upon hundreds of examples of objective criteria that can be measured for how good or bad a composition is in music. It would take several pages to go into all of them, but here's just a few:
> 
> 1.	Is the writing playable by the voice/instrument it is written for? Further, is the writing idiomatic for the instrument? This is extremely important, and separates some of the best composers from the worst. This is also black and white.
> 
> 2.	In pieces with multiple voices/instruments, how competent is the voice leading? Does the bass line sound smooth, make sense, and not sound arbitrary as the other voices? All of this can be determined quite objectively and is extremely important in determining playability, comprehension, musicality, and so forth. This is black and white, and separates good composers from bad. Further, it applies to all periods of music, even pertaining to a lot of music in recent times.
> 
> 3.	If the piece is contrapuntal, how well did the composer follow the rules of counterpoint in accordance with the period/style? This is also black and white. In highly contrapuntal music, did the composer take care to let the texture breathe, or did they make the mistake of always making it equally dense? Is the interest well distributed? Is there harmonic richness or is it static? Are the parts always equal or is there attention to foreground and background? How well are the individual lines written (there is objective criteria for this)?
> 
> 4.	If there is harmony, is it coherent throughout the piece? Is there a variety of tension with moments to breathe? Is it constantly tense and therefore, suffocating; or is it constantly relaxing and therefore, boring?
> 
> 5.	Are there any problems with balance issues, bad ranges, or colors not fitting the character of the music in regards to the orchestration? Is the orchestration dry because of a mistreatment of resonance? Are there formal issues with the orchestration (contrasts and continuity)?
> 
> 6.	Does the composer always write the same music for transitions? Does he develop music the same way every time?
> 
> 7.	Originality of a piece/composer can be objectively measured by comparing and contrasting a piece of music with pieces of music that have come before or written at the same time.


These are a number of the things I've had on my mind, but you've expressed it far better than I could.


----------



## Mandryka

chu42 said:


> If I were to say that it is not well constructed because my criteria for something to be well-constructed is different than yours, how would you respond?
> 
> There is not an objective definition to the idea of "construction" pertaining to art, unless you contextualize it within a certain framework of rules and restraints.
> 
> Certainly Stockhausen's Mantra is not well-constructed in the context of the Common Practice period and the Western rules of tonality. It defies every rule there is.
> 
> So again, what's objective about your statement?
> 
> (And for the record, I think Mantra is an excellent work.)


It's late here, and I'm too distracted to get involved further -- but thanks for an interesting discussion of questions I haven't grappled with for many years!


----------



## ArtMusic

Haydn70 said:


> Many thanks for your question, ArtMusic.
> 
> A major reason I composed the way I did in my college days was because I was young, impressionable, trendy (only in the case of my choice of musical language…and my long hair) and thus felt atonal was the only to compose. Composing tonally was not fashionable, at least at the college where I did my undergraduate studies. There were six composers on the faculty and all but one composed in what was called then (1974) the "international atonal" style. The one who composed tonally had been a student of Hindemith and composed in that style. We composition majors considered that guy "out of it", so to speak. I don't think he had one private composition student.
> 
> I should mention, though, that my main composition professor did tell a roomful of composition majors (in a composition seminar) that we were free to compose in any style we chose. I remember he said something to the effect that "you can compose in the style of Debussy if you like…I don't understand why anyone would now, but you can." The only stipulation was that we had to compose art music…no popular music allowed.
> 
> My studies were full of listening to and analyzing the music of Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Boulez, Stockhausen, Berio, Ligeti, Nono. As I undergrad my music was heavily "Webernian" and "Bouleizian".
> 
> I took almost two years off from school after I finished my B.M. In that period I discovered Lutoslawski and became a huge admirer of his music. As such the music I produced in graduate school was heavily "Lutoslawskian".
> 
> However, I never LOVED the music of the above-mentioned composers. Admired, in many ways, yes. Found it very interesting (that deadly adjective), yes. If not I would not have composed like I did. But never loved it and responded to it the way I did (and do) the music of the traditional repertoire. And I realized that then but thought that the compositional path I chose was the only one. I couldn't conceive of composing tonally.
> 
> The beginning of the change came when I had to compose incidental music for a Shakespeare play. Up to that point I had not composed tonally since lower division theory classes. I debated on whether I should remain true to my "esthetics" or compose tonally for this project. I chose tonality…and loved doing it. I had not enjoyed composing as much as I did for this project…using functional harmony, striving to compose memorable, conjunct melodies, etc.
> 
> Even after this I struggled with the idea of composing tonally…so strong was my anti-tonality bias. It took me a few years to get over it…and to admit to myself that atonal, avant-garde music held no interest for me as a listener and composer.


Thank you, sir. That was a fascinating read. I'm glad you are doing what your heart takes you as a composer and as a listener.

I wonder how many of your fellow class mates and contemporary composers are also in this situation - that you composed in a certain esthetics because it was the "new" then, not entirely out of love. It was interesting that your professor made that comment about Debussy. It clearly showed that what mattered to the professor was to be composing in the "new" for its sake. Debussy is not new today, but sure as anything, he is well remembered and regarded even if limited to a few of his short piano works. That says a lot.


----------



## chu42

Torkelburger said:


> Determining the quality of a composition involves both objectivity and subjectivity. There is actually quite a fair amount of objective criteria to determine quality in music, much of it coinciding with determining quality in the written word and speech, but it can only take you so far. Once we've determined Bach and Mozart meet the standards of high quality, if you want to decide who is "higher", it can be a matter of subjective opinion or feeling (but subjectivity is involved in the equation more than that).
> 
> There are hundreds upon hundreds of examples of objective criteria that can be measured for how good or bad a composition is in music. It would take several pages to go into all of them, but here's just a few:
> 
> 1.	Is the writing playable by the voice/instrument it is written for? Further, is the writing idiomatic for the instrument? This is extremely important, and separates some of the best composers from the worst. This is also black and white.


I'm not convinced that this is an indicator of quality. I am a pianist, and some of my favorite composers really don't write effectively for their instrument. For example, Brahms and Schumann are horribly awkward to play and yet are beloved by professional pianists. How much idiomatic writing affects your opinion of a composer varies from person to person.

So-not objective.



Torkelburger said:


> 2.	In pieces with multiple voices/instruments, how competent is the voice leading? Does the bass line sound smooth, make sense, and not sound arbitrary as the other voices? All of this can be determined quite objectively and is extremely important in determining playability, comprehension, musicality, and so forth. This is black and white, and separates good composers from bad. Further, it applies to all periods of music, even pertaining to a lot of music in recent times.


What's the distinction between sounding arbitrary and non-arbitrary? Unless you can point out a specific line of which a composer could cross, different people will hear smoothness and necessity in different ways. For example, I think that the orchestration in Chopin's concertos is quite useless and the work could stand alone as a solo piece. Other people may think his orchestration is necessary and/or adequate for its intended purpose.

So-not objective.



Torkelburger said:


> 3.	If the piece is contrapuntal, how well did the composer follow the rules of counterpoint in accordance with the period/style? This is also black and white. In highly contrapuntal music, did the composer take care to let the texture breathe, or did they make the mistake of always making it equally dense? Is the interest well distributed? Is there harmonic richness or is it static? Are the parts always equal or is there attention to foreground and background? How well are the individual lines written (there is objective criteria for this)?


If a criteria is stylistically dependent, it cannot be objective since it is _subjective_ to the constraints that it was written in. I also find it interesting that those searching for objectivity in music tend to take for granted that certain criteria are universally set at a certain standard. For example, "richness" or "well-written" will mean completely different things to different people. There is absolutely nothing black-and-white about this.

So-not objective.



Torkelburger said:


> 4.	If there is harmony, is it coherent throughout the piece? Is there a variety of tension with moments to breathe? Is it constantly tense and therefore, suffocating; or is it constantly relaxing and therefore, boring?


Again the same problem. Vague, poorly-defined criteria such as "tense", "suffocating", and "relaxing" are taken for granted to be universally set at a certain standard.

And even if these elements were well defined, not everyone associates tenseness with suffocation and not everyone associates relaxation with boredom . Not only that, but the degree to which they effect the quality of a composition is not going to be the same between different listeners.

So-not objective.



Torkelburger said:


> 5.	Are there any problems with balance issues, bad ranges, or colors not fitting the character of the music in regards to the orchestration? Is the orchestration dry because of a mistreatment of resonance? Are there formal issues with the orchestration (contrasts and continuity)?


I won't repeat the my above statement about taking criteria for granted, because I think you get the point.

So-not objective.



Torkelburger said:


> 6.	Does the composer always write the same music for transitions? Does he develop music the same way every time?


The question of repetition. Is repetition good or bad? Ask different people, you'll get different answers. After all, Philip Glass and pop music are quite popular, are they not?

So-not objective.



Torkelburger said:


> 7.	Originality of a piece/composer can be objectively measured by comparing and contrasting a piece of music with pieces of music that have come before or written at the same time.


The question of originality-how much is too much, and how much is too derivative? People have criticized Brahms for sounding too much like Beethoven, while others don't mind. People criticize the avant-garde for being too original and unrecognizable, while others enjoy the originality. One cannot use originality as an objective measurement for quality, since it means different things to different people.

So-not objective.

*In conclusion:
*
Good effort, but I think that you are sorely misinterpreting non-arbitrary subjectivity to be a sign of objectivity.

So obviously, not all music is the same. There are factors that separate music we typically consider "good" from music we typically consider "bad."

These factors are the difference between non-arbitrary subjectivity and arbitrary subjectivity. If you'll allow me to explain:

A more arbitrarily subjective opinion is one that has less justification for it-such as a person liking chocolate ice cream over strawberry ice cream. Or justification through extenuating circumstances-such as a person disliking cilantro because of their genes.

A less arbitrary subjective opinion is one that can be justified through a deeper process of reasoning and analysis, which in the end still ends up becoming abstract and intangible.

For example, I can say I like Schumann. I can explain that one of the reasons that I like Schumann is his spontaneous nature. I can justify why he's spontaneous by showing excerpts of his music that lack traditional transitional elements.

But at the end of the day, I can't justify why spontaneity is even a good thing at all other than by saying "I like it, it resonates with me, it's a breath of fresh air from the typical composition of the period." And some people will agree and some people will disagree.

It all comes down to your opinion at the end, even if you are able to justify it up to a point.

And the very reason why most people hold the opinion of critics and academics above the opinions of laypeople is because critics are able to explicate their opinions in a very non-arbitrary fashion. Yet at the end of the day, they are still opinions and thus not objective.

Even if many academics were to agree on something, it would not make it objective. Objectivity isn't decided through a vote.


----------



## chu42

ArtMusic said:


> Bach was pursuing musical science to a large degree. You should study his didactic works such as _Art of Fugue_, where his greatness and craftsmanship are clear. Posterity hasn't seen anything like since since.


How is this relevant to the previous line of reasoning?



ArtMusic said:


> As I wrote before, Bach is universally regarded by scholars, performers and listeners alike as one of the greatest, easily surpassing Schoenberg. Bach was already recognized as such within a few years after his death, let alone seventy years as in the case of Schoenberg who is begging for more in his grave, as it the whole outdated SVS composers.


This is only relevant to the argument if the below requirements are met:

A. You agree with everything that scholars/listeners think.

B. One is objectively wrong for disagreeing with scholars/listeners.

C: You are fond of all works that have critical and popular success.

And even if you answer "yes" to all of the above, it has no hold on whether or not objectivity exists in music. It's only a prerequisite.


----------



## Haydn70

ArtMusic said:


> Thank you, sir. That was a fascinating read. I'm glad you are doing what your heart takes you as a composer and as a listener.
> 
> I wonder how many of your fellow class mates and contemporary composers are also in this situation - that you composed in a certain esthetics because it was the "new" then, not entirely out of love. It was interesting that your professor made that comment about Debussy. It clearly showed that what mattered to the professor was to be composing in the "new" for its sake. Debussy is not new today, but sure as anything, he is well remembered and regarded even if limited to a few of his short piano works. That says a lot.


You are welcome...and thank you!

I am convinced that a certain percentage of composers were like me (and are now like I was), i.e., "composed in a certain esthetics because it was the "new" then, not entirely out of love." In fact, a couple of composers of personal acquaintance admitted that much to me.

That said, I believe the majority of those composers working in the more "extreme" styles love them and and believe in them fully.

But, to repeat, I am convinced there is a minority that compose the music they do strictly to be fashionable, to be hip. And that would apply to art music of all styles.

I should add, sad to say, that I was proud to compose music that was difficult and inaccessible. And I am sure that some composers did and do still feel that way.


----------



## Torkelburger

I only have a moment to address the first couple of things, then will have to come back tomorrow or later this week.



> I'm not convinced that this is an indicator of quality.


You're wrong.



> I am a pianist, and some of my favorite composers really don't write effectively for their instrument. For example, Brahms and Schumann are horribly awkward to play and yet are beloved by professional pianists. How much idiomatic writing affects your opinion of a composer varies from person to person.
> 
> So-not objective.


It is objective in regards to determining whether something is good or bad, sorry. You can like objectively badly-written music if you want to, but that's not what we're talking about.

I played tuba professionally for over twenty-five years, almost on a daily basis. Unidiomatic music is objectively bad. Unplayable music is objectively bad. You can LIKE it all you want. But it is objectively bad music. An oboe can't play an A below the staff, no matter how badly a composer wants to hear one. That is OBJECTIVELY bad. An oboe can't play its lowest Bb _pianissimo_ no matter how badly a composer wants it to. That is OBJECTIVELY bad. A tuba can't do that either. To ask it to do so is OBJECTIVELY bad. A pianist can't play a six-note chord in thirds in one hand as a blocked chord. That is OBJECTIVELY bad. I can come up with musical phrases all day long that simply CAN'T BE PLAYED BY HUMAN BEINGS on any instrument whatsoever, and it's BAD MUSIC, OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING. Whether someone's opinion about the nonsense that I've written "varies from person to person" doesn't mean jack. They can like it or dislike all they want.



> What's the distinction between sounding arbitrary and non-arbitrary?


Really? You can't tell the difference between this: behcugtbyofbfab4evg5b5vd

And

Hello, my name is Joe.

It's the same for music.



> Unless you can point out a specific line of which a composer could cross,


Wow. Really? I think you are just arguing to hear yourself argue. Just for the sake of it. But since you are playing dumb, I'll play along and indulge you:

Specific examples of lines a composer could cross in regards to sounding smooth, making sense, not sounding arbitrary, etc.:
1.	Constantly leaping from one note to the next in intervals that span more than an octave.
2.	Crossing voices with the nearest voice in the texture (meaning, a bass singing beneath a tenor in one chord, but then singing way above the tenor voice in the next chord).
3.	Not resolving the leading tone properly. For example, in the key of C, singing a B natural and then the next chord singing an F a tritone away. That's objectively a no-no.
4.	Just alternating between two notes over and over and over again in perpetuity. That's objectively bad.
5.	Just sitting on one pitch forever and never changing.
6.	Leaping from a non-chord tone/dissonance.
7.	Writing pitches not in the key or in the chord and does not serve any function.



> different people will hear smoothness and necessity in different ways.


100% consensus is not needed to determine objectivity.


----------



## chu42

Torkelburger said:


> You can LIKE it all you want. But it is objectively bad music.


Why?



Torkelburger said:


> An oboe can't play an A below the staff, no matter how badly a composer wants to hear one. That is OBJECTIVELY bad. An oboe can't play its lowest Bb _pianissimo_ no matter how badly a composer wants it to. That is OBJECTIVELY bad.


Why?



Torkelburger said:


> A tuba can't do that either. To ask it to do so is OBJECTIVELY bad. A pianist can't play a six-note chord in thirds in one hand as a blocked chord. That is OBJECTIVELY bad. I can come up with musical phrases all day long that simply CAN'T BE PLAYED BY HUMAN BEINGS on any instrument whatsoever, and it's BAD MUSIC, OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING.


Why?

You engage in some of the most horrifically circular reasoning I've ever seen. You say if something is unplayable it is bad, and it's bad because it's unplayable. Why are you taking for granted that unplayability is objectively bad? How is it objectively a bad quality? Is there an objective definition to the word bad that I'm missing out on? Do you even know what the word objective means?



Torkelburger said:


> Really? You can't tell the difference between this: behcugtbyofbfab4evg5b5vd
> 
> And
> 
> Hello, my name is Joe.
> 
> It's the same for music.


Sorry, syntax and grammar have objective rules to them because they serve a purpose outside of artistic expression or entertainment. Music does not.



Torkelburger said:


> Wow. Really? I think you are just arguing to hear yourself argue. Just for the sake of it. But since you are playing dumb, I'll play along and indulge you:
> 
> Specific examples of lines a composer could cross in regards to sounding smooth, making sense, not sounding arbitrary, etc.:
> 1.	Constantly leaping from one note to the next in intervals that span more than an octave.


Why is this objectively bad?



Torkelburger said:


> 2.	Crossing voices with the nearest voice in the texture (meaning, a bass singing beneath a tenor in one chord, but then singing way above the tenor voice in the next chord).


Why is this objectively bad?



Torkelburger said:


> 3.	Not resolving the leading tone properly. For example, in the key of C, singing a B natural and then the next chord singing an F a tritone away. That's objectively a no-no.


Why?



Torkelburger said:


> 4.	Just alternating between two notes over and over and over again in perpetuity. That's objectively bad.


Why?



Torkelburger said:


> 5.	Just sitting on one pitch forever and never changing.


Just because a lot of people would dislike it does not make it objectively bad.



Torkelburger said:


> 6.	Leaping from a non-chord tone/dissonance.


Why is this objectively bad?



Torkelburger said:


> 7.	Writing pitches not in the key or in the chord


Why is this objectively bad?



Torkelburger said:


> and does not serve any function.


Whether or not something serves a function subjective.



Torkelburger said:


> 100% consensus is not needed to determine objectivity.


What determines objectivity? It seems like you have little to no grasp on what objectivity means, considering that all the points you brought up are merely references to various part-writing rules of the common practice period. Outside of the common practice period, these criteria either have diminished meaning or no meaning at all.

I suppose that if you had lived in the Renaissance, you would be also saying that the tritone is objectively bad. Parallel octaves are objectively bad. Parallel fifths are objectively bad. And all other outdated precepts. So tell me why the part-writing rules of liturgical chants not equally valid to the part-writing rules of the common practice period? Is the common practice period "objectively correct" in a way that liturgical chants are not?

Furthermore, I will be sure to tell all the practitioners of ethnic music that they are all performing objectively poor works since they don't follow the rules of the common practice period. Never mind that they developed their own ideas and concepts of tonality and rhythm. Europe is superior to everyone else, therefore Europe's ideas are objectively the most correct.

So-please learn what objectivity means if you want to engage in any further discussion. Your current definition of the word "objective" is "any opinion that can be justified through academic consensus", which is frightfully missing the mark.


----------



## consuono

> Sorry, syntax and grammar have objective rules to them. Music does not.


They abound in common practice. A fugue or sonata form have no rules? It's with the modern era that rules became individual.


----------



## chu42

consuono said:


> They abound in common practice. A fugue or sonata form have no rules? It's with the modern era that rules became individual.


Ah, so something is constrained by these so-called "objective rules" only when _subjected to the context of the common practice period. _

Sounds to me like the exact opposite of objectivity.

You get it now, do you? I feel like you're getting close.


----------



## ArtMusic

chu42 said:


> How is this relevant to the previous line of reasoning?
> 
> This is only relevant to the argument if the below requirements are met:
> 
> A. You agree with everything that scholars/listeners think.
> 
> B. One is objectively wrong for disagreeing with scholars/listeners.
> 
> C: You are fond of all works that have critical and popular success.
> 
> And even if you answer "yes" to all of the above, it has no hold on whether or not objectivity exists in music. It's only a prerequisite.


Rhetoric. Face it - Schoenberg and the SVS has been dead for more than 1/2 a century. The point is Bach was already well respected, studied and followed by 1820. That says a lot. Now, this does not diminish your (or my) enjoyment of Schoenberg, that is of course subjective as we all know.


----------



## chu42

ArtMusic said:


> Rhetoric. Face it - Schoenberg and the SVS has been dead for more than 1/2 a century. The point is Bach was already well respected, studied and followed by 1820. That says a lot. Now, this does not diminish your (or my) enjoyment of Schoenberg, that is of course subjective as we all know.


Sure. It's an objective fact that Bach is _considered to be greater_ than Schoenberg.

That is not equivalent to "Bach is objectively greater than Schoenberg."

You are mixing the two up. They mean very different things.


----------



## ArtMusic

Can someone please tell me if he played well and if the score was correctly played every note?

I can objectively state that this is bad music. It has comedic value though, I'll acknowledge that.


----------



## consuono

chu42 said:


> Ah, so something is constrained by these so-called "objective rules" only when _subjected to the context of the common practice period. _
> 
> Sounds to me like the exact opposite of objectivity.
> 
> You get it now, do you? I feel like you're getting close.


Oh, come off it. That's childish. "I win...so there!" But yeah, you're demonstrating the weakness then of more modern music. I win! Rules are pretty objective.


----------



## chu42

ArtMusic said:


> Can someone please tell me if he played well and if the score was correctly played every note?
> 
> I can objectively state that this is bad music. It has comedic value though, I'll acknowledge that.


You can objectively _state_ that is bad music. Sure. That doesn't mean it _is_ objectively bad music-certainly Pollini, one of the greatest pianists of all time, does not think it is bad music. In fact, most critics and experts agree that Stockhausen is an important and innovative composer. You will certainly find Stockhausen in any academic canon made in recent times.

So what is objective about any of this?

Note: By the way, this does not reflect my views on the subject (I like the odd Stockhausen work but not all of the Klavierstucke are convincing to me yet.)

I'm just illustrating that you're arguing disingenuously, because in the same breath you say Bach is objectively good because of critical consensus, and that Stockhausen is objectively bad _despite_ critical consensus.


----------



## consuono

> I'm just illustrating that you're arguing disingenuously, because in the same breath you say Bach is objectively good because of critical consensus, and that Stockhausen is objectively bad despite critical consensus.


 Not strictly *critical* consensus, but consensus overall. The critical consensus may be the only place composers like Stockhausen come up on the radar.
You called Boulez's music "meticulously crafted" or some such. Meticulously crafted compared to what?


----------



## DaveM

ArtMusic said:


> Can someone please tell me if he played well and if the score was correctly played every note?
> 
> I can objectively state that this is bad music. It has comedic value though, I'll acknowledge that.


But he looks awfully serious playing it...


----------



## chu42

consuono said:


> Oh, come off it. That's childish. "I win...so there!" But yeah, you're demonstrating the weakness then of more modern music. I win! Rules are pretty objective.


You agree that rules are in place only in the context of a certain time period. A Gregorian chant is "good" if it follows the liturgical writing rules of the time. A fugue is "good" if it follows all the rules of part-writing and counterpoint. Because it must be contextualized in order to have any meaning, it cannot be truly objective. Can you agree to that?

If you feel that this conclusion means that modern music is generally weaker than music constrained by rules, that's your opinion, sure. I have no problem with it. I might even agree with you, even though I like a lot of modern music.

But it has nothing to do with the objectivity of music.


----------



## SanAntone

> 1. Constantly leaping from one note to the next in intervals that span more than an octave.
> 2. Crossing voices with the nearest voice in the texture (meaning, a bass singing beneath a tenor in one chord, but then singing way above the tenor voice in the next chord).
> 3. Not resolving the leading tone properly. For example, in the key of C, singing a B natural and then the next chord singing an F a tritone away. That's objectively a no-no.
> 4. Just alternating between two notes over and over and over again in perpetuity. That's objectively bad.
> 5. Just sitting on one pitch forever and never changing.
> 6. Leaping from a non-chord tone/dissonance.
> 7. Writing pitches not in the key or in the chord and does not serve any function.


None of these pertain to most of the music of the 20th century and beyond. In fact, #1 was a hallmark of the serial style, i.e. large leaps in order to disassociate the notes from each other for stylistic purposes. There are no leading tones in atonal music. Morton Feldman violated #4 often, it was his personal style. Etc.

To say the least, your objective guidelines are limited, only relevant for tonal works.


----------



## ArtMusic

chu42 said:


> Sure. It's an objective fact that Bach is _considered to be greater_ than Schoenberg.
> 
> That is not equivalent to "Bach is objectively greater than Schoenberg."
> 
> You are mixing the two up. They mean very different things.


Rhetoric.

Bach is greater than Schoenberg. Fact.


----------



## chu42

consuono said:


> Not strictly *critical* consensus, but consensus overall. The critical consensus may be the only place composers like Stockhausen come up on the radar.


If you valued overall consensus in the slightest why do you not consider Ariana Grande to be one of the greatest "composers" of all time?

You have been citing all day the critical acclaim of Mozart and Bach, but now that it is applied to composers that you don't enjoy, suddenly it's a moot point. Do you not see how disingenuous that seems?



consuono said:


> You called Boulez's music "meticulously crafted" or some such. Meticulously crafted compared to what?


Compared to a lot of modern works. Especially aleatory works like those by John Cage.

This:









Is more meticulously crafted than this:









Even if you don't think either have much artistic value.


----------



## consuono

> If you valued overall consensus in the slightest why do you not consider Ariana Grande to be one of the greatest "composers" of all time?


Overall consensus plus time, as has been pointed out regularly.


> You have been citing all day the critical acclaim


I have not. You're the one that added the word "critical".


> Compared to a lot of modern works. Especially aleatory works like those by John Cage.


So is meticulously crafted a positive good and a reason to listen to Boulez, or nah? And I thought Cage was supposed to be showing meticulous craftsmanship in coming up with the very concept. Are you saying he was a poor composer?

So my banging randomly on a piano keyboard is inherently no less worthy than the St Matthew Passion. Answering that in the affirmative is not profound or insightful. It's idiotic.


----------



## DaveM

IMO, a sign of a rigid application of the ‘everything is subjective’ argument when classical music is being discussed is the introduction of an Ariana Grande or a Taylor Swift as if that has some profound significance to support the argument. Surprisingly, it’s usually presented from the point of view of the poster as a sort of ‘Ha hah! I’ve got you’ when in reality it has no significance at all.


----------



## SanAntone

It seems this thread boils down to two, maybe three, groups:

1. Those who are championing the case that the great composers Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms are the standard to judge all composers. 

2. Posters like me, who are not that interested in ranking greatness, but are curious about new music being written today.

3. A third group, arguing over the logical, semantical and philosophical implications of the objective/subjective appreciation of art and music.

I don't see much overlap and a lot of people talking past each other.


----------



## consuono

> 1. Those who are championing the case that the great composers Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms are the standard to judge all composers.


Where did anyone say that?

If you are so uninterested in "greatness" or in any hierarchies, why are you so intent on defending the honor of music that you like? Your problem seems to be that you don't agree completely with what many would call great, and therefore "greatness" is meaningless.


----------



## chu42

consuono said:


> Overall consensus plus time, as has been pointed out regularly.


Overall consensus plus time creates objectivity? Why? What's the cutoff for it? Is Brahms objectively great? What about Monteverdi?



consuono said:


> I have not. You're the one that added the word "critical".


So to be clear-academic opinion does not go into objective ranking whatsoever?



consuono said:


> So is meticulously crafted a positive good and a reason to listen to Boulez, or nah?


That's up to you. I'm not the one assigning objective values to certain criteria.



consuono said:


> And I thought Cage was supposed to be showing meticulous craftsmanship in coming up with the very concept. Are you saying he was a poor composer?


Who thinks that aleatory music shows meticulous craftsmanship? The very idea of it is having no meticulous craftsmanship.

I'm not sure what Cage's status as a composer has to do with this topic. I personally think he was a hit-or-miss composer.



consuono said:


> So my banging randomly on a piano keyboard is inherently no less worthy than the St Matthew Passion. Answering that in the affirmative is not profound or insightful. It's idiotic.


Again, continue to use the strawman that subjectivity is binary and results in everything being identical, when I've already explained multiple times the difference between arbitrary and non-arbitrary subjectivity.

Again, keep on using vague and ill-defined terms like "worthy" or "great" or "valuable". They mean very different things to very different people.


----------



## chu42

consuono said:


> Where did anyone say that?


If Mozart, Bach, etc. are "objectively great", how can anyone _not_ judge all other composers by the "objectively great" composers?



consuono said:


> If you are so uninterested in "greatness" or in any hierarchies, why are you so intent on defending the honor of music that you like?


Because even if music isn't objective you're allowed to have an opinion and promote that opinion...?



consuono said:


> Your problem seems to be that you don't agree completely with what many would call great, and therefore "greatness" is meaningless.


Another strawman. Greatness is subjective but that doesn't mean that it is arbitrary. We as humans trend towards certain ideals that mostly everyone agrees upon. That does not make them any less subjective, just less arbitrary.

Why do I have to keep on explaining this?


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> IMO, a sign of a rigid application of the 'everything is subjective' argument when classical music is being discussed is the introduction of an Ariana Grande or a Taylor Swift as if that has some profound significance to support the argument. Surprisingly, it's usually presented from the point of view of the poster as a sort of 'Ha hah! I've got you' when in reality it has no significance at all.


Sorry, I've presented many "a-ha" moments and none of them were answered with any sort of validity. Feel free to cherry pick from the weaker arguments and ignore the ones that you are completely baffled by. Go on with your belief that the common practice period represents objectivity despite the fact that there are many works not of the common practice period that would fall under what you would call "greatness".


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Where did anyone say that?


It seems to be implied.



> If you are so uninterested in "greatness" or in any hierarchies, why are you so intent on defending the honor of music that you like?


I am not interested in greatness, and have never made an argument about the greatness of new music. What I have done is defended the right of living composers to write the kind of music they wish, despite realizing small audiences. My main orientation is someone who is simply curious about what composers are writing today. I don't associate the other music I love, Brahms, Debussy, Beethoven, Haydn, with the new music I seek out.



> Your problem seems to be that you don't agree completely with what many would call great, and therefore "greatness" is meaningless.


I don't have a problem. It is not so much that I don't agree with "what many would call great" as I just don't care if music is great or not. For me it is entirely about the music I find interesting and enjoy listening to. Some of that is the music from the "great composers" and some is by new composers.


----------



## consuono

> What I have done is defended the right of living composers to write the kind of music they wish, despite realizing small audiences.


Well then what is it to you if I or anyone else denigrates this music with our every breath? How does that interfere with your enjoyment of it? That's our subjective response, and I thought all subjective responses were equally valid. Is there some kind of absolute truth about this music that you want to get across? Composers have every right to compose what they want, and I also every right not to like it.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Well then what is it to you if I or anyone else denigrates this music with our every breath? How does that interfere with your enjoyment of it? That's our subjective response, and I thought all subjective responses were equally valid. Is there some kind of absolute truth about this music that you want to get across?


Your denigration doesn't impinge on my enjoyment. What it does is bother my sense of propriety. I think you are rude and disrespectful to a group of artists whose only crime is pursuing the creation of music they wish to bring into existence.

I view to your need to weigh in with your disgust for what they are doing as obnoxious and an expression of ugly human behavior.

And I cannot remain silent in the face of such coarseness.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> Sorry, I've presented many "a-ha" moments and none of them were answered with any sort of validity. Feel free to cherry pick from the weaker arguments and ignore the ones that you are completely baffled by. Go on with your belief that the common practice period represents objectivity despite the fact that there are many works not of the common practice period that would fall under what you would call "greatness".


Another weak argument is fabricating someone's belief and then in the same sentence indicating how wrong it is.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> Another weak argument is fabricating someone's belief and then in the same sentence indicating how wrong it is.


You...literally agreed with another poster who cited the constraints of the common practice period to be objective criteria by which works could be judged. In fact you said they articulated it far better than you could ever have.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> You...literally agreed with another poster who cited the constraints of the common practice period to be objective criteria by which works could be judged. In fact you said they articulated it far better than you could ever have.


You're making this up as you're going on. Your statement was _'Go on with your belief that the common practice period represents objectivity'_ which may have significance to you, but doesn't to me. It certainly isn't mentioned anywhere in the post I liked. The 'subjectivity vs. objectivity subject is far more complex than your simplistic, dismissive catch-all term, 'common practice period represents objectivity', but then I've noticed that your responses are often, 'So - not objective' and 'Why'


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> You're making this up as you're going on. Your statement was _'Go on with your belief that the common practice period represents objectivity'_ which may have significance to you, but doesn't to me. It certainly isn't mentioned anywhere in the post I liked.


Almost all of the poster's reasoning was based on elements of the common practice. Proper voice leading, counterpoint rules, so on and so forth. They were taken for granted as "objective criteria" without any other justification.



DaveM said:


> The 'subjectivity vs. objectivity subject is far more complex than your simplistic, dismissive catch-all term, 'common practice period represent objectivity', but then I've noticed that your responses are often, 'So - not objective.' and 'Why'


???

I responded that way because it's syllogistically valid. Someone cannot tell me that "Leaping from a dissonance to another dissonance is objectively bad!" without telling me WHY it is objectively bad other than because they feel that way or because it was a rule of the common practice period. Rules aren't arbitrary but they also aren't objective if they are constraints upon art.

It's funny that you point out that I said "So-not objective" as if I didn't provide any reasoning for how I came to each conclusion. Read that post again and if you want to engage in any meaningful discussion, respond in full to every point I made.

For example, a very simple point such as "how can vague terms like 'tense' or 'suffocation' be an objective criteria when it means different things to different people." Please respond to that. It's not very complicated.


----------



## RogerWaters

DaveM said:


> This has already been discussed several times here and in other threads. Where were you? Just because people arrive out of the blue and decide that this is a new issue doesn't mean people like me have to go down the same rabbit hole every time. I've already justified my position several times and in a classical music forum I'm not about to discuss this subject seriously with someone who doesn't think there's any qualitative difference between a Bach and a Czerny. As for the intellectually-hamstrung comment. Others will make that judgment. So far you haven't shown anything to indicate you qualify.


Put up or shut up. If you don't have good reasons why musical evaluation is objective, you have no right to your high horse.

Saying you did it 'elsewhere' is a fob, unless you at the very least direct me there.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> Your denigration doesn't impinge on my enjoyment. What it does is bother my sense of propriety. I think you are rude and disrespectful to a group of artists whose only crime is pursuing the creation of music they wish to bring into existence.
> 
> I view to your need to weigh in with your disgust for what they are doing as obnoxious and an expression of ugly human behavior.
> 
> And I cannot remain silent in the face of such coarseness.


Who says their work is entitled to any more respect than Bach, Mahler or John Williams? My disgust would be my own subjective view which is as valid as yours. Prove me wrong. I have as much right to weigh in as you do on a Beethoven thread.


----------



## consuono

chu42 said:


> If Mozart, Bach, etc. are "objectively great", how can anyone _not_ judge all other composers by the "objectively great" composers?


Strawman! :lol: But in a sense the cacophony we hear is a concession that Bach and Mozart really can't be bettered. So maybe they are the standard in a way.



> Because even if music isn't objective you're allowed to have an opinion and promote that opinion...?


And I'm giving mine. Preach it.



> Another strawman. Greatness is subjective but that doesn't mean that it is arbitrary. We as humans trend towards certain ideals that mostly everyone agrees upon. That does not make them any less subjective, just less arbitrary.
> 
> Why do I have to keep on explaining this?


Word salad.


----------



## ArtMusic

DaveM said:


> But he looks awfully serious playing it...


I would say he looked awfully pretentious playing it. I feel sorry for the piano though, bashing the keys is damaging as we know.


----------



## chu42

consuono said:


> Strawman! :lol: But in a sense the cacophony we hear is a concession that Bach and Mozart really can't be bettered. So maybe they are the standard in a way.


Ok, and this is relevant because...?



consuono said:


> And I'm giving mine. Preach it.


??

You're giving your opinion that music is objective? By definition, it would have to _not_ be an opinion for it to be true-because opinions are subjective-and so far you haven't come even a little bit close to proving that.



consuono said:


> Word salad.


You cannot provide a rebuttal because you do not understand or care to understand the argument at hand.

Interesting syllogistic tactic, I'll give you that.



consuono said:


> Who says their work is entitled to any more respect than Bach, Mahler or John Williams? My disgust would be my own subjective view which is as valid as yours. Prove me wrong. I have as much right to weigh in as you do on a Beethoven thread.


You are actually 100% right about this. Since art is subjective, Stockhausen indeed does not deserve more respect than any other composer. People play what they want to play and critique what they want to critique.


----------



## BachIsBest

Boychev said:


> You are confusing two meanings of the words "evaluation" here. Evaluation may refer to the evaluation of objective properties. In the case of music such objective properties would be the typical duration of the piece, the instrumentation, the tonality of the piece, the harmonic techniques and voice leading techniques employed, the form of the piece and so on. Evaluation in a completely different sense may refer to normative statements about the piece - good, bad, pleasant, too long, difficult, boring, complex, simplistic, etc. This confusion is leading you to commit the fallacy of deriving an ought from an is, in other words to mistake your normative judgments about music for factual statements.


According to google dictionary, the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and Cambridge online dictionary "evaluation" only has one meaning.

Regardless, my point was that criteria can rationally be believed to exist without the believer putting forth a complete set of criteria. This really has little to do with the specific meaning of "evaluation".


----------



## chu42

BachIsBest said:


> Regardless, my point was that criteria can rationally be believed to exist without the believer putting forth a complete set of criteria. This really has little to do with the specific meaning of "evaluation".


This is fairly agreeable. But here is the real question:

Do you believe that such criteria exists?

Sure, there are commonly agreed to criteria pertaining to the common practice period.

But leaving the common practice period-is it possible to objectively judge quality between works as different as Gesualdo's madrigals and Ligeti's piano etudes? Is Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire superior to Monteverdi's L'Orfeo? Is it possible to rank the various ethnic music-making of the world by quality? Is Chinese traditional music superior in conception to Indian traditional music?

I think that, in answering these questions, you will find too many varying opinions and subjective notions to ever get close to something like objective criteria in ranking art.


----------



## hammeredklavier

chu42 said:


> You can objectively _state_ that is bad music. Sure. That doesn't mean it _is_ objectively bad music-certainly Pollini, one of the greatest pianists of all time, does not think it is bad music.


Pollini IS a terrible pianist. Maybe Stockhausen IS the sort of repertoire he should specialize:







chu42 said:


> In fact, most critics and experts agree that Stockhausen is an important and innovative composer. You will certainly find Stockhausen in any academic canon made in recent times.


Again,
"It's not only artists who are at fault; it is equally the fault of the so-called art community: the museum heads, gallery owners, and the critics who encourage and financially enable the production of this rubbish. It is they who champion graffiti and call it genius, promote the scatological and call it meaningful. It is they who, in reality, are the naked emperors of art, for who else would spend $10 million dollars on a rock and think it is art."





(I actually don't think general avant-garde music is "crap"; there are practical applications of it in modern culture, ex. the film industry. I'm just wondering how difficult it is to produce "masterpieces" in that style.)


----------



## Boychev

BachIsBest said:


> According to google dictionary, the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and Cambridge online dictionary "evaluation" only has one meaning.
> 
> Regardless, my point was that criteria can rationally be believed to exist without the believer putting forth a complete set of criteria. This really has little to do with the specific meaning of "evaluation".


Where do they exist? In what way? What are your grounds to rationally believe they exist? Point me to those criteria and I'll accept that I'm a deficient person for not enjoying Bach.


----------



## consuono

chu42 said:


> You're giving your opinion that music is objective? By definition, it would have to not be an opinion for it to be true-because opinions are subjective-and so far you haven't come even a little bit close to proving that.


No, I'm giving my opinion on new music, which is as valid as yours.


> You cannot provide a rebuttal because you do not understand or care to understand the argument at hand.


You're trying to throw around inkhorn terms to sidestep the implications of your subjective world. Everything is subjective as long as it fits your biases. If not, then we're going to have to fine tune that subjectivity a little.


----------



## janxharris

consuono said:


> No, I'm giving my opinion on new music, which is as valid as yours.


Except your opinion on the superiority of Mozart is 'greater' than the naysayers, right?


----------



## consuono

janxharris said:


> Except your opinion on the superiority of Mozart is 'greater' than the naysayers, right?


Whether it is it not doesn't change the reality that new music has a teeny tiny audience. Apparently there are a lot of converging subjective opinions.


----------



## arpeggio

*Down With Modern Music*



SanAntone said:


> It seems this thread boils down to two, maybe three, groups:
> 
> 1. Those who are championing the case that the great composers Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms are the standard to judge all composers.
> 
> 2. Posters like me, who are not that interested in ranking greatness, but are curious about new music being written today.
> 
> 3. A third group, arguing over the logical, semantical and philosophical implications of the objective/subjective appreciation of art and music.
> 
> I don't see much overlap and a lot of people talking past each other.


I agree with every one of your observations especially the first one. It would take me weeks to go the forum and compile a list of the members who believe this. They are not implying anything.

I have found one exmember, Harpsichchordconcerto, who claimed his sole purpose of participating in this forum was to attack 20th century music: https://www.talkclassical.com/11989-what-your-purpose-coming.html#post135076.


----------



## janxharris

consuono said:


> Whether it is it not doesn't change the reality that new music has a teeny tiny audience. Apparently there are a lot of converging subjective opinions.


You still maintain that those that put Mahler and Brahms (etc) above Mozart are listening to inferior music?


----------



## consuono

janxharris said:


> You still maintain that those that put Mahler and Brahms (etc) above Mozart are listening to inferior music?


I'm trying to figure out what all that has to do with whether or not there is such a thing as "mediocre avant garde". Whether I think Mozart is superior to Brahms and Mahler is irrelevant. I think all three are excellent composers. It's a red herring.

Btw Brahms and Mahler would probably maintain that Mozart's music was superior to theirs. So?


----------



## consuono

arpeggio said:


> I have found one exmember, Harpsichchordconcerto, who claimed his sole purpose of participating in this forum was to attack 20th century music.


If 20th century music can't withstand an assault from an internet guy, it's pretty darned weak.


----------



## janxharris

consuono said:


> I'm trying to figure out what all that has to do with whether or not there is such a thing as "mediocre avant garde". Whether I think Mozart is superior to Brahms and Mahler is irrelevant. I think all three are excellent composers. It's a red herring.
> 
> Btw Brahms and Mahler would probably maintain that Mozart's music was superior to theirs. So?


You are right to point out that I'm off topic but perhaps you aren't entirely comfortable with your Mozart assertion?

If you want to reply then perhaps do so on Poll for Mozart fans regarding subjective/objective superiority

No worries if not.


----------



## Boychev

Why does the audience size matter? Classical music in general has a teeny tiny audience. Maybe you haven't talked to people outside your niche recently but barely anybody out there attends concerts, listens to albums, or even has any clue what exactly a symphony or a concerto or a sonata is. Intelligent, well-read people too.

If everyone stopped performing and recording classical music today, would that make it any worse?


----------



## Dedalus

consuono said:


> Whether it is it not doesn't change the reality that new music has a teeny tiny audience. Apparently there are a lot of converging subjective opinions.


As somebody who comes from a metal and rock background, all of classical music has a "teeny tiny audience". I don't think you can make an argument from audience size when your niche is so small to begin with. It's like you are on a Russia sized continent fighting over a single beach. If you're going to make that argument, you have to at least admit that Russia is bigger than the beach.


----------



## janxharris

Dedalus said:


> As somebody who comes from a metal and rock background, all of classical music has a "teeny tiny audience". I don't think you can make an argument from audience size when your niche is so small to begin with. It's like you are on a Russia sized continent fighting over a single beach. If you're going to make that argument, you have to at least admit that Russia is bigger than the beach.


Mozart still gets a healthy ca. 6 million monthly listeners on Spotify - that's 6 million _*individuals *_who may listen multiple times to different pieces. Not bad for a 265 year old artist from Salzburg. It's more than a lot of contemporary rock/pop artists.


----------



## janxharris

Contemporary composer Rebecca Saunders - 625 monthly listeners on Spotify. Statement of fact - not a judgement.


----------



## Boychev

janxharris said:


> Mozart still gets a healthy ca. 6 million monthly listeners on Spotify - that's 6 million _*individuals *_who may listen multiple times to different pieces. Not bad for a 265 year old artist from Salzburg. It's more than a lot of contemporary rock/pop artists.


6 million people who clicked on a "Music for Babies" or "Deep Instrumental Focus" or "Soft Instrumental Music to Sleep To" playlist. :lol:


----------



## Kilgore Trout

consuono said:


> I'm trying to figure out what all that has to do with whether or not there is such a thing as "mediocre avant garde". Whether I think Mozart is superior to Brahms and Mahler is irrelevant. I think all three are excellent composers. It's a red herring.


Mediocre avant garde exists, so does mediocre classical music.

That's it. Debate closed?


----------



## janxharris

Boychev said:


> 6 million people who clicked on a "Music for Babies" or "Deep Instrumental Focus" or "Soft Instrumental Music to Sleep To" playlist. :lol:


Indeed  ....................


----------



## Mandryka

janxharris said:


> Contemporary composer Rebecca Saunders - 625 monthly listeners on Spotify. Statement of fact - not a judgement.


1024 on my Spotify. Not sure what's going on there. 766 for Nicolas Gombert and 131 for Peter Abelard. What do you conclude?


----------



## SanAntone

Mandryka said:


> 1024 on my Spotify. Not sure what's going on there. 766 for Nicolas Gombert and 131 for Peter Abelard. What do you conclude?


This is probably the third time we've been down this rabbit hole ....

Who started this thread? Please lock it.


----------



## janxharris

Mandryka said:


> 1024 on my Spotify. Not sure what's going on there. 766 for Nicolas Gombert and 131 for Peter Abelard.


Saunders 625
Gombert 7,601
Abelard 817



> What do you conclude?


Spotify is wonky.


----------



## Haydn70

Mandryka said:


> That's really interesting! When you changed your mind about whether it was beautiful or not, did that happen roughly at a time when you started to become more conservative politically?


No, the change had nothing to do with politics. Here is my explanation:

https://www.talkclassical.com/69379-great-avant-garde-music-44.html#post2002742


----------



## chu42

consuono said:


> No, I'm giving my opinion on new music, which is as valid as yours.
> You're trying to throw around inkhorn terms to sidestep the implications of your subjective world. Everything is subjective as long as it fits your biases. If not, then we're going to have to fine tune that subjectivity a little.


Read that again and ask yourself if it makes a single modicum of sense or relevance to the discussion.

What exactly do I believe is subjective "only when it fits my biases?" I've already answered your inane questions about Stockhausen. I already answered your inane questions about Boulez. You asked me the dumbest things like "is this music valid" when I don't believe at all in the "objective validity" of music.

Please just stop responding if you're just going to ask questions dumber than the last. Or please attempt to answer just one of my questions posed for you:

-How much people and how much time is required for any opinion to make the magical change from subjective to objective?

-Has enough time passed for Prokofiev to be considered "objectively great"? What about Shostakovich? If there is an objective quality to music based on time and consensus, you should be able to answer both of the above objectively without missing a beat.

-Is all non-European music objectively bad because it doesn't conform to the standards of Western art music?

-Billions of people have believed in the greatness of Chinese traditional music, and over a far larger timespan than classical music. So by your criteria of consensus and time, is Chinese traditional music objectively superior to Bach, Mozart, Beethoven?


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> -Is all non-European music objectively bad because it doesn't conform to the standards of Western art music?
> 
> -Billions of people have believed in the greatness of Chinese traditional music, and over a far larger timespan than classical music. So by your criteria of consensus and time, is Chinese traditional music objectively superior to Bach, Mozart, Beethoven?


This is just as irrelevant as references to and comparisons with the music of Ariana Grande.

Btw, I wonder whether the Chinese believe that some of the creators of their music are greater than others. It's also interesting that classical music is surging in interest in China in a major way.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> This is just as irrelevant as references to and comparisons with the music of Ariana Grande.


Answer the question. Is non-European music, such as the below, objectively bad since it doesn't conform to the standards of Western art music? Or for any other reason that you see fit?






This should be an easy question to answer, since according to you, all music can be objectively judged, can it not?



DaveM said:


> Btw, I wonder whether the Chinese believe that some of the creators of their music are greater than others.


We're already debating composers after a 300 year period. Chinese traditional music has spanned a period of more than two thousand years. You tell me if you think there has been debate over which Chinese composers are superior.



DaveM said:


> It's also interesting that classical music is surging in interest in China in a major way.


It's hilarious that you choose to make this point considering that the classical music audience overall is on a steady decline.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

These discussions always revolve around extra-musical factors like attitude, popularity, cultural views on the music but always very little about the actual music itself! You'll always go around in endless circles or hit a dead end if you don't actually talk about the music, what it actually sounds like, the composition behind it. For a classical music forum, these vital aspects are very seldom adressed.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> ..This should be an easy question to answer, since according to you, all music can be objectively judged, can it not?.


Do you think it helps your arguments to repeatedly make up what people have said or believe and comment on it accordingly?


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> Do you think it helps your arguments to repeatedly make up what people have said or believe and comment on it accordingly?


So...you don't think musical value can be objectively judged?

It's one or the other, Dave. Objectivity is binary. It's not a spectrum. Something cannot be half objective any less than it can be a quarter objective. It's either objective or it's not.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> So...you don't think musical value can be objectively judged?
> 
> It's one or the other, Dave. Objectivity is binary. It's not a spectrum. Something cannot be half objective any less than it can be a quarter objective. It's either objective or it's not.


You didn't answer my question.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> So...you don't think musical value can be objectively judged?
> 
> It's one or the other, Dave. Objectivity is binary. It's not a spectrum. Something cannot be half objective any less than it can be a quarter objective. It's either objective or it's not.


Just for interest sake: Do you think all or most present-day classical music professional orchestra musicians and conductors, solo artists and composers agree with your position on subjectivity?


----------



## arpeggio

*Beating a Dead Horse*



SanAntone said:


> This is probably the third time we've been down this rabbit hole ....
> 
> Who started this thread? Please lock it.


it has been more than three times. I has been dozens. All one has to do is review the forums archive and they will find many threads about modern music that have been locked down. One can also find threads were members who disliked modern music would join these threads and pick fights with members so the moderators would be forced to close it down.

I can not speak for the entire classical music world. All I have been able to do is to provide anecdotal experiences that modern music is more popular than some would think. I have provided it in the past and my efforts were fruitless.

But we have had many polls here that show the majority of the our members have very eclectic tastes. We have one current member who used to create polls to prove most of us hated modern music. 90% of the time his efforts backfired. These polls show that most of our members find beauty in everything from Bach to Boulez. And those of us who dislike Boulez still respect those who find beauty in Boulez (In spite of that dumb quote they keep dredging up). And if a person will not believe those older polls they will not believe a new one.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> Just for interest sake: Do you think all or most present-day classical music professional orchestra musicians and conductors, solo artists and composers agree with your position on subjectivity?


It doesn't matter, because my thoughts on the subject aren't influenced by how others feel, even if I consider them to be excellent musicians.

And even so, I would say overwhelmingly yes, considering how popular "avant-garde" music is among great artists and conductors. They love performing music that isn't considered "objectively good", or even beautiful, by most people. They don't see the common practice period as some sort of golden objective standard by which to judge music.

Just a few examples:

Glenn Gould-Schoenberg Op.41

Sviatoslav Richter-Berg Chamber Concerto

Hilary Hahn-Schoenberg Violin Concerto

Mstislav Rostropovich-Lutoslawski Cello Concerto

Sorry, their tastes aren't "objectively bad" just because you don't like this music. Art is subjective.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> You didn't answer my question.


You asked a loaded question, Dave. One that was rhetorical at that. No one with any syllogistic integrity would attempt to answer the question that you asked.


----------



## Torkelburger

> You can LIKE it all you want. But it is objectively bad music.





> Why?


Because just like you said: _The very study of music theory is the process of analysing (sic) what makes music enjoyable. Without the enjoyment factor, all music theory is useless._

So, to elaborate, theorists didn't just sit around and pull a bunch of rules and criteria out of the air and then go looking for pieces that fit that mold they created. Just the opposite, as you pointed out, they looked at what pieces that millions of people enjoyed (considered of good quality IOW), and then analyzed what properties they all had in common that made this phenomenon happen. The criteria were formed at that later time to explain what made it enjoyable.



> An oboe can't play an A below the staff, no matter how badly a composer wants to hear one. That is OBJECTIVELY bad. An oboe can't play its lowest Bb pianissimo no matter how badly a composer wants it to. That is OBJECTIVELY bad.





> Why?


Well, let's see. If the goal of music is to actually listen to music in order to enjoy it, and a piece is made up of notes that you cannot actually listen to because they can't be played, then that goal cannot be achieved, can it?



> You engage in some of the most horrifically circular reasoning I've ever seen. You say if something is unplayable it is bad, and it's bad because it's unplayable.


I did no such thing. I said something that is unplayable is bad. All you did was make it circular by turning the words around, which anyone can do with any statement-just to make it look circular.



> Why are you taking for granted that unplayability is objectively bad?


So, if you went to a concert and the orchestra didn't play a single note because the conductor said the music is unplayable, you'd find the music "enjoyable"? Should the music theorists you mentioned earlier analyze that music to try and figure out why you enjoyed it so much?



> How is it objectively a bad quality?


You don't think that something intended to be heard but is not heard because of its failings is of bad quality? How can you defend that? Just by harping over the definition of "objective"? Please.



> Is there an objective definition to the word bad that I'm missing out on?


Saying that something can't be considered of bad quality just because doing so is making a value judgment, and value judgments are not "objective" in the strictest, scientific sense of the word, is a very weak argument IMO--especially by someone who defines music theory as the process of analyzing what makes music enjoyable, and without that enjoyment, the theory is useless.

That last bit is confusing, as that is OUR position, not yours. If the quality of music is subjectively dependent on the whims and feelings of the listener alone and nothing else, then there is nothing for theorists to analyze or explain at all, as one person's likes are just as valid as another's dislikes. So, explaining one will invalidate the other pointlessly.



> Do you even know what the word objective means?


If the word bothers you that much, we don't have to use it and the validity of our argument won't change at all. We can discuss reasonability of a statement, belief, position, and substantiate that reasonable belief over other positions.



> Sorry, syntax and grammar have objective rules to them because they serve a purpose outside of artistic expression or entertainment. Music does not.


Wrong. Music is also a form of communication. Much of it has lyrics, but why would dictators go to all that trouble to ban instrumental music if it didn't communicate anything? Shostakovich's audience knew exactly what he was telling them with Sym. No. 5.

It is no coincidence that music closely resembles speech and sounds in nature. Repeating something over and over again louder and louder and faster and faster, whether with words or with sounds alone, has universal implications to the listener, although I'm sure you'll deny this. And if the phrases get shorter and shorter each time, that also adds to the meaning. Everyone knows what very low and sustained sounds can conjure up to the listener. Musical forms follow sentence and paragraph structures and follow narrative principles in speech and communication.

Also, as far as modern music is concerned, a distinction between arbitrary and non-arbitrary can be made by putting the music through a test of sorts such as re-arranging the order of a few bars of music or a section of music, etc., and seeing if the change has made any difference to the sound, expressivity, musicality, etc. If nothing has changed at all and it sounds exactly the same as it did before, the piece is probably arbitrarily written. It would be reasonable to conclude the music is probably not of good quality or not interesting as it appears rambling, disconnected, with no ideas pertaining to the next, no inevitability, and so on and so forth.



> What determines objectivity?


Why don't you ask the theorists you talked about who analyzed what makes music enjoyable? Sounds like they're on to something there. Like, you know, there's some sort of tangible facts of nature that explains why certain audible sounds are enjoyable for the human ear to listen to.



> Outside of the common practice period, these criteria either have diminished meaning or no meaning at all.


This is completely false. One thing that composers such as Chopin showed, as in his _Preludes_, was how important voice leading is when getting modern audiences to accept newer and unheard-of harmonies. Some of the harmonies in the _Preludes_ cannot be analyzed in any traditional sense. However, the only way to really make sense of them is to see them from a contrapuntal, voice-leading perspective, which is how he arrived at them. This taught composers who came after him a very valuable lesson-that audiences can accept and comprehend foreign harmonies and tonalities as long as the voice-leading is logical and intact. Many composers of the 20th century used this lesson to great effect.

Further, if you are a composer today and want to have pieces performed by ensembles of at least 3 or more people, you'd better understand the principles of writing good lines and interesting parts, and voice leading. Those principles still apply. With all due respect to Mr. Feldman, sitting on single notes forever or playing just one or two notes all the time in a texture for long spans, or other poor writing techniques will not get good responses from the players or get many repeat performances.

And we can say it is reasonable not to do such things as outlined in my previous post because good composers such as Mozart and Bach have shown better alternatives in these situations that make the music more enjoyable and sensible for everyone involved (listeners and performers). And as you said, without that enjoyment factor, the theory is useless.



> Is the common practice period "objectively correct" in a way that liturgical chants are not?


There are principles that theorists have discovered among all periods of music that all music of quality share. There are principles that just pertain to a specific period, but as I already explained, there are principles that are still universal (such as the Chopin example).



> Furthermore, I will be sure to tell all the practitioners of ethnic music that they are all performing objectively poor works since they don't follow the rules of the common practice period.


Like I said, there are principles that govern all music, no matter what ethnicity it is. And there are specific rules that certain ethnic communities enforce with their music as well. Theorists have analyzed what makes their music enjoyable to them (and us) too. I attended Berklee College of Music where I graduated with a dual major in Composition and Film Scoring. As part of my film scoring curriculum, I had to take a class called "Stylistic Adaptations in Film Scoring" which was an ethnic music studies class. I learned about a drumming style in Africa where each musician had to enter on a specific count of another musician's rhythm (my "one" is not the same as yours). If you ever came in on the wrong count, it was seen as a serious faux pax, if I remember correctly even a punishable offense.



> Never mind that they developed their own ideas and concepts of tonality and rhythm. Europe is superior to everyone else, therefore Europe's ideas are objectively the most correct.


Strawman.



> None of these pertain to most of the music of the 20th century and beyond.


They help explain why people find the music of that period enjoyable, however. In addition, some voice-leading principles do still apply-such as the reasonability of contrary motion above oblique motion, and oblique motion above parallel motion.



> In fact, #1 was a hallmark of the serial style, i.e. large leaps in order to disassociate the notes from each other for stylistic purposes. There are no leading tones in atonal music.


I am very knowledgeable about serial and atonal music, thanks. But if the music described were over long periods without contrasts, I would be doubtful of its listenability or interest level.



> Morton Feldman violated #4 often, it was his personal style. Etc.


You won't see me playing anything like that, and I know many professionals who have voiced the same. I really, truly wonder how many people would not get bored out of their minds playing two notes over and over and over again one after the other for an hour at the piano?



> To say the least, your objective guidelines are limited, only relevant for tonal works.


Not so, see all explanations above pertaining to the subject.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> You asked a loaded question, Dave. One that was rhetorical at that. No one with any syllogistic integrity would attempt to answer the question that you asked.


My question was:



DaveM said:


> Do you think it helps your arguments to repeatedly make up what people have said or believe and comment on it accordingly?


Since you claimed I said, '_..according to you, all music can be objectively judged and then commented on it, I would say that since you just mentioned integrity, someone with integrity would not make up what people have said and then comment on it as if they had. And you know I never said that because you have said to the effect that you reviewed all my posts in this thread._


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> It doesn't matter, because my thoughts on the subject aren't influenced by how others feel, even if I consider them to be excellent musicians.
> 
> And even so, I would say overwhelmingly yes, considering how popular "avant-garde" music is among great artists and conductors. They love performing music that isn't considered "objectively good", or even beautiful, by most people. They don't see the common practice period as some sort of golden objective standard by which to judge music.
> 
> Just a few examples:
> 
> Glenn Gould-Schoenberg Op.41
> 
> Sviatoslav Richter-Berg Chamber Concerto
> 
> Hilary Hahn-Schoenberg Violin Concerto
> 
> Mstislav Rostropovich-Lutoslawski Cello Concerto
> 
> Sorry, their tastes aren't "objectively bad" just because you don't like this music. Art is subjective.


Non responsive. The fact that artists have played and admired atonal music does not have anything to do with whether they agree with your view on subjectivity.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> Since you claimed I said, '_..according to you, all music can be objectively judged and then commented on it, I would say that since you just mentioned integrity, someone with integrity would not make up what people have said and then comment on it as if they had. And you know I never said that because you have said to the effect that you reviewed all my posts in this thread._


_

Sorry, you liked and agreed with a post by Torkelburger claiming common period practice rules to be examples of objective criteria by which we can judge music by. You can go back on that if you'd like._


----------



## Simon Moon

arpeggio said:


> it has been more than three times. I has been dozens. All one has to do is review the forums archive and they will find many threads about modern music that have been locked down. One can also find threads were members who disliked modern music would join these threads and pick fights would members so the moderators would be forced to close it down.
> 
> I can not speak for the entire classical music world. All I have been able to do is to provide anecdotal experiences that modern music is more popular than some would think. I have provided it in the past and my efforts were fruitless.
> 
> But we have had many polls here that show the majority of the our members have very eclectic tastes. We have one current member who used to create polls to prove most of us hated modern music. 90% of the time his efforts backfired. These polls show that most of our members find beauty in everything from Bach to Boulez. And those of us who dislike Boulez still respect those who find beauty in Boulez (In spite of that dumb quote they keep dredging up). And if a person will not believe those older polls they will not believe a new one.


This has constantly surprised me during my time here at TC.

Someone will start a thread in order to get some recommendations on modern music and composers, and those of us that enjoy such music, will give some recommendations and descriptions.

The thread may continue for a page, maybe it will get to the second page, when an anti-modernist will invariably chime in with snarky comments. I have even been in discussions with current members, who think modern and/or avantgarde classical shouldn't even exist, or it should be destroyed.

If they are so anti-modernist, why do they even open or read a thread on modern classical music, let alone post on it?


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> Sorry, you liked and agreed with a post by Torkelburger claiming common period practice rules to be examples of objective criteria by which we can judge music by. You can go back on that if you'd like.


Sorry, nowhere in his post does 'all music can be objectively judged' appear, nor have I ever said that and you know it. Trying to change the subject that you periodically put words in people's mouths and then comment on it does not prove anything except that deception is part of your modus operandi.


----------



## chu42

Torkelburger said:


> Because just like you said: _The very study of music theory is the process of analysing (sic) what makes music enjoyable. Without the enjoyment factor, all music theory is useless._
> 
> So, to elaborate, theorists didn't just sit around and pull a bunch of rules and criteria out of the air and then go looking for pieces that fit that mold they created. Just the opposite, as you pointed out, they looked at what pieces that millions of people enjoyed (considered of good quality IOW), and then analyzed what properties they all had in common that made this phenomenon happen. The criteria were formed at that later time to explain what made it enjoyable.


THANK YOU. It's mass opinion. It's not objective truth, just things that _most_ people agree with. You just stated it yourself.



Torkelburger said:


> Well, let's see. If the goal of music is to actually listen to music in order to enjoy it, and a piece is made up of notes that you cannot actually listen to because they can't be played, then that goal cannot be achieved, can it?


And this is objectively bad? Why?

There is plenty of music that is considered unplayable or written with the intent to be unplayable. We can still enjoy it.



Torkelburger said:


> I did no such thing. I said something that is unplayable is bad. All you did was make it circular by turning the words around, which anyone can do with any statement-just to make it look circular.


You take it for granted that music that is unplayable is "objectively bad." Furthermore, bad in terms of art isn't even a well-defined term, so using it in an objective sense just makes you look silly. Not everybody thinks of "bad" in the same way that you do.



Torkelburger said:


> So, if you went to a concert and the orchestra didn't play a single note because the conductor said the music is unplayable, you'd find the music "enjoyable"? Should the music theorists you mentioned earlier analyze that music to try and figure out why you enjoyed it so much?


It's subjective. Some people enjoy 4'33''. Some people enjoy Conlon Nancarrow. It has nothing to do with how much I enjoy it.



Torkelburger said:


> You don't think that something intended to be heard but is not heard because of its failings is of bad quality? How can you defend that? Just by harping over the definition of "objective"? Please.


This depends on how the composer feels about it. If he thinks it is a bad quality of his work, then it is bad. If it acknowledges that it was a mistake, then it is a mistake. It's subjective to the composer's thoughts. You and I could think it's bad no matter what the composer feels about it but that doesn't make it "objectively bad."

Yes, I do harp over the definition of objective, because clearly you don't know what it means. Somehow, anything that people believe en masse is objective to you. A sunset is not objectively beautiful just because millions believe it to be true.



Torkelburger said:


> Saying that something can't be considered of bad quality just because doing so is making a value judgment, and value judgments are not "objective" in the strictest, scientific sense of the word, is a very weak argument IMO--especially by someone who defines music theory as the process of analyzing what makes music enjoyable, and without that enjoyment, the theory is useless.


?? 
You haven't given me the slightest bit of evidence as to why I'm wrong that value judgments cannot be objective. You just said you don't feel like you want to define it strictly, even though I'm actually using the word in the way it is meant to be used.



Torkelburger said:


> That last bit is confusing, as that is OUR position, not yours. If the quality of music is subjectively dependent on the whims and feelings of the listener alone and nothing else, then there is nothing for theorists to analyze or explain at all, as one person's likes are just as valid as another's dislikes. So, explaining one will invalidate the other pointlessly.


....what? This is about as valid as saying "historians should not explain history because it already happened." Theorists can analyze whatever they like for whatever reason they like. People like to study what other people enjoy. People can imitate and improve on finding elements that are enjoyable to other people. There is money that can be made in this. Or it might be a hobby for others. I already explained multiple times that enjoyment isn't arbitrary and can be explained-and you choose to ignore it.



Torkelburger said:


> If the word bothers you that much, we don't have to use it and the validity of our argument won't change at all. We can discuss reasonability of a statement, belief, position, and substantiate that reasonable belief over other positions.


Okay. I don't know how to respond to this when you clearly choose to use a word in the way that suits your beliefs regardless of the actual definition.



Torkelburger said:


> Wrong. Music is also a form of communication. Much of it has lyrics, but why would dictators go to all that trouble to ban instrumental music if it didn't communicate anything? Shostakovich's audience knew exactly what he was telling them with Sym. No. 5.


Okay. So music is a form of communication. So what? It doesn't have objective rules like speech does.

Even in language, people break syntax and grammar rules all the time and their point still comes across effectively. Just look at texting or telegrams. So why does music have to follow communicative rules to be good or bad?



Torkelburger said:


> It is no coincidence that music closely resembles speech and sounds in nature. Repeating something over and over again louder and louder and faster and faster, whether with words or with sounds alone, has universal implications to the listener, although I'm sure you'll deny this.


If you want to get technical, you could hypothesize that creatures evolved loud sounds in order to create warnings against predators or something. This much can be objectively true. But to say that loud sounds increasing in intensity mean the same exact thing to every single human in existence is quite a stretch. There are natural instincts that may arise in each human but the actual way we interpret these instincts will differ between conditioning and background.



Torkelburger said:


> And if the phrases get shorter and shorter each time, that also adds to the meaning. Everyone knows what very low and sustained sounds can conjure up to the listener. Musical forms follow sentence and paragraph structures and follow narrative principles in speech and communication.


 Sure, loud phrases increasing in intensity can mean objectively something instinctually. So can short phrases decreasing in intensity. What does this have to do with value judgment again?



Torkelburger said:


> Also, as far as modern music is concerned, a distinction between arbitrary and non-arbitrary can be made by putting the music through a test of sorts such as re-arranging the order of a few bars of music or a section of music, etc., and seeing if the change has made any difference to the sound, expressivity, musicality, etc. If nothing has changed at all and it sounds exactly the same as it did before, the piece is probably arbitrarily written. It would be reasonable to conclude the music is probably not of good quality or not interesting as it appears rambling, disconnected, with no ideas pertaining to the next, no inevitability, and so on and so forth.


Sure. I don't personally disagree with that. Some people think that aleatory music is interesting, me not so much. I don't think you're objectively wrong if you like aleatory music.



Torkelburger said:


> Why don't you ask the theorists you talked about who analyzed what makes music enjoyable? Sounds like they're on to something there. Like, you know, there's some sort of tangible facts of nature that explains why certain audible sounds are enjoyable for the human ear to listen to.


Except not everyone subscribes to enjoying the same audible sounds as everyone else. If music is so universal, how did the Aboriginals end up enjoying didgeridoo music-music with zero resemblance to the basic principles behind the common practice era? Why don't all cultures follow the same general trends pertaining to beauty in music?



Torkelburger said:


> This is completely false. One thing that composers such as Chopin showed, as in his _Preludes_, was how important voice leading is when getting modern audiences to accept newer and unheard-of harmonies. Some of the harmonies in the _Preludes_ cannot be analyzed in any traditional sense. However, the only way to really make sense of them is to see them from a contrapuntal, voice-leading perspective, which is how he arrived at them. This taught composers who came after him a very valuable lesson-that audiences can accept and comprehend foreign harmonies and tonalities as long as the voice-leading is logical and intact. Many composers of the 20th century used this lesson to great effect.
> 
> Further, if you are a composer today and want to have pieces performed by ensembles of at least 3 or more people, you'd better understand the principles of writing good lines and interesting parts, and voice leading. Those principles still apply. With all due respect to Mr. Feldman, sitting on single notes forever or playing just one or two notes all the time in a texture for long spans, or other poor writing techniques will not get good responses from the players or get many repeat performances.
> 
> And we can say it is reasonable not to do such things as outlined in my previous post because good composers such as Mozart and Bach have shown better alternatives in these situations that make the music more enjoyable and sensible for everyone involved (listeners and performers). And as you said, without that enjoyment factor, the theory is useless.


So your line of reasoning here is that people should follow certain musical principles because they help them make a living or draw an audience. Not because they are "objectively correct" principles.



Torkelburger said:


> There are principles that theorists have discovered among all periods of music that all music of quality share. There are principles that just pertain to a specific period, but as I already explained, there are principles that are still universal (such as the Chopin example).


This is the music that the Aborigines have been listening to since the dawn of civilization. Show me the "universal similarities" between this and Chopin, or really, any "universal" rule of the common practice period.

Digeridoo Ancient Sound of the Future



Torkelburger said:


> Like I said, there are principles that govern all music, no matter what ethnicity it is.


I don't think this is true, and you have yet to give me a reason why it is. I don't think you can judge the music in the above video with anything resembling how you would judge a Brahms symphony.



Torkelburger said:


> And there are specific rules that certain ethnic communities enforce with their music as well. Theorists have analyzed what makes their music enjoyable to them (and us) too. I attended Berklee College of Music where I graduated with a dual major in Composition and Film Scoring. As part of my film scoring curriculum, I had to take a class called "Stylistic Adaptations in Film Scoring" which was an ethnic music studies class. I learned about a drumming style in Africa where each musician had to enter on a specific count of another musician's rhythm (my "one" is not the same as yours). If you ever came in on the wrong count, it was seen as a serious faux pax, if I remember correctly even a punishable offense.


Yes, when you _subject_ the music to specific rules and contexts, you end up with some criteria by which you can objectively judge whether it breaks the rules or not. That has nothing to do with whether all music can be judged objectively.

Clearly the rule you mentioned about the drumming style in Africa does not apply to all other music. That specific African community thinks that breaking the rule is a faux pax, while Handel or Mozart wouldn't be bothered by it in the same way. Therefore it's _subjective._



Torkelburger said:


> They help explain why people find the music of that period enjoyable, however. In addition, some voice-leading principles do still apply-such as the reasonability of contrary motion above oblique motion, and oblique motion above parallel motion.


I can name perhaps a hundred 20th century works that do not bother with any voice leading principles.



Torkelburger said:


> I am very knowledgeable about serial and atonal music, thanks. But if the music described were over long periods without contrasts, I would be doubtful of its listenability or interest level.


That's subjective. It's interesting how you consistently bring up personal opinions that you treat as "universal" when they are, in fact, subjective. Some people can sit through Sorabji's 5 hour Opus Archimagicum. Some people can enjoy John Cage's Freeman Etudes.



Torkelburger said:


> You won't see me playing anything like that, and I know many professionals who have voiced the same. I really, truly wonder how many people would not get bored out of their minds playing two notes over and over and over again one after the other for an hour at the piano?


But people do play it, and are interested by it. So again, subjective. Even if nobody did, it'd still be subjective because there's the mere possibility of people enjoying it.

This man bores me to tears, but he has thousands of subscribers who clearly enjoy the music.

Art is subjective.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> Sorry, nowhere in his post does 'all music can be objectively judged' appear, nor have I ever said that and you know it. Trying to change the subject that you periodically put words in people's mouths and then comment on it does not prove anything except that deception is part of your modus operandi.


It's a syllogistic implication that objective criteria pertaining to judging music pertains to all music. If it has to be subjected under context or timeframe, then it is subjective, not objective.

The reason why you wouldn't judge Sundanese tribal music by common practice standards is because the Sundanese do not subscribe to common practice standards. But the Sundanese are still constrained by the laws of gravity even if they were to not subscribe to it. One of these things is objective (gravity) and the other is subjective (music standards).

Simply put: If you don't think that your "objective standards" apply to all music, then they are by definition not objective. It is not a stretch for me to say that you _do_ think music can be judged objectively, so by extension you think _all_ music can be judged objectively.

But now you are backtracking on the idea that all music can be objectively judged, so I am happy that you are now agreeing with me that music is subjective.


----------



## DaveM

DaveM said:


> Just for interest sake: Do you think all or most present-day classical music professional orchestra musicians and conductors, solo artists and composers agree with your position on subjectivity?





chu42 said:


> ...I would say overwhelmingly yes, considering how popular "avant-garde" music is among great artists and conductors. They love performing music that isn't considered "objectively good", or even beautiful, by most people. They don't see the common practice period as some sort of golden objective standard by which to judge music.
> 
> Just a few examples:
> 
> Glenn Gould-Schoenberg Op.41
> 
> Sviatoslav Richter-Berg Chamber Concerto
> 
> Hilary Hahn-Schoenberg Violin Concerto
> 
> Mstislav Rostropovich-Lutoslawski Cello Concerto
> 
> Sorry, their tastes aren't "objectively bad" just because you don't like this music. Art is subjective.


"*Gould** revered J.S. Bach*, stating that the Baroque composer was "first and last an architect, a constructor of sound, and what makes him so inestimably valuable to us is that *he was beyond a doubt the greatest architect of sound who ever lived"."*

*Sviatoslav Richter on Chopin: : "He was the poet of sound and was the greatest composer of piano music."*

*According to Rostropovich*, *Shostakovich* (who he knew personally) said, *"I'm one hundred percent sure that Britten is one of the greatest geniuses of the twentieth century."*

Apparently, some of the artists you mentioned thought that the word, 'greatest' had significance. Since the word 'greatest' is being dismissed as unimportant or insignificant because it is (allegedly) purely a subjective judgment, it would seem that some of the artists you mentioned would disagree with your position.


----------



## ArtMusic

chu42 said:


> It's a syllogistic implication that objective criteria pertaining to judging music pertains to all music. If it has to be subjected under context or timeframe, then it is subjective, not objective.
> 
> The reason why you wouldn't judge Sundanese tribal music by common practice standards is because the Sundanese do not subscribe to common practice standards. But the Sundanese are still constrained by the laws of gravity even if they were to not subscribe to it. One of these things is objective (gravity) and the other is subjective (music standards).
> 
> Simply put: If you don't think that your "objective standards" apply to all music, then they are by definition not objective. It is not a stretch for me to say that you _do_ think music can be judged objectively, so by extension you think _all_ music can be judged objectively.
> 
> But now you are backtracking on the idea that all music can be objectively judged, so I am happy that you are now agreeing with me that music is subjective.


We are here to judge western classical music from 1500 to 2021. That is one continuous time period where composers have built (and defaced) each other's works.


----------



## consuono

Simon Moon said:


> This has constantly surprised me during my time here at TC.
> 
> Someone will start a thread in order to get some recommendations on modern music and composers, and those of us that enjoy such music, will give some recommendations and descriptions.
> 
> The thread may continue for a page, maybe it will get to the second page, when an anti-modernist will invariably chime in with snarky comments. I have even been in discussions with current members, who think modern and/or avantgarde classical shouldn't even exist, or it should be destroyed.
> 
> If they are so anti-modernist, why do they even open or read a thread on modern classical music, let alone post on it?


So what? You get the same sort of thing with any composer. "I'm sick of Beethoven", "I just don't get Bach", "Mozart is overrated". I don't understand this idea that you either have to love avant garde/new music/whatever, or else be silent. And always, always, always be attentive to the delicate natures of modern music fans.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> "*Gould** revered J.S. Bach*, stating that the Baroque composer was "first and last an architect, a constructor of sound, and what makes him so inestimably valuable to us is that *he was beyond a doubt the greatest architect of sound who ever lived"."*
> 
> *Sviatoslav Richter on Chopin: : "He was the poet of sound and was the greatest composer of piano music."*
> 
> *According to Rostropovich*, *Shostakovich* (who he knew personally) said, *"I'm one hundred percent sure that Britten is one of the greatest geniuses of the twentieth century."*


They have opinions on music. I personally think Bach is one of the greatest harmonic architects of all time. What does that have to do with my stance on objectivity?



DaveM said:


> Apparently, some of the artists you mentioned thought that the word, 'greatest' had significance. Since the word 'greatest' is being dismissed as unimportant or insignificant because it is (allegedly) purely a subjective judgment, it would seem that some of the artists you mentioned would disagree with your position.


Why? Where did you get their stance on objectivity on music because they have opinions? Did they ever say that their opinion was objectively correct? Why is the word "greatest" insignificant just because it's a subjective word? Why are you making inferences with no justification?


----------



## chu42

ArtMusic said:


> We are here to judge western classical music from 1500 to 2021. That is one continuous time period where composers have built (and defaced) each other's works.


Ah, so now you don't believe in objectivity in music since you don't think the rules we set apply to all music. Only to music in a certain place and a certain timeframe.

I wonder what other objective truths apply only to certain places and timeframes. I wonder if the Maori people have to deal with gravity like we do. I wonder if zinc had a different chemical composition in 1735.


----------



## ArtMusic

chu42 said:


> Ah, so now you don't believe in objectivity in music since you don't think the rules we set apply to all music. Only to music in a certain place and a certain timeframe.
> 
> I wonder what other objective truths apply only to certain places and timeframes. I wonder if the Maori people have to deal with gravity like we do. I wonder if zinc had a different chemical composition in 1735.


If the word "objective" bothers you so much, then don't use it. The reality is music will always be assessed, judged and be written-off with time by and large or accepted in canon. I don't have a problem accepting composers and music are of different quality and that standards can, should and have always been imposed.


----------



## consuono

And if there were great new music, I think it very unlikely that it would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt its existence. - consuono


----------



## chu42

ArtMusic said:


> If the word "objective" bothers you so much, then don't use it.


I'm only saying that objectivity in music doesn't exist.



ArtMusic said:


> The reality is music will always be assessed, judged and be written-off with time by and large or accepted in canon. I don't have a problem accepting composers and music are of different quality and that standards can, should and have always been imposed.


I judge music by certain standards all the time. But since we're always contextualizing our standards, that means they aren't objective. I'm not judging Ligeti's Musica Ricercata by the same standard as Monteverdi's L'Orfeo. To think that there is a "universal" standard is nonsense, and that is the prerequisite for objectivity.


----------



## SanAntone

> I said something that is unplayable is bad.


Re: piano sonatas - Beethoven regularly puts a crescendo sign on a held note or chord - and that is simply impossible to do on the piano.

Bad music?


----------



## Dedalus

I haven't read this whole thread but I can't help but wonder just what music is being talked about. I just listened to Boulez's Sur Incises and it was an absolutely fun listen. I can see why somebody wouldn't like it, but who could listen to it and be like "yeah that's just random notes" or whatever people say. What IS it that people say, even? I just find myself confused because the piece is so obviously well crafted, it seems implausible that any experienced music listener could listen to it and not hear that. 

Am I creating a strawman and nobody actually thinks that? I hope so because that would be quite peculiar.


----------



## chu42

consuono said:


> And if there were great new music, I think it very unlikely that it would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt its existence. - consuono


Not exactly sure what you mean by "new" music-but in terms of music outside of the common practice period, there are many works that would be regarded by general consensus as having entered the both the performance repertoire and the canon of "great works":

Bartok The Magnificent Mandarin
Bartok Violin Concerti
Bartok Piano Concerti
Berg Violin Concerto
Berg Wozzeck
Boulez Le marteau san maître
Boulez Pli selon pli 
Carter String Quartets
Crumb Mikrokosmos
Crumb Vox Balaenae
Ginastera Guitar Sonata
Ginastera Piano Concerto No.1
Ginastera Violin Concerto
Hindemith Ludus Tonalis
Hindemith Mathis der Maler
Ives Concord Sonata
Ives Symphony No.4
Johnston String Quartets
Ligeti Atmospheres
Ligeti Piano Concerto
Ligeti Requiem
Ligeti Violin Concerto
Lutoslawski Cello Concerto
Lutoslawski Les Espaces du sommeil
Lutoslawski Piano Concerto
Messiaen Canyons aux etoiles
Messiaen Oiseaux Exotiques
Messiaen Preludes
Messiaen Vingt Regards
Penderecki St. Luke Passion
Penderecki Threnody
Prokofiev Piano Concerti
Prokofiev Piano Sonatas
Prokofiev Violin Concerti
Rautavaara Cantus Arcticus
Rautavaara Piano Concerto No.1
Rautavaara Piano Concerto No.2
Reich Piano Phase
Rzewski The People United Shall Never Be Defeated
Schnittke Concerto Grossi
Schnittke Symphonies
Schoenberg Piano Concerto
Schoenberg Pierrot Lunaire
Schoenberg Suite for Piano
Schoenberg Violin Concerto
Stockhausen Kontra-Punkte
Stockhausen Mantra
Stravinsky Rite of Spring
Stravinsky Wind Symphony
Takemitsu Rain Spell
Takemitsu Orion
Xenakis Eonta
Xenakis Metastasis
Xenakis Persepolis

And this is a very bare boned list of examples. It is only a list of a few of most well-known works by the most well-known composers. It contains the works that I would recommend to someone completely new to music outside the traditional "classical" realm.

The idea that modern music has not produced anything of note is, to me, extremely close-minded perception of a highly diverse and interesting body of works. I highly doubt that you've gone through each and every one of this basic list and evaluated whether or not there are "great" works within.


----------



## chu42

Dedalus said:


> I haven't read this whole thread but I can't help but wonder just what music is being talked about. I just listened to Boulez's Sur Incises and it was an absolutely fun listen. I can see why somebody wouldn't like it, but who could listen to it and be like "yeah that's just random notes" or whatever people say. What IS it that people say, even? I just find myself confused because the piece is so obviously well crafted, it seems implausible that any experienced music listener could listen to it and not hear that.
> 
> Am I creating a strawman and nobody actually thinks that? I hope so because that would be quite peculiar.


This how I think of it:

Someone who is not at a very high reading level would find Shakespeare incomprehensible.

And this is not an insult-I myself often need help reading Shakespeare. It's likely because I haven't gotten used to his peculiar idioms, language choices, grammatical structure, etc. When I learn more about these idiosyncrasies and the language of the time period and I and really sit down and analyze it, eventually I'll be able to appreciate and enjoy his works more.

I take a similar approach to avant-garde works that are considered great and try to figure out why they are considered that way. Then I make my own judgment.


----------



## SanAntone

chu42 said:


> This how I think of it:
> 
> Someone who is not at a very high reading level would find Shakespeare incomprehensible.
> 
> And this is not an insult-I myself often need help reading Shakespeare. It's likely because I haven't gotten used to his peculiar idioms, language choices, grammatical structure, etc. When I learn more about these idiosyncrasies and the language of the time period and I and really sit down and analyze it, eventually I'll be able to appreciate and enjoy his works more.
> 
> The same goes for great avant-garde music.


Probably 30 years ago I made a commitment to purchase a leather bound set of Shakespeare's first folio published as individual volumes, all 39 plays and the sonnets - the original texts as published in 1623. No modernization, no annotations. After a while I learned how to read them and understand them. This is the best way to experience Shakespeare, IMO.

One might made an analogy with listening to new music, but not me. For me it is not abut "understanding" or "enough exposure" it is about curiosity.

I am curious about new music being written. I listen. I don't have expectations. I am not trying to figure it out. I just listen.

Often I enjoy what I hear.


----------



## consuono

chu42 said:


> Not exactly sure what you mean by "new" music-but in terms of music outside of the common practice period, there are many works that would be regarded by general consensus as having entered the both the performance repertoire and the canon of "great works":
> 
> Bartok The Magnificent Mandarin
> Bartok Violin Concerti
> Bartok Piano Concerti
> Berg Violin Concerto
> Berg Wozzeck
> Boulez Le marteau san maître
> Boulez Pli selon pli
> Carter String Quartets
> Crumb Mikrokosmos
> Crumb Vox Balaenae
> Ginastera Guitar Sonata
> Ginastera Piano Concerto No.1
> Ginastera Violin Concerto
> Hindemith Ludus Tonalis
> Hindemith Mathis der Maler
> Ives Concord Sonata
> Ives Symphony No.4
> Johnston String Quartets
> Ligeti Atmospheres
> Ligeti Piano Concerto
> Ligeti Requiem
> Ligeti Violin Concerto
> Lutoslawski Cello Concerto
> Lutoslawski Les Espaces du sommeil
> Lutoslawski Piano Concerto
> Messiaen Canyons aux etoiles
> Messiaen Oiseaux Exotiques
> Messiaen Preludes
> Messiaen Vingt Regards
> Penderecki St. Luke Passion
> Penderecki Threnody
> Prokofiev Piano Concerti
> Prokofiev Piano Sonatas
> Prokofiev Violin Concerti
> Rautavaara Cantus Arcticus
> Rautavaara Piano Concerto No.1
> Rautavaara Piano Concerto No.2
> Reich Piano Phase
> Rzewski The People United Shall Never Be Defeated
> Schnittke Concerto Grossi
> Schnittke Symphonies
> Schoenberg Piano Concerto
> Schoenberg Pierrot Lunaire
> Schoenberg Suite for Piano
> Schoenberg Violin Concerto
> Stockhausen Kontra-Punkte
> Stockhausen Mantra
> Stravinsky Rite of Spring
> Stravinsky Wind Symphony
> Takemitsu Rain Spell
> Takemitsu Orion
> Xenakis Eonta
> Xenakis Metastasis
> Xenakis Persepolis
> 
> And this is a very bare boned list of examples. It is only a list of a few of most well-known works by the most well-known composers. It contains the works that I would recommend to someone completely new to music outside the traditional "classical" realm.
> 
> The idea that modern music has not produced anything of note is, to me, extremely close-minded perception of a highly diverse and interesting body of works. I highly doubt that you've gone through each and every one of this basic list and evaluated whether or not there are "great" works within.


It's somehow hilarious that you took so much time to type all that out.


----------



## consuono

chu42 said:


> This how I think of it:
> 
> Someone who is not at a very high reading level would find Shakespeare incomprehensible.
> 
> And this is not an insult-I myself often need help reading Shakespeare. It's likely because I haven't gotten used to his peculiar idioms, language choices, grammatical structure, etc. When I learn more about these idiosyncrasies and the language of the time period and I and really sit down and analyze it, eventually I'll be able to appreciate and enjoy his works more.
> 
> I take a similar approach to avant-garde works that are considered great and try to figure out why they are considered that way. Then I make my own judgment.


The problem.with that being that Shakespeare was recognized as "great" by those of his time and a generation or two thereafter who were more familiar with his language characteristics. It wasn't always just for those "in the know".


----------



## Haydn70

> Not exactly sure what you mean by "new" music-but in terms of music outside of the common practice period, there are many works that would be regarded by general consensus as having entered the both the performance repertoire and the canon of "great works":
> 
> Bartok The Magnificent Mandarin
> Bartok Violin Concerti
> Bartok Piano Concerti
> Berg Violin Concerto
> Berg Wozzeck
> Boulez Le marteau san maître
> Boulez Pli selon pli
> Carter String Quartets
> Crumb Mikrokosmos
> Crumb Vox Balaenae
> Ginastera Guitar Sonata
> Ginastera Piano Concerto No.1
> Ginastera Violin Concerto
> Hindemith Ludus Tonalis
> Hindemith Mathis der Maler
> Ives Concord Sonata
> Ives Symphony No.4
> Johnston String Quartets
> Ligeti Atmospheres
> Ligeti Piano Concerto
> Ligeti Requiem
> Ligeti Violin Concerto
> Lutoslawski Cello Concerto
> Lutoslawski Les Espaces du sommeil
> Lutoslawski Piano Concerto
> Messiaen Canyons aux etoiles
> Messiaen Oiseaux Exotiques
> Messiaen Preludes
> Messiaen Vingt Regards
> Penderecki St. Luke Passion
> Penderecki Threnody
> Prokofiev Piano Concerti
> Prokofiev Piano Sonatas
> Prokofiev Violin Concerti
> Rautavaara Cantus Arcticus
> Rautavaara Piano Concerto No.1
> Rautavaara Piano Concerto No.2
> Reich Piano Phase
> Rzewski The People United Shall Never Be Defeated
> Schnittke Concerto Grossi
> Schnittke Symphonies
> Schoenberg Piano Concerto
> Schoenberg Pierrot Lunaire
> Schoenberg Suite for Piano
> Schoenberg Violin Concerto
> Stockhausen Kontra-Punkte
> Stockhausen Mantra
> Stravinsky Rite of Spring
> Stravinsky Wind Symphony
> Takemitsu Rain Spell
> Takemitsu Orion
> Xenakis Eonta
> Xenakis Metastasis
> Xenakis Persepolis
> 
> And this is a very bare boned list of examples. It is only a list of a few of most well-known works by the most well-known composers. It contains the works that I would recommend to someone completely new to music outside the traditional "classical" realm.
> 
> The idea that modern music has not produced anything of note is, to me, extremely close-minded perception of a highly diverse and interesting body of works. I highly doubt that you've gone through each and every one of this basic list and evaluated whether or not there are "great" works within.





consuono said:


> It's somehow hilarious that you took so much time to type all that out.


And many, if not most, on this list *HAVE NOT* entered the both the performance repertoire and the canon of "great works".


----------



## consuono

Well I used the term new music to avoid the offensive "avant garde". All music was once new, but not all music was once avant garde.


----------



## hammeredklavier

chu42 said:


> I judge music by certain standards all the time. But since we're always contextualizing our standards, that means they aren't objective. I'm not judging Ligeti's Musica Ricercata by the same standard as Monteverdi's L'Orfeo. To think that there is a "universal" standard is nonsense, and that is the prerequisite for objectivity.


Why then, some people object to this statement: "Avant-garde music is simply different from classical music; it adheres to different standards from those of classical music; hence it's a different genre."


----------



## chu42

Haydn70 said:


> And many, if not most, on this list *HAVE NOT* entered the both the performance repertoire and the canon of "great works".


Which recent canons do you own that fail to mention most of these composers and/or works? Which of these works would not be recognized or well-regarded by any classical music critic or competition judge? Which of these composers do not already have many dissertations and analyses written on them?


----------



## Haydn70

chu42 said:


> Which recent canons do you own that fail to mention most of these composers and/or works? Which of these works would not be recognized or well-regarded by any classical music critic or competition judge? Which of these composers do not already have many dissertations and analyses written on them?


You made the claim...the burden of proof is on you, not me.


----------



## chu42

hammeredklavier said:


> Why then, some people object to this statement: "Avant-garde music is simply different from classical music; it adheres to different standards from those of classical music; hence it's a different genre."


It's only a different genre in that the Romantic Era is different from the Baroque era. Wagner's operas hardly conform to Baroque standards any more than Ligeti's Etudes conform to 19th century piano writing.

Of course there are various levels as to how similar avant-garde music is to the music before it. After all, Prokofiev was considered avant garde and his music retains a lot of Classical era and Romantic era elements.

The timeline of classical music really just represents the shifting and relaxation of the rulebook; so it would make sense that the completely constraint-less modern era is just another continuation of classical music.


----------



## Dedalus

Haydn70 said:


> And many, if not most, on this list *HAVE NOT* entered the both the performance repertoire and the canon of "great works".


That's a claim.


----------



## chu42

Haydn70 said:


> You made the claim...the burden of proof is on you, not me.


My picks all come from the books that I own:

-David Dubal, _The Essential Canon_

-Charles Rosen et. al, _Variations on the Canon: Essays on Composers from Bach to Boulez_

-Wendy Thompson, _The Great Composers_

And some others.

Note: I retract my claim on the performance repertoire. I know that some of these works are quite popular, but I couldn't tell you exactly how often they are performed, and I don't think it's terribly relevant considering we can both agree that a lot of great music is underperformed and a lot of terrible music is overperformed.


----------



## Haydn70

Dedalus said:


> That's a claim.


" there are many works that would be regarded by general consensus as having entered the both the performance repertoire and the canon of "great works"

That is what chu42 wrote followed by a list of works.

Where is the general consensus? Any proof of such a consensus? How about a list of performances of these works. How about some concrete evidence? Or it is acceptable that someone makes some statements I we are supposed to believe them at face value?


----------



## Dedalus

Haydn70 said:


> " there are many works that would be regarded by general consensus as having entered the both the performance repertoire and the canon of "great works"
> 
> That is what chu42 wrote followed by a list of works.
> 
> Where is the general consensus? Any proof of such a consensus? How about a list of performances of these works. How about some concrete evidence? Or it is acceptable that someone makes some statements I we are supposed to believe them at face value?


I don't have anything to show you, no. But I've been on a classical music discord for years and have many friends who like classical music, and a sizable portion of them really enjoy the kind of stuff that's on that list. Totally anecdotal I suppose. But it's just so weird that your attitude just doesn't map onto my own experience of classical listeners whatsoever. Even the ones who prefer romantic era and earlier stuff don't belligerently attack modern music, they generally just say they don't like it. That's fine, because we're all friends, and it's ok to have different taste.

I really just find this perspective of 20th century classical being some kind of... I don't even know. What is the actual beef with it other than people not liking it? Is it some kind of neo marxist conspiracy? Some kind of degeneration of morality and standards or emperor without clothes. Like WHAT is even the big deal. It's music that a lot of people like. And when I say "a lot" I mean a lot of classical fans, because not very many people like any classical music beyond like "4 hours of classical music to study to" videos. But within that fold, a significant portion enjoy music like those on that list. I mean I just came into classical from listening to metal and prog a few years ago and had some friends show me Schoenberg and other 20th century composers and I came to enjoy it. Am I a part of this conspiracy too?


----------



## chu42

Haydn70 said:


> Where is the general consensus? Any proof of such a consensus? How about a list of performances of these works. How about some concrete evidence?


See my post above.



Haydn70 said:


> Or it is acceptable that someone makes some statements I we are supposed to believe them at face value?


Jeez. I thought that their canonization was fairly commonplace knowledge. Do also you question everyone that states that the canons include Mahler and Wagner and Haydn?


----------



## chu42

consuono said:


> The problem.with that being that Shakespeare was recognized as "great" by those of his time and a generation or two thereafter who were more familiar with his language characteristics. It wasn't always just for those "in the know".


If you ask the average person right now if they enjoy reading Shakespeare, I doubt they will answer positively. It is literati and theater professionals who hold Shakespeare in high regard.

Just like how the average person does not enjoy listening to Ligeti, but Ligeti is well-regarded among professional performers, classical music critics and experts. Much of his music became regarded as "instant classics" in the classical music world. Just because you don't like his music doesn't make this any less true.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> They have opinions on music. I personally think Bach is one of the greatest harmonic architects of all time. What does that have to do with my stance on objectivity?
> 
> Why? Where did you get their stance on objectivity on music because they have opinions? Did they ever say that their opinion was objectively correct? Why is the word "greatest" insignificant just because it's a subjective word? Why are you making inferences with no justification.


For someone who seems to try to adhere to a rigidly logical way of thinking, you come out with some strangely illogical conclusions:

So since there is nothing objective behind your opinion that 'Bach is one of the greatest harmonic architects of all time' and since 'greatest', by definition infers _'considerably above the normal or average_', your use of the term 'greatest' has no value whatsoever as a term that implies a comparison since there's nothing (according to you) objective about the use of the term or apparently about what you consider 'above normal or average'.

Furthermore, according to your belief system, your opinion, regardless of your education or experience, apparently has no value or credibility above anybody else regardless of their education or experience. That's a rather sad commentary on how you value your knowledge or education on the subject.

Here's another one of your attempts at wordsmithing where you think you've proven something profound whereas you've actually contradicted yourself:



chu42 said:


> Greatness is subjective but that doesn't mean that it is arbitrary. We as humans trend towards certain ideals that mostly everyone agrees upon. *That does not make them any less subjective, just less arbitrary.*
> Why do I have to keep on explaining this?


One of the definitions of 'arbitrary' is _'based on individual discretion or judgment;* not based on any objective distinction*, perhaps made at random'._ Thus, if 'we as humans trend towards certain ideals that mostly everyone agrees upon' then if, as you say, this makes them 'less arbitrary', then by definition, that makes them more objective, rather than not making them any less subjective.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> For someone who seems to try to adhere to a rigidly logical way of thinking, you come out with some strangely illogical conclusions:
> 
> So since there is nothing objective behind your opinion that 'Bach is one of the greatest harmonic architects of all time' and since 'greatest', by definition infers _'considerably above the normal or average_', your use of the term 'greatest' has no value whatsoever as a term that implies a comparison since there's nothing (according to you) objective about the use of the term or apparently about what you consider 'above normal or average'.


It may have value to you or value to anyone else who subscribes to classical norms. It has zero value to a Pacific islander who has never heard a single piece of classical music in their life.

That's what makes it subjective.



DaveM said:


> Furthermore, according to your belief system, your opinion, regardless of your education or experience, apparently has no value or credibility above anybody else regardless of their education or experience. That's a rather sad commentary on how you value your knowledge or education on the subject.


It doesn't unless the other person subscribes to the similar frame of mind that I have.

Case in point:

-Does a degree in gender studies mean anything to you if you don't subscribe to the idea that gender studies is important?

-Would you describe someone who is educated in astrology to be "highly educated" if you think astrology is a pseudoscience?

So yes, to answer your question, even education is subjective, and I don't think that makes my own education "sad". It's an easy way to find people who have similar values and interests.



DaveM said:


> Here's another one of your attempts at wordsmithing where you think you've proven something profound whereas [sic] you've actually contradicted yourself:
> 
> One of the definitions of 'arbitrary' is _'based on individual discretion or judgment;* not based on any objective distinction*, perhaps made at random'._ Thus, if 'we as humans trend towards certain ideals that mostly everyone agrees upon' then if, as you say, this makes them 'less arbitrary', then by definition, that makes them more objective.


Again, either something is objective or it's not.

An opinion can trend towards objectivity but that doesn't mean it _is _objective.

Water that is 1 degree Celsius is _close_ _to_ frozen but it still isn't ice.

And unlike water turning into ice, there isn't a certain cutoff where a statement can change from subjective to objective just because enough people agree with it. An opinion is subjective no matter if it has a million supporters or only one supporter.

P.S.: I did enjoy the points you brought up this time. They were more logical than your previous arguments, even if they still ended up being duly rebutted.


----------



## arpeggio

Simon Moon said:


> If they are so anti-modernist, why do they even open or read a thread on modern classical music, let alone post on it?


Because most of them are just like Harpsichordconcerto and they are smart enough not to admit it. These members may be difficult, they are not stupid.


----------



## arpeggio

*What's the Use*



Haydn70 said:


> You made the claim...the burden of proof is on you, not me.


Because in the past many of us have provided all sorts of documentation to support our positions. In response to our efforts we have been subjected to all sorts of bogus rationalizations in order to invalidate them. In the fifteen year history of this forum their are many examples of this.

In short responding would be a waste of time.


----------



## hammeredklavier

chu42 said:


> It's only a different genre in that the Romantic Era is different from the Baroque era. Wagner's operas hardly conform to Baroque standards any more than Ligeti's Etudes conform to 19th century piano writing.
> Of course there are various levels as to how similar avant-garde music is to the music before it. After all, Prokofiev was considered avant garde and his music retains a lot of Classical era and Romantic era elements.
> The timeline of classical music really just represents the shifting and relaxation of the rulebook; so it would make sense that the completely constraint-less modern era is just another continuation of classical music.


What do you think about this?:



SanAntone said:


> For me it is simply a matter of taxonomy, with no judgment of quality. Film scores fall under the category of popular entertainment; classical music does not.
> I know Williams has written some classical works, concertos and other things. But his reputation is based on his film work, and that is how I place him.
> 
> 
> hammeredklavier said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is like saying " I know John Cage has written some avant-garde music, pieces for prepared piano and other things. But his reputation is based on 4'33" and the philosophy that "everything we do is music", which is not found even in de facto non-classical genres such as jazz or prog rock "
Click to expand...


----------



## chu42

SanAntone already has made it clear that he approaches music different to the way I do. Refer to the following:



SanAntone said:


> chu42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This how I think of it:
> 
> Someone who is not at a very high reading level would find Shakespeare incomprehensible.
> 
> And this is not an insult-I myself often need help reading Shakespeare. It's likely because I haven't gotten used to his peculiar idioms, language choices, grammatical structure, etc. When I learn more about these idiosyncrasies and the language of the time period and I and really sit down and analyze it, eventually I'll be able to appreciate and enjoy his works more.
> 
> I take a similar approach to avant-garde works that are considered great and try to figure out why they are considered that way. Then I make my own judgment.
> 
> 
> 
> Probably 30 years ago I made a commitment to purchase a leather bound set of Shakespeare's first folio published as individual volumes, all 39 plays and the sonnets - the original texts as published in 1623. No modernization, no annotations. After a while I learned how to read them and understand them. This is the best way to experience Shakespeare, IMO.
> 
> One might make an analogy with listening to new music, but not me. For me it is not about "understanding" or "enough exposure" it is about curiosity.
> 
> I am curious about new music being written. I listen. I don't have expectations. I am not trying to figure it out. I just listen.
> 
> Often I enjoy what I hear.
Click to expand...


----------



## hammeredklavier

Simon Moon said:


> If they are so anti-modernist, why do they even open or read a thread on modern classical music, let alone post on it?


Some people (like phillovesclassical and others) have judged classical music by modernist standards: https://www.talkclassical.com/20489-always-praising-same-music-22.html#post1992439
https://www.talkclassical.com/3215-wolfgang-amadeus-mozart-49.html#post1849004
It's what happens when two different groups (such as jazz fans and prog-rock fans) are forcibly put in the same camp. They can't mix, like oil and water.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> It may have value to you or value to anyone else who subscribes to classical norms. It has zero value to a Pacific islander who has never heard a single piece of classical music in their life.
> 
> That's what makes it subjective.
> 
> It doesn't unless the other person subscribes to the similar frame of mind that I have.
> 
> Case in point:
> 
> -Does a degree in gender studies mean anything to you if you don't subscribe to the idea that gender studies is important?
> 
> -Would you describe someone who is educated in astrology to be "highly educated" if you think astrology is a pseudoscience?
> 
> So yes, to answer your question, even education is subjective, and I don't think that makes my own education "sad". It's an easy way to find people who have similar values and interests.
> 
> Again, either something is objective or it's not.
> 
> An opinion can trend towards objectivity but that doesn't mean it _is _objective.
> 
> Water that is 1 degree Celsius is _close_ _to_ frozen but it still isn't ice.
> 
> And unlike water turning into ice, there isn't a certain cutoff where a statement can change from subjective to objective just because enough people agree with it. An opinion is subjective no matter if it has a million supporters or only one supporter.
> 
> P.S.: I did enjoy the points you brought up this time. They were more logical than your previous arguments, even if they still ended up being duly rebutted.


Others can judge whether my post has been 'duly rebutted' as opposed to clumsily avoided since one would assume that the subject is classical music education and experience and not 'gender studies' or 'astrology' and also since the fact that stating that '_ An opinion can trend towards objectivity but that doesn't mean it is objective_ can just as easily be turned to the alternative that an opinion that trends towards objectivity not only doesn't rule out objectivity, but can just as easily mean more objectivity than subjectivity. And it has nothing to do with an analogy related to freezing water which has to be a stretch even for you.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> Others can judge whether my post has been 'duly rebutted' as opposed to clumsily avoided since one would assume that the subject is classical music education and experience and not 'gender studies' or 'astrology'


Sorry. I thought you would be able make basic connections.

Since you aren't able to register any analogies unless they make direct reference to classical music, let me put it this way:

A formal education in classical music would have zero meaning for a Pacific Islander who has never heard a single note of Western art music in his/her entire life. They do not subscribe to the idea that Western art music is some kind of great institution, and therefore why should they be impressed by someone who is educated in it?

An education in classical music only has meaning for those with a similar frame of mind and therefore is subjective to said frame of mind.



DaveM said:


> and also since the fact that stating that '_ An opinion can trend towards objectivity but that doesn't mean it is objective._ can just as easily be turned to the alternative that an opinion that trends towards objectivity can mean more objectivity than subjectivity.


That's not syllogistically valid. If your definition of objectivity is based on human trends and mass opinions, objectivity doesn't cancel out subjectivity. An opinion that is agreed upon by ten million people is still equally subjective to an opinion agreed upon by ten people. They are both still opinions, even though more people arrived at the first opinion than the second opinion.

One opinion is less "arbitrary" than the other. Or you would say-more "objective". It has nothing to do with the fact that an opinion remains an opinion. It's impossible to have an objective opinion but it is possible to have an opinion that you believe is as "objective as possible"-i.e., an opinion that is non-arbitrary. By the way you defined it.

The very definition of an objective truth is that it cannot be an opinion. An objective fact is true regardless of how people feel about it.



DaveM said:


> And it has nothing to do with an analogy related to freezing water which has to be a stretch even for you.


Yes, I had already explained that it is an incorrect analogy because water can become ice at a certain point while an opinion cannot magically become objective fact at a certain point! Would you like to argue otherwise?

Mostly the analogy was made to help you conceptualize how it is possible for A to trend towards B without _becoming_ B.


----------



## BachIsBest

Boychev said:


> Where do they exist? In what way? What are your grounds to rationally believe they exist? Point me to those criteria and I'll accept that I'm a deficient person for not enjoying Bach.


I don't know how to answer where or in what way abstract ideas exist. It is philosophically disputed whether "exist" is even the right word for such things. But certainly, something is going on here, as, for example, mathematical concepts certainly do something along the lines of "exist" without "being anywhere". I myself am a "soft Platonist" so have no problems with asserting abstract ideas actually exist in some sense, but I don't want to do this for the sake of this argument as I don't think you need to accept any sort of Platonic ideas for my argument to be valid.

I can answer why I have rational grounds for believing such criteria "exists" (I will use exists here with the above caveat that I'm not claiming any sort of Platonic world of forms) in the case of objective criteria for art.

To start with, most dictionary definitions define objective truth as things that are true independent of individual belief as opposed to subjective truth which are things that are true given certain beliefs (e.g. a preference for red over blue makes red subjectively better than blue). This definition, unfortunately, tells us little about the specific criterion needed to crown a truth with the term "objective". The naïve approach to objectivity is to make your criterion things that are true even if humanity disappeared; unfortunately, this may be an intuitively good definition (certainly it means that these objectively true things will be true independent of individual humans) but it is fundamentally unworkable since we only have effective communication with other humans and, as such, only have knowledge of things that happen when humans have somehow tampered with things. In other words, speculation about no-human or completely human independent truths can never rise above being idle speculation assuming it is humans doing the speculating.

Next, one could try to say a truth is independent of the individual if all individuals believe in this truth; certainly, this is true, but again unsatisfactory as individuals have a tendency to believe in lies and falsehood given certain scenarios or could even be infected with some sort of psychosis.

However, I think there is a reasonable substitute for "everyone believes it's true" and that is the informed consensus of mentally sound individuals over time. Thus, when you say "I believe that the Earth is objectively round" you are saying that over time an informed consensus of the Earth being round will develop. Although such a criterion is not explicitly testable, unlike "human independent notions" I do think one can reasonably speak of, and even predict, if a belief will be held by properly informed individuals of sound mind in the future. Under this understanding, given the length Bach has been held in the highest regard by informed musicians and listeners, I believe I can reasonably predict he will continue to be held in such high regard as long as people know his name, and therefore feel justified in calling him an objectively good composer.

Given that I then believe some composers are objectively great, I believe it is then likely that this "greatness" has some sort of criteria inherent to the music itself, even if this criteria is too subtle and sophisticated to be explicitly compiled and listed. I hope this answers your question.

Although I have participated in many debates on the objectivity of music I have never seen another reasonable criterion for objective truth. Most involve the pitfall of rendering virtually nothing objective (I once had a user tell me that fine, he didn't think mathematics was objective, which I consider an obvious absurdity) or of being totally impractical, i.e. only able to comment on extra-human knowledge, which, of course, as humans, we can't access.


----------



## chu42

BachIsBest said:


> However, I think there is a reasonable substitute for "everyone believes it's true" and that is the informed consensus of mentally sound individuals over time. Thus, when you say "I believe that the Earth is objectively round" you are saying that over time an informed consensus of the Earth being round will develop. Although such a criterion is not explicitly testable, unlike "human independent notions" I do think one can reasonably speak of, and even predict, if a belief will be held by properly informed individuals of sound mind in the future. Under this understanding, given the length Bach has been held in the highest regard by informed musicians and listeners, I believe I can reasonably predict he will continue to be held in such high regard as long as people know his name, and therefore feel justified in calling him an objectively good composer.


This is one way of going about it, but it's still subjective, just in a non-arbitrary way.

Why? Because you'd first have to subscribe to the idea that the informed consensus is correct, or that the classical music institution has meaning to you.

Certainly the Aboriginal people with their music tradition spanning thousands of years would not derive objective meaning from the idea that "Bach is good."

So yes, your definition of objectivity partially works-but is ultimately subjective because it has to be contextualized and justified through informed consensus-which again, is just mass opinion. An opinion shared by millions is still no less subjective than an opinion shared by ten people.

It goes without saying that the people in a consensus each arrive at their conclusion individually and through personal thoughts and feelings, not because they are bound by an objective truth.

Unless, of course, you think the "objective greatness" of Bach is due to massive bandwagoning, which certainly does not seem to be the case.



BachIsBest said:


> Although I have participated in many debates on the objectivity of music I have never seen another reasonable criterion for objective truth. Most involve the pitfall of rendering virtually nothing objective (I once had a user tell me that fine, he didn't think mathematics was objective, which I consider an obvious absurdity) or of being totally impractical, i.e. only able to comment on extra-human knowledge, which, of course, as humans, we can't access.


You might want to consider my stance that nothing fully objective can be arrived in art, in terms of value judgments.

One can claim to _attempt_ objectivity, or be as objective as possible, or justify their opinion through reasoning or expressions of feelings, but no value judgment in art can be fully "objectively true".

And even if one is claiming to be as "objective as possible", one can only do so within a certain context. For example, I could judge Bach's music by how well it conforms to the part-writing rules of the period, and end up with a fairly objective conclusion. But I cannot judge Mongolian throat singing by the same standard and claim that my conclusion is anywhere close to objective. There really is not a universal, objective, standard by which we can judge all music by.

And how well something follows the rules or conforms to the standard isn't even necessarily relevant to how "good" something is. So I could not say Bach's music is objectively good because it followed all the rules, or objectively bad if it broke all the rules. "Good" in itself is subjective language when pertaining to art since "good" means different things to different people.

So you can forget about applying value judgements to art that aren't subjective in some sense. You can make value judgments non-arbitrarily in which they would have meaning to those who subscribe to a certain institution (for us, the institution of classical music), but not in a way that they would have objective meaning for all humans in all cultures.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> A formal education in classical music would have zero meaning for a Pacific Islander who has never heard a single note of Western art music in his/her entire life. They do not subscribe to the idea that Western art music is some kind of great institution, and therefore why should they be impressed by someone who is educated in it?
> 
> An education in classical music only has meaning for those with a similar frame of mind and therefore is subjective to said frame of mind.


Okay, I'll spell it out carefully for you. When it comes to those educated and experienced in classical music:



DaveM said:


> Since there is nothing objective behind your opinion that 'Bach is one of the greatest harmonic architects of all time' and since 'greatest', by definition infers _'considerably above the normal or average_', your use of the term 'greatest' has no value whatsoever as a term that implies a comparison since there's nothing (according to you) objective about the use of the term or apparently about what you consider 'above normal or average'.
> 
> Furthermore, according to your belief system, your opinion, regardless of your education or experience, apparently has no value or credibility above anybody else regardless of their education or experience. That's a rather sad commentary on how you value your knowledge or education on the subject.


Originally posted by DaveM:_ 'and also since the fact that stating that ' An opinion can trend towards objectivity but that doesn't mean it is objective. can just as easily be turned to the alternative that an opinion that trends towards objectivity can mean more objectivity than subjectivity.'_


> That's not syllogistically valid.


Yes it is. And, in addition, if according to you '_An opinion can trend towards objectivity but that doesn't mean it is objective'_, I can say, _ 'An opinion can trend towards objectivity and that can mean that it is trending in the direction of objectivity rather than subjectivity.'_

Painted yourself into a bit of a corner didn't you.


----------



## consuono

chu42 said:


> If you ask the average person right now if they enjoy reading Shakespeare, I doubt they will answer positively. It is literati and theater professionals who hold Shakespeare in high regard.
> 
> Just like how the average person does not enjoy listening to Ligeti, but Ligeti is well-regarded among professional performers, classical music critics and experts. Much of his music became regarded as "instant classics" in the classical music world. Just because you don't like his music doesn't make this any less true.


The analogy doesn't hold up. Shakespeare's language, grammar etc are dated but not idiosyncratic or purposefully obscure. His dramatic works weren't written for some small literati niche.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> Okay, I'll spell it out carefully for you. When it comes to those educated and experienced in classical music:


I already said that my education only has relevance and meaning for people who subscribe to my institutions (the one at hand being the institutional thinking behind classical music). You seem to agree, since you're clarifying specific people; i.e., those educated and experienced in classical music.

Just as a gender studies degree only has value for people who think gender studies is important, a classical music degree only has value for people who think classical music is important.

If it requires contextualization, it's not objective. Gravity is an objective truth. Gravity applies to a culture whether they subscribe to it or not. Gravity does not only apply to those who are educated and experienced in it.



DaveM said:


> Originally posted by DaveM:_ 'and also since the fact that stating that ' An opinion can trend towards objectivity but that doesn't mean it is objective. can just as easily be turned to the alternative that an opinion that trends towards objectivity can mean more objectivity than subjectivity.'_


Why? You are arbitrarily debasing the definition of objectivity to suit your own conclusion. Here is a commonly agreed upon definition of the word "objective":



> _not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts._


The definition of objectivity stipulates that something is either objective or not objective. An opinion that is close to being objective is still subjective.

The key word in the definition "not". So someone who is only slightly influenced by their personal feelings-that is, trending towards objectivity-is still not objective by the very definition of the word. Therefore someone cannot be more objective than subjective; their trend towards objectivity does not change the fact that their opinion is still subjective.

Another key word in the definition is "facts". Value judgments aren't facts, they are opinions. And no opinion can be fully objective because opinions by definition aren't facts.



DaveM said:


> Painted yourself into a bit of a corner didn't you.


If we were to ignore some basic definitions of the English language, then perhaps.


----------



## chu42

consuono said:


> The analogy doesn't hold up. Shakespeare's language, grammar etc are dated but not idiosyncratic or purposefully obscure.


No, not all "new music" composers try to be purposefully obscure. Perhaps there are some, but many of them are simply expressing their feelings in a way that is not constrained by rules or tradition.



consuono said:


> His dramatic works weren't written for some small literati niche.


But they ended up as such...so is that the fault of Shakespeare?


----------



## BachIsBest

chu42 said:


> This is one way of going about it, but it's still subjective, just in a non-arbitrary way.
> 
> Why? Because you'd first have to subscribe to the idea that the informed consensus is correct, or that the classical music institution has meaning to you.


If everyone informed on a subject of sound mind, over all future time periods, believes the same thing, then with a virtual 100% probability, there is no rational basis for believing it to be otherwise. If there were a rational basis for believing otherwise, one of our hypothetical informed persons would (with almost 100% certainty) find it to be otherwise and spread the word.



chu42 said:


> Certainly the Aboriginal people with their music tradition spanning thousands of years would not derive objective meaning from the idea that "Bach is good."


They are not informed about the subject of classical music. If they did become informed, I have no reason to believe they wouldn't follow the path of Japan, China, Korea, Taiwan, etc. in eventually agreeing that Bach is a good composer.



chu42 said:


> So yes, your definition of objectivity partially works-but is ultimately subjective because it has to be contextualized and justified through informed consensus-which again, is just mass opinion. An opinion shared by millions is still no less subjective than an opinion shared by ten people.


First of all, this is not my definition of objectivity. The definition of objectivity truth is that truth which does not depend on the individual or, more specifically, individual thoughts and feelings. This is my attempt at creating a more concrete criterion for the quite abstract definition.

Next, equating mass opinion with informed consensus is obviously incorrect. No one here would claim the belief in Qanon is based on an "informed consensus" but it has certainly become a "mass opinion".



chu42 said:


> It goes without saying that the people in a consensus each arrive at their conclusion individually and through personal thoughts and feelings, not because they are bound by an objective truth.
> 
> Unless, of course, you think the "objective greatness" of Bach is due to massive bandwagoning, which certainly does not seem to be the case.


You may believe it is merely "personal thoughts and feelings" that created Bach's popularity, but it certainly doesn't "go without saying" that it isn't bound in objective truth because this argument has been going on for at least a century.



chu42 said:


> You might want to consider my stance that nothing fully objective can be arrived in art, in terms of value judgments.
> 
> One can claim to _attempt_ objectivity, or be as objective as possible, or justify their opinion through reasoning or expressions of feelings, but no value judgment in art can be fully "objectively true".
> 
> And even if one is claiming to be as "objective as possible", one can only do so within a certain context. For example, I could judge Bach's music by how well it conforms to the part-writing rules of the period, and end up with a fairly objective conclusion. But I cannot judge Mongolian throat singing by the same standard and claim that my conclusion is anywhere close to objective. There really is not a universal, objective, standard by which we can judge all music by.
> 
> And how well something follows the rules or conforms to the standard isn't even necessarily relevant to how "good" something is. So I could not say Bach's music is objectively good because it followed all the rules, or objectively bad if it broke all the rules. "Good" in itself is subjective language when pertaining to art since "good" means different things to different people.
> 
> So you can forget about applying value judgements to art that aren't subjective in some sense. You can make value judgments non-arbitrarily in which they would have meaning to those who subscribe to a certain institution (for us, the institution of classical music), but not in a way that they would have objective meaning for all humans in all cultures.


If nothing fully objective can be arrived at in art, in terms of value judgements, then can value judgements ever be objective? If they can, I see no reason why you should arbitrarily disclude "art". If they can not, do you seriously think a statement like "we should attempt to maximise the suffering of all living things" could be considered good in any context; if not, I don't believe you have any rational basis for using the word "good".

Furthermore, and most critically, disallowing value judgements as objective statements has the rather catastrophic effect of destroying the objective value of objectivity itself.


----------



## ArtMusic

Disallowing value judgements in the arts is nothing more than coercive censorship.


----------



## Boychev

BachIsBest said:


> However, I think there is a reasonable substitute for "everyone believes it's true" and that is the informed consensus of mentally sound individuals over time. Thus, when you say "I believe that the Earth is objectively round" you are saying that over time an informed consensus of the Earth being round will develop. Although such a criterion is not explicitly testable, unlike "human independent notions" I do think one can reasonably speak of, and even predict, if a belief will be held by properly informed individuals of sound mind in the future. Under this understanding, given the length Bach has been held in the highest regard by informed musicians and listeners, I believe I can reasonably predict he will continue to be held in such high regard as long as people know his name, and therefore feel justified in calling him an objectively good composer.
> 
> Given that I then believe some composers are objectively great, I believe it is then likely that this "greatness" has some sort of criteria inherent to the music itself, even if this criteria is too subtle and sophisticated to be explicitly compiled and listed. I hope this answers your question.


It does, thanks. My objection to this is simply that music is not about information, or belief, nor even about mental soundness, it's about emotion and imagination.

While "the informed consensus of mentally sound individuals over time" may be a good way to look at truth when it comes to matters such as empirical facts (if we take "informed" to be a synonym of "backed up by evidence and logically consistent"), or something like our concept of "health" (objectively speaking, an organism is either alive or isn't, but the concept of a healthy organism and what is constitutive of good health is necessary if we want to systematically improve our lifespans and well-being), or even basic moral truths like "do not harm other people" (you may back this up by whatever ethical theory you like, but I think ethics altogether is impossible and nonsensical without some version of that idea), that way of thinking is rather strange when applied to music. Music is an entirely human creation for the purposes of leisure and social bonding. Given that we are all different as individuals, come from different backgrounds, have brains that are "wired" differently, it makes no sense to claim there's such a thing as one-size-fits-all music that isn't just my or your favourite but is just objectively good.

You are such an individual that comes from such a background that has allowed you to form an intense emotional bond with Mozart's 41st symphony for example. Another person may have such a brain chemistry and background that the 41st irritates them, bores them, inspires negativity in them. Maybe their intense emotional bond is with Snoop Dogg's Gin and Juice. Asking which of you is right makes about as much sense as asking if it's better to put wallpapers in your living room or to paint it blue - it's your living room, you're the one who's going to live with it, there is no one right answer here.

Even if we subscribe to the idea that there is some kind of hierarchy in music where the 41st is above Gin and Juice, would we like to tell the Gin and Juice person "Stop listening to your favourite music and focus on listening to Mozart's 41st"? To me it seems like that would achieve absolutely nothing and that in turn the hierarchy of music isn't of much use. With something like the concept of health you can easily say that someone should, for example, start consuming more fruits and vegetables regardless of whether they like it or not - it's just good for them. With music however, it makes no sense for someone to listen to something they don't enjoy simply because someone else told them to. Maybe it's a useful thing to do for composers and musicians learning their craft, maybe it's a useful thing to do for musicologists and people studying the history and sociology of culture, but not for the purposes of personally enjoying and appreciating music (which is the entire point of music after all).

And if canons and hierarchies would not be useful in telling people what music they should listen to, what good are they?


----------



## consuono

chu42 said:


> No, not all "new music" composers try to be purposefully obscure. Perhaps there are some, but many of them are simply expressing their feelings in a way that is not constrained by rules or tradition.


If we're talking about the avant garde, then there is a purposeful and self-conscious attempt to be as unlike "tradition" as possible.



> But they ended up as such...so is that the fault of Shakespeare?


They didn't "end up" anything. The English language changed, and as Shakespeare and the Tyndale-tradition translations of the Bible show, probably not for the better.


----------



## SanAntone

> And if canons and hierarchies would not be useful in telling people what music they should listen to, what good are they?


Exactly right. They are no good other than as a syllabus for a beginner's music appreciation course.

1. Not only do I not need to be told what I should be listening to, I find the idea preposterous.
2. Many works on your list of canonical works are not interesting to me, so if the choice were to only listen to works on a hierarchical list of canonical works or not listening to any classical music - then I choose the latter.



> Disallowing value judgements in the arts is nothing more than coercive censorship.


As far as I can tell no one "disallowed" value judgments in art. I think they were said to be subjective opinions. Which they are.


----------



## chu42

BachIsBest said:


> If everyone informed on a subject of sound mind, over all future time periods, believes the same thing, then with a virtual 100% probability, there is no rational basis for believing it to be otherwise. If there were a rational basis for believing otherwise, one of our hypothetical informed persons would (with almost 100% certainty) find it to be otherwise and spread the word.


Sure, except there are plenty of informed individuals who do not enjoy Bach or do not think Mozart is a great composer; they are just in the very minority.



BachIsBest said:


> They are not informed about the subject of classical music. If they did become informed, I have no reason to believe they wouldn't follow the path of Japan, China, Korea, Taiwan, etc. in eventually agreeing that Bach is a good composer.


You cannot prove whether or not this is due to Westernization or if this is due to any "objective goodness" in Bach's music. Of course, I prefer to believe that most of the time it is the qualities of Bach's music that draw people to it. But there is no way of proving one or the other. And it is most definitely not 100% one or the other.

Did Asian businessmen start to wear Western suits at business meetings because suits are inherently "good" and because they like the way they look, or did they do it to be perceived as more modern/Westernized? I suspect that the answer is a mix of both.



BachIsBest said:


> First of all, this is not my definition of objectivity. The definition of objectivity truth is that truth which does not depend on the individual or, more specifically, individual thoughts and feelings. This is my attempt at creating a more concrete criterion for the quite abstract definition.
> 
> Next, equating mass opinion with informed consensus is obviously incorrect. No one here would claim the belief in Qanon is based on an "informed consensus" but it has certainly become a "mass opinion".


But what is informed consensus? Who/what is informed is quite subjective in itself. Some of the people in this forum would argue that Schoenberg is "objectively bad" even though what most people would see to be an "informed consensus" quite obviously agrees that he was an excellent composer. He is an uncontroversial composer in expert musical circles. His repertoire is standard in my field as a pianist. Saying that "Schoenberg was a great composer" will not get you any more boos and jeers than saying "Handel was a great composer."

And what is a "consensus"? Even if you have a set definition for "informed" as "people who study music for a living", one also has to define consensus at a certain percentage. Is 99% agreement a consensus? What about 95%? Why or why not?

You can't just _feel_ that Bach or any other composer has enough informed support to be "objectively great", no matter how obvious it seems to you. That would in fact be a subjective judgment, because it is influenced by personal thoughts and your personal experiences. You'd have to define the word "informed", define the word "consensus", and then proceed scientifically.

One way to put it assess objectivity is that the _closer one gets_ to what you _perceive to be_ the informed consensus, the less subjective your opinion becomes. But true objectivity in art isn't possible, because everyone has a different idea of what an informed consensus is.

Here's the dictionary definition of objective:



> _not _influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.


Keywords: "Not". So someone only slightly influenced by personal judgment is trending towards being objective, but is still ultimately subjective.

Other keyword: "Facts". Your judgment must be rooted in fact. One can use no personal judgment in assessing what the informed consensus thinks about Bach but since there is no set definition of "informed consensus", everyone is still subjective in creating their own concept of an informed consensus.

If you were to set the definition of informed consensus at "95% or more of people who study music for a living", then yes, one could say that Bach is objectively great if Bach indeed proven to meet that criteria. But your very definition of informed consensus is subjective since there is no scientific or statistical definition for it.

Furthermore, one can make fairly objective statements about Bach's music, such as: "Bach's refinement of the rules of counterpoint exceeded his contemporaries." This can be proven based on the rules of counterpoint. Whether or not you think these elements elevate Bach's music or makes him a greater composer is an entirely subjective matter.



BachIsBest said:


> You may believe it is merely "personal thoughts and feelings" that created Bach's popularity, but it certainly doesn't "go without saying" that it isn't bound in objective truth because this argument has been going on for at least a century.


It is only bound in objective truth in the same way that we can objectively point to the biological dispositions that most humans have-most humans perceive major chords as "happy", minor chords as "sad", consonance as beautiful, dissonance as harsh, etc. These are rooted in the makeup of the brain.

Bach is an excellent blend of the elements that humans biologically trend towards. Does that make his music "objectively attractive"? Yes, in a general sense. Does that make his music "objectively great"? No.



BachIsBest said:


> If nothing fully objective can be arrived at in art, in terms of value judgements, then can value judgements ever be objective? If they can, I see no reason why you should arbitrarily disclude "art". If they can not, do you seriously think a statement like "we should attempt to maximise the suffering of all living things" could be considered good in any context; if not, I don't believe you have any rational basis for using the word "good".


I'm not going to get into moral objectivism vs moral relativism, since this is a touchy subject that has the potential to turn exponentially ugly.

Just sticking to art, value judgments are different from other value judgments because one does artistic value judgments do not directly affect the lives of other people. They are disconnected from ethics. I'm sure that a famous newspaper saying "Don't buy Bach albums, Bach sucks" could indirectly affect the lives of Bach salespeople, but that's not in the context of our discussion.



BachIsBest said:


> Furthermore, and most critically, disallowing value judgements as objective statements has the rather catastrophic effect of destroying the objective value of objectivity itself.


Why? Objective truth cannot be destroyed by human thoughts. Gravity has a constant no matter what humans believe it is. Water turns to ice at a specific temperature no matter what we think that temperature is. Objective truth will always have some kind of scientific or statistical value. "Bach is an objectively good composer" has no scientific value other than vague implications for human thought patterns and trends.


----------



## BachIsBest

chu42 said:


> You cannot prove whether or not this is due to Westernization or if this is due to any "objective goodness" in Bach's music. Of course, I prefer to believe that most of the time it is the qualities of Bach's music that draw people to it. But there is no way of proving one or the other. And it is most definitely not 100% one or the other.
> 
> Did Asian businessmen start to wear Western suits at business meetings because suits are inherently "good" and because they like the way they look, or did they do it to be perceived as more modern/Westernized? I suspect that the answer is a mix of both.


Of course, there may be multiple factors at play, but I was merely refuting your claim not trying to provide evidence for mine.



chu42 said:


> But what is informed consensus? Who/what is informed is quite subjective in itself. Some of the people in this forum would argue that Schoenberg is "objectively bad" even though what most people would see to be an "informed consensus" quite obviously agrees that he was an excellent composer. He is an uncontroversial composer in expert musical circles. His repertoire is standard in my field as a pianist. Saying that "Schoenberg was a great composer" will not get you any more boos and jeers than saying "Handel was a great composer."
> 
> And what is a "consensus"? Even if you have a set definition for "informed" as "people who study music for a living", one also has to define consensus at a certain percentage. Is 99% agreement a consensus? What about 95%? Why or why not?
> 
> You can't just _feel_ that Bach or any other composer has enough informed support to be "objectively great", no matter how obvious it seems to you. That would in fact be a subjective judgment, because it is influenced by personal thoughts and your personal experiences. You'd have to define the word "informed", define the word "consensus", and then proceed scientifically.


Informed and consensus already have definitions. I'm not saying that my criterion is 100% accurate, I would argue that creating a 100% accurate criterion for objective truth is obviously impossible, what I am saying is that, looking at history and my own reasoning, it appears to be the best one.

Again, I think you are confused about the criterion. It is that there will develop an informed consensus that will hold as long as people are informed on the subject; that an informed consensus has developed may be evidence that it will continue to hold in the future, but it is not good enough. Obviously, this is impossible to state with 100% certainty, but I think one can state it with enough certainty, that it is a reasonable criterion.



chu42 said:


> One way to put it assess objectivity is that the _closer one gets_ to what you _perceive to be_ the informed consensus, the less subjective your opinion becomes. But true objectivity in art isn't possible, because everyone has a different idea of what an informed consensus is.


One way to put it assess objectivity is that the _closer one gets_ to what you _perceive to be_ the objective, the less subjective your opinion becomes.

One appear's to able to use your arguments to argue against objectivity itself; unless you wish to do that, I would avoid such arguments.



chu42 said:


> Here's the dictionary definition of objective:
> 
> "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."
> 
> Keywords: "Not". So someone only slightly influenced by personal judgment is trending towards being objective, but is still ultimately subjective.
> 
> Other keyword: "Facts". Your judgment must be rooted in fact. One can use no personal judgment in assessing what the informed consensus thinks about Bach but since there is no set definition of "informed consensus", everyone is still subjective in creating their own concept of an informed consensus.


Again you could use the argument that everyone is subjective in deciding what is objective to argue against objectivity itself. If you think informed consensus is too vague and meaningless to be used here, you may argue that, but arguing merely that there is a subjective component in our evaluation of my objective criterion is obvious; every evaluation we make is at least partially influenced by subjective thoughts and feelings.



chu42 said:


> If you were to set the definition of informed consensus at "95% or more of people who study music for a living", then yes, one could say that Bach is objectively great if Bach indeed proven to meet that criteria. But your very definition of informed consensus is subjective since there is no scientific or statistical definition for it.
> 
> Furthermore, one can make fairly objective statements about Bach's music, such as: "Bach's refinement of the rules of counterpoint exceeded his contemporaries." This can be proven based on the rules of counterpoint. Whether or not you think these elements elevate Bach's music or makes him a greater composer is an entirely subjective matter.


I mean, if I defined consensus to be 95% agreement would it make you happier?



chu42 said:


> It is only bound in objective truth in the same way that we can objectively point to the biological dispositions that most humans have-most humans perceive major chords as "happy", minor chords as "sad", consonance as beautiful, dissonance as harsh, etc. These are rooted in the makeup of the brain.
> 
> Bach is an excellent blend of the elements that humans biologically trend towards. Does that make his music "objectively attractive"? Yes, in a general sense. Does that make his music "objectively great"? No.


If you agree that Bach's music is attractive to humans for objective biological reasons, and that we have no effective way of determining objectivity outside the human experience, then surely Bach's music is objectively attractive.



chu42 said:


> I'm not going to get into moral objectivism vs moral relativism, since this is a touchy subject that has the potential to turn exponentially ugly.
> 
> Just sticking to art, value judgments are different from other value judgments because one does artistic value judgments do not directly affect the lives of other people. They are disconnected from ethics. I'm sure that a famous newspaper saying "Don't buy Bach albums, Bach sucks" could indirectly affect the lives of Bach salespeople, but that's not in the context of our discussion.


Just to clarify your position on the objectivity of value judgments: value judgements, to you, can be objective if and only if they directly affect the lives of other people. If not, I would like clarification on when you believe value judgements can be objective. If so, I would like to know why "informed consensus" is too vague and subjective, but "directly affect other peoples lives" is completely objective and acceptable; I would argue "directly affect" is a lot more open to interpretation and grey areas than "informed consensus".



chu42 said:


> Why? Objective truth cannot be destroyed by human thoughts. Gravity has a constant no matter what humans believe it is. Water turns to ice at a specific temperature no matter what we think that temperature is. Objective truth will always have some kind of scientific or statistical value. "Bach is an objectively good composer" has no scientific value other than vague implications for human thought patterns and trends.


These arguments are based on the idea there is an extra-human "absolute reality". As we are both human, we both only communicate extensively with other humans, and only, therefore, know things humans know, I fear we have absolutely no rational or practical basis on which to talk about this "absolute reality".

Also, if you are talking about the proportionality constant in the equations of gravity, that is actually a result of human thought and definition; you could eliminate it by an appropriate redefinition of units.


----------



## DaveM

BachIsBest said:


> ...If you agree that Bach's music is attractive to humans for objective biological reasons, and that we have no effective way of determining objectivity outside the human experience, *then surely Bach's music is objectively attractive.*
> 
> Just to clarify your position on the objectivity of value judgments: value judgements, to you, can be objective if and only if they directly affect the lives of other people. If not, I would like clarification on when you believe value judgements can be objective. If so, I would like to know why _*'informed consensus'*_ is too vague and subjective, but "directly affect other peoples lives" is completely objective and acceptable; I would argue "directly affect" is a lot more open to interpretation and grey areas than "informed consensus".
> 
> These arguments are based on the idea there is an extra-human "absolute reality". As we are both human, we both only communicate extensively with other humans, and only, therefore, know things humans know, I fear we have absolutely no rational or practical basis on which to talk about this "absolute reality".
> 
> Also, if you are talking about the proportionality constant in the equations of gravity, that is actually a result of human thought and definition; you could eliminate it by an appropriate redefinition of units.


The dilemma we are facing here is that any of us who have a close relationship and deep history with classical music knows that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are *for good reasons* widely considered to be among our greatest composers and yet those who are confusing this discussion with a philosophy lesson or contest are trying to tie up in knots anybody who tries to express this truth all because of one word 'objectivity'.

I suggest a better word: 'credibility'. Thus, within the classical music community, given the skill and accomplishments it is credible (i.e. convincing or believable) to say that Bach is a great composer. This doesn't require a test of objectivity. And it can allow for an 'informed consensus' and 'value judgment'. Think of a jury trial where experts testify. Some would say that their opinion is objective, others would argue not. But the jury doesn't have to weigh their objectivity, they just have to weigh their credibility. And it doesn't have to be unanimous in most trials.

Thus, the classical community can be thought of as one big jury where they evaluate based on their own education and experience and that of the experts. Therefore, I proclaim the credible evidence supporting the fact that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are among our very greatest composers.


----------



## ArtMusic

You cannot apply the objective truth rationale from science to music in that form but music has its own means of dealing with what is good and what is lazy, uncreative material.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> The dilemma we are facing here is that any of us who have a close relationship and deep history with classical music knows that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are *for good reasons* widely considered to be among our greatest composers and yet those who are confusing this discussion with a philosophy lesson or contest are trying to tie up in knots anybody who tries to express this truth all because of one word 'objectivity'.
> 
> I suggest a better word: 'credibility'. Thus, within the classical music community, given the skill and accomplishments it is credible (i.e. convincing or believable) to say that Bach is a great composer. This doesn't require a test of objectivity. And it can allow for an 'informed consensus' and 'value judgment'. Think of a jury trial where experts testify. Some would say that their opinion is objective, others would argue not. But the jury doesn't have to weigh their objectivity, they just have to weigh their credibility. And it doesn't have to be unanimous in most trials.


Yes. I already used the distinction between arbitrary and non-arbitrary subjectivity; you choose the word "credible". A value judgment can be more credible or less credible. This is a perfectly acceptable word to use instead of "objective".



DaveM said:


> Thus, the classical community can be thought of as one big jury where they evaluate based on their own education and experience and that of the experts. Therefore, I proclaim the credible evidence supporting the fact that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are among our very greatest composers.


Yes.


----------



## chu42

ArtMusic said:


> You cannot apply the objective truth rationale from science to music in that form but music has its own means of dealing with what is good and what is lazy, uncreative material.


Exactly. Thus Dave's application of the word "credible" and my application of the word "non-arbitrary" apply here. There is no objective truth in judging art like there is in evaluating science but that doesn't mean all art has equal meaning.

The more I can back up my opinion with widely-accepted theory, critical consensus, and whatnot-the less arbitrary and the more credible my opinion is. Doesn't make my opinion "objective correct" though.


----------



## ArtMusic

chu42 said:


> Exactly. Thus Dave's application of the word "credible" and my application of the word "non-arbitrary" apply here. There is no objective truth in judging art like there is in evaluating science but that doesn't mean all art has equal meaning.
> 
> The more I can back up my opinion with widely-accepted theory, critical consensus, and whatnot-the less arbitrary and the more credible my opinion is. Doesn't make my opinion "objective correct" though.


What I meant was you can be objective in a musical sense using musical criteria to judge, to assess music. The point is that music is assessable.


----------



## chu42

ArtMusic said:


> What I meant was you can be objective in a musical sense using musical criteria to judge, to assess music. The point is that music is assessable.


Yes, but you can't use the same criteria to judge all music, and thus there is no single objective standard for assessing music. There are multiple standards that have varying levels of credibility in context.


----------



## ArtMusic

chu42 said:


> Yes, but you can't use the same criteria to judge all music, and thus there is no single objective standard for assessing music. There are multiple standards that have varying levels of credibility in context.


Sure, that's possible and has been done for centuries to this day, leading to peoples' conclusion about a composer's greatness, place in history and or about a particular composition.


----------



## chu42

ArtMusic said:


> Sure, that's possible and has been done for centuries to this day, leading to peoples' conclusion about a composer's greatness, place in history and or about a particular composition.


When evaluating Bach, did you compare his music to the standards of hundreds of ethnic composers around the world? Or did you only compare him to one standard which is the standard established by the common practice period?


----------



## DaveM

Doesn't everybody do the former first? Bach and this have so much in common (and that's no criticism of this which is excellent):


----------



## chu42

Even if you were to do the former first, how would one go about comparing all music to Bach in a way that has credible evaluation behind it? The easiest things to compare to Bach are the music of his contemporaries, because they followed similar conventions. 

Once you leave that realm, you have works by Beethoven or Monteverdi that are somewhat comparable, but fairly different. Beethoven represents a 50 year advancement past Bach's death while Monteverdi represents a 50 year backtrack before Bach's birth. 

Then you go completely outside that sphere of influence into Gregorian chants or Schoenberg's serialism, and you run into problems as they really don't follow the same rules at all. Just as Bach would be horrified by Schoenberg's abandonment of tonality, Pérotin would be horrified by Bach's liberal use of dissonance. 

And many, many, miles outside of that are the various ethnic music such as the video you posted and the other various music-making of India, Africa, South America, what have you. Very few rules, if any, are shared between Bach's part-writing standards and the digeridoo music of the Aborigine.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> Even if you were to do the former first, how would one go about comparing all music to Bach in a way that has credible evaluation behind it? The easiest things to compare to Bach are the music of his contemporaries, because they followed similar conventions.
> 
> Once you leave that realm, you have works by Beethoven or Monteverdi that are somewhat comparable, but fairly different. Beethoven represents a 50 year advancement past Bach's death while Monteverdi represents a 50 year backtrack before Bach's birth.
> 
> Then you go completely outside that sphere of influence into Gregorian chants or Schoenberg's serialism, and you run into problems as they really don't follow the same rules at all. Just as Bach would be horrified by Schoenberg's abandonment of tonality, Pérotin would be horrified by Bach's liberal use of dissonance.
> 
> And many, many, miles outside of that are the various ethnic music such as the video you posted and the other various music-making of India, Africa, South America, what have you. Very few rules, if any, are shared between Bach's part-writing standards and the digeridoo music of the Aborigine.


Actually, before doing any of that, I just listened to this. Saved me a lot of time and trouble:


----------



## ArtMusic

chu42 said:


> When evaluating Bach, did you compare his music to the standards of hundreds of ethnic composers around the world? Or did you only compare him to one standard which is the standard established by the common practice period?


Judge Bach by western classical music standards. The universal quality of his music doesn't need any other standards. Friends from China, South Korea and Japan adore Bach's music without even knowing why.

You don't need to explain why good music is good music. But you certainly need to defend bad music, as done often here at TC ....


----------



## Bulldog

ArtMusic said:


> Friends from China, South Korea and Japan adore Bach's music without even knowing why.


You sure have a lot of friends.


----------



## ArtMusic

Bulldog said:


> You sure have a lot of friends.


Because I share with them good, art music (the music, not me the poster) usually written by composers who wore wigs in the past.


----------



## ArtMusic

DaveM said:


> Actually, before doing any of that, I just listened to this. Saved me a lot of time and trouble:


I agree. Such a masterpiece. I prefer this performance below but the universal quality of the notes make it accessible and loved by any musician willing to tackle it and listened by anyone on the planet.


----------



## millionrainbows

I just listened to Arthur Berger's _Three Pieces for Two Pianos (1961),_ as played by Paul Jacobs and Gilbert Kalish. I'm familiar with both pianists; Paul Jacobs for his brilliant, nuanced Debussy on Nonesuch, and Gilbert Kalish for his work with violinist Paul Zukofsky on the Charles Ives Sonatas for Violin and Piano (Nonesuch vinyl or Folkways CD).

Arthur Berger was an American serialist.

On this Berger piece, played well and apparently accurately, I can't tell that it's being played by these familiar virtuosos. It just sounds like precisely played 12-tone music. In a blindfold listening test, I would not be able to identify either pianist.

I've tried to figure out why _I cannot tell _that Jacobs is a brilliant pianist from this.

It could be because Berger's music is not virtuosic in nature; although it would take great skill to play it, it is not "romantic" or "poetic" like Debussy. It simply is what it is.

Yet, in Paul Jacob's Nonesuch recording of the Schoenberg Piano Music, one of the very best, Jacobs' playing is incredibly precise and nuanced. I am astounded every time I hear it.

This is not a criticism of Arthur Berger's music, or of the performance. I love this CD, and all the pieces on it. I listen to it frequently. It pleases me on some level.

If anything, maybe this can illuminate *why *some12-tone and serial are hard to embrace for many listeners who are used to more "romantic" music. Berger's music does not seem "romantic" at all to me. Yet, I like it.

It might also illuminate the romantic character of Schoenberg's music, putting him closer to tradition than to new music.

I like to examine my own perceptions and opinions, as a way of being intellectually rigorous. In philosophy, I like to formulate counter-arguments to my own opinions. It's the same with music. I like to question my impressions.


----------



## Mandryka

Presumably the score of this piano music (which I don’t know) allows the same sorts of opportunities for interpretation, discretion, as a 19th century score. The piano player can use rubato, colour, decide how long to hold a pause, decide about tempo, which of the inner voices to bring out - all the usual stuff. So I don’t see why the criteria for a good performance of it shouldn’t be exactly the same as those which apply to something by Brahms.


----------



## arpeggio

ArtMusic said:


> You don't need to explain why good music is good music. But you certainly need to defend bad music, as done often here at TC ....


So what? Nobody here can like bad music?


----------



## SanAntone

ArtMusic said:


> Judge Bach by western classical music standards. The universal quality of his music doesn't need any other standards. Friends from China, South Korea and Japan adore Bach's music without even knowing why.
> 
> You don't need to explain why good music is good music. But you certainly need to defend bad music, as done often here at TC ....


Good music and bad music are your qualifiers based on your personal taste. If I speak highly of a piece of music that you happen think is "bad music" I am not "defending it," I am talking about music that I think is good music, or at least, music I enjoy listening to.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that we react to music subjectively? There is someone here saying "beauty is objective" which is a statement which flies in the face of human behavior throughout history. There is nothing more obvious than how different people respond to the same work of art or music differently, some like what they hear or see while others detest it.

This obsession a number of TC members have with announcing what is good, great or bad music is really tedious.


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> Good music and bad music are your qualifiers based on your personal taste. If I speak highly of a piece of music that you happen think is "bad music" I am not "defending it," I am talking about music that I think is good music, or at least, music I enjoy listening to.
> 
> Why is it so hard for you to understand that we react to music subjectively? There is someone here saying "beauty is objective" which is a statement which flies in the face of human behavior throughout history. There is nothing more obvious than how different people respond to the same work of art or music differently, some like what they hear or see while others detest it.
> 
> This obsession a number of TC members have with announcing what is good, great or bad music is really tedious.


No, the total subjectivity of beauty is what flies in the face of human behaviour throughout history: look at the writings of pre 20th-century critics, do you think they thought the things they praised were merely subjectively good; look at the opinions of pre 20th-century artists, do you think they thought they were merely attempting to appeal to subjective taste or a universal aspect of the human experience?

Imagine if I stuck a turd on a stick, placed it next to the Sistine Chapel, and called it _Chapel alla Turd_. After people exited the Sistine Chapel and had viewed my own artwork I would give them a questionnaire which read: which is the greater, more beautiful, work of art and had the answers: (i) The Sistine Chapel; (ii) _Chapel alla Turd_; (iii) It's impossible to say. It is a uniquely 20th and 21st-century phenomena that a large number of people would choose (iii).

Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder and one man's trash may be another man's treasure, but some things are beautiful to every man, some things are just plain ugly, and some treasure is just that - treasure.


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder and one man's trash may be another man's treasure, but some things are beautiful to every man, some things are just plain ugly, and some treasure is just that - treasure.


Nope. Going back to the ancient Greeks it has been recognized that beauty is subjective.



> magine if I stuck a turd on a stick, placed it next to the Sistine Chapel, and called it Chapel alla Turd. After people exited the Sistine Chapel and had viewed my own artwork I would give them a questionnaire which read: which is the greater, more beautiful, work of art and had the answers: (i) The Sistine Chapel; (ii) Chapel alla Turd; (iii) It's impossible to say.


Not everyone cares about the art in the Sistine Chapel. I was there, I wouldn't argue with someone who went on about how beautiful it was, but it wasn't my thing. I prefer Jackson Pollock.

Responding to music or art is not a horse race. Works are not in competition with each other. Your **** on a stick must stand on its own just like the Sistine Chapel and we all respond to each separately.

Many people will love the art in the Sistine Chapel, if Renaissance art is their thing. I find it a little too staid, conventional and somewhat boring.


----------



## millionrainbows

I find Jackson Pollock's "drip" paintings to be "refreshingly non-representational..."
Mark Rothko's color-field paintings are "open, spacious, expansive, iconic, strikingly empty..."
...because I like them.


----------



## millionrainbows

BachIsBest said:


> ...Imagine if I stuck a turd on a stick, placed it next to the Sistine Chapel, and called it _Chapel alla Turd_.


I'd say "BachIsBest's _Chapel alla Turd_ is earthy, shocking...refreshingly irreverent...an unflinching statement on Human waste...solid, yet ethereal...this wacky artist is _back,_ and zanier than ever! Don't miss this one, it won't last forever, someone might step on it..."


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

millionrainbows said:


> I'd say "BachIsBest's _Chapel alla Turd_ is earthy, shocking...refreshingly irreverent...an unflinching statement on Human waste...solid, yet ethereal...this wacky artist is _back,_ and zanier than ever! Don't miss this one, it won't last forever, someone might step on it..."


Haha! "Solid, yet ethereal" gave me a good laugh.


----------



## Simon Moon

ArtMusic said:


> Judge Bach by western classical music standards. The universal quality of his music doesn't need any other standards. Friends from China, South Korea and Japan adore Bach's music without even knowing why.


And you don't believe there is anyone in China, South Korea and Japan that that also enjoys, Carter and other avantgarde composers, without knowing why?

Hell, there are composers from each of those countries, that are every bit as avantgarde as anyone you consider as avantgarde...



> You don't need to explain why good music is good music. But you certainly need to defend bad music, as done often here at TC ....


But _you_ are the one defining the parameters _you_ use to define music that _you_ like to listen to (good music", as defined by _your_ parameters). I am using my parameters to define the music I like to listen to.

And I don't need to defend music that you consider "bad" (as judged by your parameters, not mine). Stating which composer and pieces of modern, contemporary and avantgarde classical music, I enjoy, is not defending it. Even stating my preference for modern, contemporary and avantgarde classical music is not defending it.

The only time one might say I am defending it, is when someone starts a thread about their enjoyment of modern, contemporary and avantgarde classical music, and anti-modernists feel it necessary to post how much they hate it.


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> Nope. Going back to the ancient Greeks it has been recognized that beauty is subjective.


No. The ancient Greeks debated whether or not beauty was subjective but both Aristotle and Plato believed in objective beauty. Objective beauty was the more influential position.



SanAntone said:


> Not everyone cares about the art in the Sistine Chapel. I was there, I wouldn't argue with someone who went on about how beautiful it was, but it wasn't my thing. I prefer Jackson Pollock.
> 
> Responding to music or art is not a horse race. Works are not in competition with each other. Your **** on a stick must stand on its own just like the Sistine Chapel and we all respond to each separately.
> 
> Many people will love the art in the Sistine Chapel, if Renaissance art is their thing. I find it a little too staid, conventional and somewhat boring.


So, would you argue that it is impossible to say whether _Chapel alla Turd_ or the Sistine Chapel is greater and more beautiful?


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> No. The ancient Greeks debated whether or not beauty was subjective but both Aristotle and Plato believed in objective beauty. Objective beauty was the more influential position.


The quote "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" apparently dates to the 3rd century BC Greeks, at least I've found information to that effect in several sources. But, the sentiment has survived and become accepted knowledge. And our daily experience confirms it. For me it is a settled matter.



> So, would you argue that it is impossible to say whether _Chapel alla Turd_ or the Sistine Chapel is greater and more beautiful?


As you should have gathered from my response that I do not treat the appreciation of art or music as a horse race. I would never compare a turd framed as a work of art with the frescoes in the Sistine Chapel. Further I don't care if someone prefers the turd on a stick to a Raphael fresco. Someone else's preferences have nothing to do with me.


----------



## SanAntone

The lasting popularity of Bach, or Mozart, has been cited as an example of a kind of objective quality. There is another kind of music which has lasted even longer, traditional ballads such as "Barbara Allen". A diary entry by Samuel Pepys on January 2, 1666 contains the earliest extant reference to the song. But the oldest example is of a song, "Judas" -



> Francis Child's monumental collection records the oldest known ballad text as "Judas" (Child 23), dating from the thirteenth century. Thereafter, many roots nourished the ballad family tree; its boughs diverged and reached up to feed a spreading canopy of branches. There were individual poet song carriers, local bards and villagers known for their singing. Courtly poets flourished among the aristocratic set of medieval Europe. Monks drew upon Latin hymns to create ballad stanzas, and their collaboration with minstrels of the day was the likely origin of the "Judas" text and song. Other songs may have been born in the chants and rhythmic patterns of dances; some could have sprung from "singing and dancing throngs." There are tantalizing echoes of this theory to be found today in corners of rural Europe, including Slovakia and the Faroe Islands, where ballads are still simultaneously danced and sung. Whatever the roots, singers most likely fused ballads from disparate origins through time, germinating new shoots from the ballad family tree.
> 
> - Wayfaring Strangers: The Musical Voyage from Scotland and Ulster to Appalachia by Fiona Ritchie, Doug Orr, et al.


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> The quote "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" apparently dates to the 3rd century BC Greeks, at least I've found information to that effect in several sources. But, the sentiment has survived and become accepted knowledge. And our daily experience confirms it. For me it is a settled matter.


Yes, but as I pointed out, the two most influential Greek philosophers believed in objective beauty; surely this is more convincing on Greek thinking than a couple of sources that state a euphonism roughly stating the opposite view was probably from around this time?

This sentiment only became "accepted knowledge" with the rise of modernist and post-modernist philosophies in the 20th-century that advocated, more or less, that subjective experience is truth combined with the elevation of the opinion of the everyman to that of people who have conducted a serious study on the topic. This anti-expert sentiment has only grown worse and worse with the dawn of the internet age.

Again, look at the words of famous historical artists and critics and honestly tell me that they thought they were creating for the subjective preferences of some target audience, or if they thought they were creating works that spoke to the universal human condition on some level. The idea that one can not be a good composer in any sense that isn't entirely subjective is a viewpoint that became widespread in the modern era.



SanAntone said:


> As you should have gathered from my response that I do not treat the appreciation of art or music as a horse race. I would never compare a turd framed as a work of art with the frescoes in the Sistine Chapel. Further I don't care if someone prefers the turd on a stick to a Raphael fresco. Someone else's preferences have nothing to do with me.


So it's a (iii); you can't determine it. Sue me, but I consider this an obvious absurdity.

Also, if someone thinks the turd on the stick is better than a Raphael fresco, that's fine, great for them (although maybe not for their olfactory receptors), but that person is wrong.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> Nope. Going back to the ancient Greeks it has been recognized that beauty is subjective.
> 
> Not everyone cares about the art in the Sistine Chapel. I was there, I wouldn't argue with someone who went on about how beautiful it was, but it wasn't my thing. I prefer Jackson Pollock.
> 
> Responding to music or art is not a horse race. Works are not in competition with each other. Your **** on a stick must stand on its own just like the Sistine Chapel and we all respond to each separately.
> 
> Many people will love the art in the Sistine Chapel, if Renaissance art is their thing. I find it a little too staid, conventional and somewhat boring.


I question why anyone would even begin to compare the Sistine Chapel with a Jackson Pollock; it's apples and oranges. Regardless of one's taste in art, the accomplishment of Michelangelo -massive frescoes on a ceiling requiring the artist to be in all sorts of contortions over a long periods of time in the 16th century- is beyond a simple comparison with a regular painting, regardless of the artist for comparison.

When I saw it, it was breathtaking as a human accomplishment. It wasn't necessary to evaluate it subjectively as a work of art per se. I can't imagine someone looking up at that ceiling and thinking, 'hmm, a little too staid, too conventional, somewhat boring'.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> I question why anyone would even begin to compare the Sistine Chapel with a Jackson Pollock; it's apples and oranges. Regardless of one's taste in art, the accomplishment of Michelangelo -massive frescoes on a ceiling requiring the artist to be in all sorts of contortions over a long periods of time in the 16th century- is beyond a simple comparison with a regular painting, regardless of the artist for comparison.


I didn't compare the Sistine Chapel with Jackson Pollock. BachIsBest offered a hypothetical scenario of an artist presenting a turd on a stick outside the Sistine Chapel. It was his thing to compare the Sistine chapel with a turd on a stick. I said that appreciating art is not a horse race. And then I said that the Sistine Chapel was wonderful, but I preferred Jackson Pollock.

Are you trying to say that my preference is wrong?



> When I saw it, it was breathtaking as a human accomplishment. It wasn't necessary to evaluate it subjectively as a work of art per se. I can't imagine someone looking up at that ceiling and thinking, 'hmm, a little too staid, too conventional, somewhat boring'.


I am glad you enjoyed it, I enjoyed it too, but was not overwhelmed by it. If you can't imagine that I would prefer Pollock to Raphael, then I guess your imagination is pretty limited.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> I question why anyone would even begin to compare the Sistine Chapel with a Jackson Pollock; it's apples and oranges.


Yes. Since there is no "universal, objective, standard", you can't compare them. If there was such a standard, surely you'd be able to make a comparison between anything and everything.



DaveM said:


> Regardless of one's taste in art, the accomplishment of Michelangelo -massive frescoes on a ceiling requiring the artist to be in all sorts of contortions over a long periods of time in the 16th century- is beyond a simple comparison with a regular painting, regardless of the artist for comparison.


Scope and effort shouldn't be taken into account when evaluating the final result. Some would say that a simple sonata that Mozart took two days to write would be superior to all of Sorabji's gargantuan 5-hour uber-complex piano works that took years and painstaking effort to even conceptualize.



DaveM said:


> I can't imagine someone looking up at that ceiling and thinking, 'hmm, a little too staid, too conventional, somewhat boring'.


But it's possible, isn't it? Maybe some people just don't like Renaissance art. It's certainly not everyone's cup of tea.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> I didn't compare the Sistine Chapel with Jackson Pollock.... I said that the Sistine Chapel was wonderful, but I preferred Jackson Pollock.


Sorry to tell you, that's a comparison. Didn't see anything about it being wonderful; maybe I missed that.



> Are you trying to say that my preference is wrong?
> I am glad you enjoyed it, I enjoyed it too, but was not overwhelmed by it. If you can't imagine that I would prefer Pollock to Raphael, then I guess your imagination is pretty limited.


I made a point of removing comparison with another artist by adding the 'regardless of the artist for comparison'.


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> This sentiment only became "accepted knowledge" with the rise of modernist and post-modernist philosophies in the 20th-century that advocated, more or less, that subjective experience is truth combined with the elevation of the opinion of the everyman to that of people who have conducted a serious study on the topic. This anti-expert sentiment has only grown worse and worse with the dawn of the internet age.


Actually, no.



> In 1588, the English dramatist John Lyly, in his Euphues and his England, wrote:
> 
> "...as neere is Fancie to Beautie, as the pricke to the Rose, as the stalke to the rynde, as the earth to the roote."
> 
> Shakespeare expressed a similar sentiment in Love's Labours Lost, 1588:
> 
> Good Lord Boyet, my beauty, though but mean,
> Needs not the painted flourish of your praise:
> Beauty is bought by judgement of the eye,
> Not utter'd by base sale of chapmen's tongues
> 
> Benjamin Franklin, in Poor Richard's Almanack, 1741, wrote:
> 
> Beauty, like supreme dominion
> Is but supported by opinion
> 
> David Hume's Essays, Moral and Political, 1742, include:
> 
> "Beauty in things exists merely in the mind which contemplates them."
> 
> The origin of 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.
> Margaret Hungerford
> coined 'beauty is in the eye
> of the beholder' - taking her
> lead from 16th century
> authors like Shakespeare.
> 
> The person who is widely credited with coining the saying in its current form is Margaret Wolfe Hungerford (née Hamilton), who wrote many books, often under the pseudonym of 'The Duchess'. In Molly Bawn, 1878, there's the line "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", which is the earliest citation that I can find in print.





> Again, look at the words of famous historical artists and critics and honestly tell me that they thought they were creating for the subjective preferences of some target audience, or if they thought they were creating works that spoke to the universal human condition on some level. The idea that one can not be a good composer in any sense that isn't entirely subjective is a viewpoint that became widespread in the modern era.


I have no interest in what an artist had in mind when he was creating. I assume he was trying to do the best he could to realize his conception no matter the reception it might receive.



> So it's a (iii); you can't determine it. Sue me, but I consider this an obvious absurdity.


It's not so much I "can't determine it" as much as I am not interested in determining it. I simply do not care what people think about art. I like a variety of art, but Renaissance art is not really my thing.



> Also, if someone thinks the turd on the stick is better than a Raphael fresco, that's fine, great for them (although maybe not for their olfactory receptors), but that person is wrong.


Wrong for you, but right for them. Do you often wish to control other people? I think that is a problematic tendency.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> Scope and effort shouldn't be taken into account when evaluating the final result. Some would say that a simple sonata that Mozart took two days to write would be superior to all of Sorabji's gargantuan 5-hour uber-complex piano works that took years and painstaking effort to even conceptualize.


Who says scope and effort shouldn't be taken into account as an appreciation of this kind of work? Where's that written? Why do you think the Sistine Chapel ceiling draws people from all over the world? There are a number of reasons and it's not just because it's a simple work of art. If I have to explain that to you then it's futile to bother.



> But it's possible, isn't it? Maybe some people just don't like Renaissance art. It's certainly not everyone's cup of tea.


I made a point of avoiding the issue of taste in art in my post. People don't flock to see the Sistine Chapel because of a single or even necessarily any interest in Renaissance art. I guess I assume that anyone who goes to the Sistine Chapel or posts about it as you are knows the history behind it. Guess not.

I get this picture of someone visiting the Pyramids and saying, I prefer squares myself. Boring!


----------



## SanAntone

When I was in Rome I definitely wanted to see the Sistine chapel, because of the history. I'm glad I went, but it wasn't life changing. DaveM wants to try to shame me because the art or the Sistine itself didn't bowl me over. Oh, wow.

Well, it was okay. I enjoyed the Jackson Pollock retrospective at MoMA a thousand times more.

And I enjoy Muddy Waters more than Mendelssohn. Rothko more than Titian.

Miles Davis more than Sibelius. Edward Hopper more than Michelangelo.

Hank Williams, Bill Monroe more than Mahler and Wagner.

But Bach, Brahms, Debussy - they are right up there with Duke Ellington and Louis Armstrong.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> When I was in Rome I definitely wanted to see the Sistine chapel, because of the history. I'm glad I went, but it wasn't life changing. DaveM wants to try to shame me because the art or the Sistine itself didn't bowl me over. Oh, wow.
> 
> Well, it was okay. I enjoyed the Jackson Pollock retrospective at MoMA a thousand times more.
> 
> And I enjoy Muddy Waters more than Mendelssohn. Rothko more than Titian.
> 
> Miles Davis more than Sibelius. Edward Hopper more than Michelangelo.
> 
> Hank Williams, Bill Monroe more than Mahler and Wagner.
> 
> But Bach, Brahms, Debussy - they are right up there with Duke Ellington and Louis Armstrong.


If you need reasons to get defensive over your tastes in art, then have at it. I made no comment about the subject. In fact, I made a point of avoiding it and said so. What I was amazed at was that you dismissed the Sistine Chapel work as if you were looking at two paintings side-by-side, Renaissance art vs. Pollock and apparently were not moved by the astounding accomplishment and the history behind it. The word 'boring' seemed so out-of-place. Just sayin'.

Btw, I like some of Pollock's works. I don't know why; I just do.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> Who says scope and effort shouldn't be taken into account as an appreciation of this kind of work? Where's that written? Why do you think the Sistine Chapel ceiling draws people from all over the world? There are a number of reasons and it's not just because it's a simple work of art. If I have to explain that to you then it's futile to bother.


It draws people because people think it's beautiful. If people thought it was boring or mediocre then it wouldn't matter how big it was, hardly anybody would go see it.



DaveM said:


> I made a point of avoiding the issue of taste in art in my post. People don't flock to see the Sistine Chapel because of a single or even necessarily any interest in Renaissance art. I guess I assume that anyone who goes to the Sistine Chapel or posts about it as you are knows the history behind it. Guess not.
> 
> I get this picture of someone visiting the Pyramids and saying, I prefer squares myself. Boring!


This is a confusing change of subject. I thought we were just discussing the aesthetic virtues of the Sistine Chapel as to why it holds a so-called "objective beauty".

Now you're attacking my point because I didn't take into account the historical reasons why someone may visit the Sistine Chapel? Please explain why that is relevant to the topic at hand?


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> Actually, no.


Surely your ability to find a couple of quotes from members of the intelligentsia does not prove that this was accepted knowledge? I mean, perhaps partly due to the fact that Aristotle believed in objective beauty, it was essentially church doctrine that things could be objectively beautiful.



SanAntone said:


> I have no interest in what an artist had in mind when he was creating. I assume he was trying to do the best he could to realize his conception no matter the reception it might receive.


Okay. I just thought that great artists might be something of an authority on great art.



SanAntone said:


> It's not so much I "can't determine it" as much as I am not interested in determining it. I simply do not care what people think about art. I like a variety of art, but Renaissance art is not really my thing.


But if you could determine it, then this would (obviously) imply that it could be determined. I'm not sure why this doesn't contradict everything else you've said.



SanAntone said:


> Wrong for you, but right for them. Do you often wish to control other people? I think that is a problematic tendency.


I guess my thinking that someone is incorrect to say that a turd on a stick is better than a Raphael fresco is actually just an expression of my latent desire to control others. That previous statement is almost as ridiculous as saying that a turd on a stick is better art than a Raphael fresco.

I also just wish to mention the irony in personally insulting someone for disagreeing with you by saying they wish to control those with differing opinions.


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> Aristotle believed in objective beauty.


I didn't study philosophy and don't know the context of this belief of Aristotle. I know enough, though that the Greeks talked a lot about abstract absolutes, which don't exist in our real world. Maybe this is one of them.



> I guess my thinking that someone is incorrect to say that a turd on a stick is better than a Raphael fresco is actually just an expression of my latent desire to control others. That previous statement is almost as ridiculous as saying that a turd on a stick is better art than a Raphael fresco.


You brought up a turd on a stick, I never said I preferred it, or never even implied that anyone would prefer it. I pointedly said I did not want to compare it to the Sistine frescoes. The fact that you insist of judging someone who might say that, might be a better way to describe your behavior than controlling them.

For the record I would prefer the Raphael frescoes to your turd on a stick - but that's not saying much.



> If you need reasons to get defensive over your tastes in art, then have at it. I made no comment about the subject. In fact, I made a point of avoiding it and said so. What I was amazed at was that you dismissed the Sistine Chapel work as if you were looking at two paintings side-by-side, Renaissance art vs. Pollock and apparently were not moved by the astounding accomplishment and the history behind it. The word 'boring' seemed so out-of-place. Just sayin'.


I never said any of that. I did say that I was interested in going to the Sistine Chapel because of the history, and the art, etc. I even saw the moon rocks that Nixon sent the Pope. [are you aware that I am making jokes?]

But I also said that Renaissance art is not the kind of art I enjoy the most. I enjoyed the Pantheon more.

It is really very simple: going to the Sistine Chapel was worthwhile, but not an overwhelming artistic experience. I have had more important artistic experiences: the 1998 Pollock retrospective at MoMA, or the Chihuly exhibits in Nashville in 2010 and 2020; or J.M.W. Turner at the Frist in Nashville.

So, if your point in bringing up the Sistine was to offer an example of objective beauty, I'm not convinced.


----------



## BachIsBest

SanAntone said:


> You brought up a turd on a stick, I never said I preferred it, or never even implied that anyone would prefer it. I pointedly said I did not want to compare it to the Sistine frescoes. The fact that you insist of judging someone who might say that, might be a better way to describe your behavior than controlling them.
> 
> For the record I would prefer the Raphael frescoes to your turd on a stick - but that's not saying much.


I want to be clear that I never said you preferred the turd; I said that you said you could not determine whether or not it was worse art than the Sistine Chapel; I think this follows trivially from your position that one piece of art can not be better or worse than other pieces of art (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Also, just to be clear, if someone told you he liked a turd on stick far more than the Sistine Chapel you wouldn't think anything of it and would be totally non-judgemental. Personally, I would smile and maybe try and make a joke about it, but inside I would kinda think the guy is a bit of a nut job.

To use a less ridiculous example to clarify my moral position, if someone told me they didn't like Bach, I would think that's likely because they didn't know enough about Bach's music; this is hardly the malicious judgment you seem to think I'm dolling out.

As a final note, I would like to add many non-Greek philosophers also believed that art evaluation contained an objective component (see: Arthur Schopenhauer or Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten). Ironically, even Nietzsche once said _Tristan und Isolde_ "is the real opus metaphysicum of all art".


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> It draws people because people think it's beautiful. If people thought it was boring or mediocre then it wouldn't matter how big it was, hardly anybody would go see it.
> 
> This is a confusing change of subject. I thought we were just discussing the aesthetic virtues of the Sistine Chapel as to why it holds a so-called "objective beauty".
> 
> Now you're attacking my point because I didn't take into account the historical reasons why someone may visit the Sistine Chapel? Please explain why that is relevant to the topic at hand?


Maybe you were discussing the aesthetic virtues of the Sistine Chapel and 'objective beauty', I wasn't. If you read back, I was responding to SanAntone specifically about his reaction to seeing it and my response had nothing to do with objectivity in the arts. You then chimed in as if it did.

In fact, my response to SanAntone was inspired because he found the Sistine Chapel 'boring', something I found surprising. Apparently, given you're comment above re: 'boring', you do too (find it surprising).


----------



## ArtMusic

I lost track with the pages of the thread. Why/who would find the Sistine Chapel boring? Weird!


----------



## SanAntone

BachIsBest said:


> I want to be clear that I never said you preferred the turd; I said that you said you could not determine whether or not it was worse art than the Sistine Chapel; I think this follows trivially from your position that one piece of art can not be better or worse than other pieces of art (please correct me if I'm wrong).


Of course I could determine, according to my taste, that a turd is not as pleasing of an artistic statement as the frescoes in the Sistine Chapel. I have said more than once that I consider the response to art/music to be subjective, mine, yours, anyone's. Debates about the intrinsic worth of a piece of art/music are never-ending, and do not resolve anything since people rarely change their mind about this issue.



> Also, just to be clear, if someone told you he liked a turd on stick far more than the Sistine Chapel you wouldn't think anything of it and would be totally non-judgemental. Personally, I would smile and maybe try and make a joke about it, but inside I would kinda think the guy is a bit of a nut job.


No, I wouldn't concern myself with anyone else's response; it has nothing to do with me.



> To use a less ridiculous example to clarify my moral position, if someone told me they didn't like Bach, I would think that's likely because they didn't know enough about Bach's music; this is hardly the malicious judgment you seem to think I'm dolling out.


I don't concern myself with someone's response to a work of art, especially if they limit it to a statement of their own personal taste. If they were to go beyond that, I would think they were a bit off, but more than likely not waste time arguing with them. I should have employed that strategy here. 



> *DaveM*: In fact, my response to SanAntone was inspired because he found the Sistine Chapel 'boring', something I found surprising.


Not exactly.

I said that *Renaissance art* was not my thing, it is a bit staid, conventional and somewhat boring. I acknowledged the historical importance of the Sistine Chapel, and said I enjoyed my visit there and I look back on the entire visit as a worthwhile experience.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> ...Not exactly.
> 
> I said that *Renaissance art* was not my thing, it is a bit staid, conventional and somewhat boring. I acknowledged the historical importance of the Sistine Chapel, and said I enjoyed my visit there and I look back on the entire visit as a worthwhile experience.


What you said was '_Many people will love the art in the Sistine Chapel, if Renaissance art is their thing. I find it a little too staid, conventional and somewhat boring._

But I'll take your word for what you meant to say.


----------



## Mandryka

ArtMusic said:


> I lost track with the pages of the thread. Why/who would find the Sistine Chapel boring? Weird!


If you think it's weird to think that the Sistine chapel ceiling is boring, you're completely out of touch with the human race. Get real and stop trying to cancel people who you don't like.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> What you said was '_*Many people will love the art in the Sistine Chapel, if Renaissance art is their thing*. I find it a little too staid, conventional and somewhat boring._
> 
> But I'll take your word for what you meant to say.


I said exactly what I meant to say - it is clear I was talking about the art not the institution. If you wish to distort what I said, knock yourself out.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Didn't go through the 50+ pages on this, but I believe the avant garde by definition thrives on confounding audience expectation, or else there is nothing avant-gardish about it. It could range from a having highly disciplined, but not-so-apparent techniques involved, or just something with cheap shock value. The best to me is something with shock value while being highly disciplined.


----------



## ArtMusic

Mandryka said:


> If you think it's weird to think that the Sistine chapel ceiling is boring, you're completely out of touch with the human race. Get real and stop trying to cancel people who you don't like.


Let it be that I am out of touch with a tiny fringe group who would probably prefer to see Jackson Pollock on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel instead. :lol: If you like weird, weak and wacky art, then fine but be prepared to be singled out.


----------



## arpeggio

*If it looks like censorship and sounds like censorship, it is censorship.*

During my life I have been a member of several music groups.

I have been involved in situations where members of the board did not want our groups programing modern music. I was a member of a community orchestra that fired the conductor because he programed modern music.

I actually was a member of a community band that objected to us programing Norman Dello Joio and Morton Gould. They felt that a community band should only perform Sousa Marches and selections from _My Fair Lady_ (Nothing wrong with Sousa Marches and _My Fair Lady_. There is just more to concert band music than Sousa and _My Fair Lady_.).

The rhetoric that these board members employed is identical to the rhetoric of those who think avant-garde music is bad and/or ugly.


----------



## Mandryka

ArtMusic said:


> Let it be that I am out of touch with a tiny fringe group who would probably prefer to see Jackson Pollock on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel instead. :lol: If you like weird, weak and wacky art, then fine but be prepared to be singled out.


Is this the way they teach you to have a discussion in the American state school system?


----------



## RogerWaters

What a thread.

For the topic to be informative for me, I would need the following information:

a) What are the standards which differentiate great vs average baroque, classical and romantic music? Is it just taste and subjective gesturing like "This peace makes me feel like the universe is forming", or do books on musical critique etc analyse the formal devices which make Beethoven better than, say, Weber?
b) Is there anything comparable when it comes to 'avant garde' music?

Apologies if this was covered way back before this thread turned into an ape-like mudslinging match.


----------



## ArtMusic

Mandryka said:


> Is this the way they teach you to have a discussion in the American state school system?


My education has nothing to do with my taste in fine arts.


----------



## chu42

ArtMusic said:


> My education has nothing to do with my taste in fine arts.


Nobody asked you about your taste in fine arts, and actually personal tastes in fine arts have nothing to do with whether or not there is objective greatness or beauty in art.

Which there are not. All human trends in music and art can be explained by either circumstance or biological processes.


----------



## ArtMusic

chu42 said:


> Nobody asked you about your taste in fine arts, and actually personal tastes in fine arts have nothing to do with whether or not there is objective greatness or beauty in art.
> 
> Which there are not. All human trends in music and art can be explained by either circumstance or biological processes.


Again, objective greatness or subjective greatness at the end of the day, in reality, are irrelevant. People's preferences determine posterity, which is what cultures art in the long run.


----------



## chu42

ArtMusic said:


> Again, objective greatness or subjective greatness at the end of the day, in reality, are irrelevant. People's preferences determine posterity, which is what cultures art in the long run.


Yes. Preferences determine posterity. Let's say that everyone becomes colorblind due to some genetic disease; a lot of artworks would eventually lose their meaning. People wouldn't really stop to watch the sunset. The aurora borealis would be hardly distinguishable from the clouds in the sky.

Beauty in nature and art only exists because humans give them meaning.


----------



## ArtMusic

chu42 said:


> Yes. Preferences determine posterity. Let's say that everyone becomes colorblind due to some genetic disease; a lot of artworks would eventually lose their meaning. People wouldn't really stop to watch the sunset. The aurora borealis would be hardly distinguishable from the clouds in the sky.
> 
> Beauty in nature and art only exists because humans give them meaning.


Luckily that scenario is unlikely (colorblind scenario). Pray that humans don't evolve to a day when hearing is no longer needed.

Humans give them meaning indeed. You give your partner in life meaning. And when the collective also attaches similar meaning to Mozart, his music reigns.


----------



## Mandryka

ArtMusic said:


> My education has nothing to do with my taste in fine arts.


Are you Donald Trump?


----------



## ArtMusic

mandryka said:


> are you donald trump?


Why of course, sir.


----------



## BachIsBest

chu42 said:


> Yes. Preferences determine posterity. Let's say that everyone becomes colorblind due to some genetic disease; a lot of artworks would eventually lose their meaning. People wouldn't really stop to watch the sunset. The aurora borealis would be hardly distinguishable from the clouds in the sky.
> 
> Beauty in nature and art only exists because humans give them meaning.


Humans are the only purveyors of meaning; to say something is meaningful only because of humans is a triviality.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Mandryka said:


> And I'll give you an example of music which I have a strong intuition is very good, a masterpiece. And I'll try to say why.
> 
> Peter Ablinger's _Piano and Record_ is the sound of an empty LP transcribed for piano. Example here, love it.
> 
> https://ablinger.mur.at/i+r_pno+rec.html
> 
> The transcription has made something out of nothing. Ontological bliss. Alchemy. And what a revelation that music is there in something which previously we thought was just a void. There's a moral lesson, a lesson for life, in there.


This is a late response, but I want to say thank you for sharing this brilliant piece of music. Ontological bliss indeed! It gets better with every listen.


----------



## chu42

BachIsBest said:


> Humans are the only purveyors of meaning; to say something is meaningful only because of humans is a triviality.


It's only trivial when applied to concepts that have true objective meaning for humans, such as math or science. You could say that math or science only has meaning because of humans; that's a triviality since human perception does not change the realities within the realm of math and science. The Egyptians thought pi was 22/7, the Babylonians thought it was 3.125, and yet pi still remains constant.

If you say that aesthetic constructs like beauty or greatness only has meaning because of humans, that's not a triviality since the way humans view these constructs change as human perceptions change.

In East Asia, a very pale skin is considered to be a "beautiful skin tone" while in the West, people will tan themselves to create the same "beautiful skin tone."

Who is objectively correct on what is beautiful? No one is-beauty is subjective. I don't find it at all trivial to make this distinction.


----------



## ArtMusic

chu42 said:


> It's only trivial when applied to concepts that have true objective meaning for humans, such as math or science. You could say that math or science only has meaning because of humans; that's a triviality since human perception does not change the realities within the realm of math and science. The Egyptians thought pi was 22/7, the Babylonians thought it was 3.125, and yet pi still remains constant.
> 
> If you say that aesthetic constructs like beauty or greatness only has meaning because of humans, that's not a triviality since the way humans view these constructs change as human perceptions change.
> 
> In East Asia, a very pale skin is considered to be a "beautiful skin tone" while in the West, people will tan themselves to create the same "beautiful skin tone."
> 
> Who is objectively correct on what is beautiful? No one is-beauty is subjective. I don't find it at all trivial to make this distinction.


Except in Asia and in the West, Mozart is considered great even by the Asians who are every protective of their cultural heritage, have opened their ears to Mozart. Greatness transcends time, people and place.


----------



## BachIsBest

chu42 said:


> It's only trivial when applied to concepts that have true objective meaning for humans, such as math or science. You could say that math or science only has meaning because of humans; that's a triviality since human perception does not change the realities within the realm of math and science. The Egyptians thought pi was 22/7, the Babylonians thought it was 3.125, and yet pi still remains constant.
> 
> If you say that aesthetic constructs like beauty or greatness only has meaning because of humans, that's not a triviality since the way humans view these constructs change as human perceptions change.
> 
> In East Asia, a very pale skin is considered to be a "beautiful skin tone" while in the West, people will tan themselves to create the same "beautiful skin tone."
> 
> Who is objectively correct on what is beautiful? No one is-beauty is subjective. I don't find it at all trivial to make this distinction.


How do you know whether human perceptions change math and science? Have you talked to non-human mathematicians and scientists?


----------



## SanAntone

> A composer is someone who can illuminate with his own light - not like anyone else's - what lies within each of us. "Traditionalism", "avantgardism", "modernism" have no meaning. Only one thing is important: that which is yours alone. But to be a composer isn't a pastime, it's an eternal conversation, an eternal search for harmony in people and nature. It's a search for the meaning and duty of our short-lived existence on the earth.


With these words in a 1966 letter to his wife, Mieczyslaw Weinberg came closest to setting out his compositional ethos.


----------



## millionrainbows

*Great avant-garde music vs. Average/Mediocre avant-garde music*

Does "great" mean "the composition as a written record of musical ideas," or a recording of a performance?

In John Cage's case, since he devalues authorship, this depends much more on a recording of a good performance. His scores are sets of instructions, like all scores are, but there are no fixed "musical ideas" in there.

In Elliott Carter's case, the composition exists as a score, so I suppose one could deem his Variations for Orchestra as "great," based solely on its existence as a written score, in a Platonic unrealized sort of way, as classical enthusiasts are wont to do; but I really think "greatness" is based on hearing performances, both live and recorded.

I think "greatness" is a Platonic generalization based on hearing numerous performances of a work; the musical ideas then become familiar and fixed within the mind as a Platonic idea of greatness.

Thus, Beethoven's Ninth has become an "idea."


----------



## chu42

BachIsBest said:


> How do you know whether human perceptions change math and science? Have you talked to non-human mathematicians and scientists?


The world works in a certain way regardless of how or who is looking at it. Math and science is just figuring out this certain way.

Even if humans were wrong about physics-even if we haven't figured it out yet-physics still has to work in a certain, objective, way. It doesn't matter whether or not the organism figuring it out is human or not because the physical world does not change when the point of view changes. If you want to say that the physical world only has scientific meaning because of humans, then you're getting into trivialities even if you're technically correct.

Whereas when you're talking about beauty, there is no objective perception of beauty in the world that remains"correct" regardless of your personality or your genetic makeup or your species. There just isn't.

Among humans, everyone finds different things beautiful. Different species find different things attractive. A chimp is no more "correct" in finding a female chimp attractive than we are in finding models attractive. Someone who finds Scarlett Johansson attractive is no more "correct" than someone finding her ugly.

With science and math, humans are trying to figure out what is objectively true to their reality. With beauty and so-called "greatness", we are only being objective in the sense that we can figure out the general trend of a population in a certain zeitgeist- humans trend towards the Beatles and Mozart and Bach-that much is objectively true.

There is no inherent greatness in any of these trends because these trends are the result of what's in our brains, not what's in the music. Switch around a couple of chemicals and we might be calling J.C. Bach the greatest of all time and maybe we would be still listening to Joachim Raff while Brahms disappeared into obscurity.

If you'd want to argue that the Mozart or The Beatles is objectively great _precisely_ because it is able to trends towards our innate biological wants and needs, I wouldn't be able to disagree. I will say that I think it is a sterile way of looking at things.

Much less sterile is to appreciate each composer for what they mean to _you personally_ and not get caught up in the scientific rationale behind liking a certain composer, or how many people like x over y, or how many experts think x is greater than y.

If you didn't enjoy Mozart's music, you would never come to the conclusion that it is "great" without certain institutions informing you so. You'd need to read books about Mozart, you'd need to know the thoughts of Mozart fans, etc.

So what's the point of knowing that Mozart is considered great if it does nothing for you personally?

It tells you about human trends. That's it. Not some abstract objective force of greatness that you're somehow missing out on.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

chu42 said:


> Switch around a couple of chemicals and we might be calling J.C. Bach the greatest of all time and maybe we would be still listening to Joachim Raff while Brahms disappeared into obscurity.


Do you think, though, that what appeals in lesser composers is magnified in the greats?


----------



## millionrainbows

chu42 said:


> The world works in a certain way regardless of how or who is looking at it. Math and science is just figuring out this certain way...Even if humans were wrong about physics-even if we haven't figured it out yet-physics still has to work in a certain, objective, way. It doesn't matter whether or not the organism figuring it out is human or not because the physical world does not change when the point of view changes.


I think math and geometry have a lot to do with brain structure. A giant super-intelligent honeybee being might have a different kind of mathematics than we do.


----------



## SanAntone

chu42 said:


> There is no inherent greatness in any of these trends because these trends are the result of what's in our brains, not what's in the music. Switch around a couple of chemicals and we might be calling J.C. Bach the greatest of all time and maybe we would be still listening to Joachim Raff while Brahms disappeared into obscurity.


Since I have been involved in the music industry in various capacities, I've witnesses the apparent arbitrary nature of success and/or fame. It is not entirely related to talent or merit. Of course talent is a necessary component - but there are other things which ultimately determine great success between two musicians both with talent but only one becomes famous.

Personality, charisma, luck, and myriad intangible attributes divorced from the music or talent play a role. It could be that one reason why a composer survived and another didn't, is related to these intangible characteristics and not simply because the survivor was more talented, wrote better music, than the one forgotten, or at least, less well known.


----------



## chu42

Isaac Blackburn said:


> Do you think, though, that what appeals in lesser composers is magnified in the greats?


It's hard to say. After all, people trying to achieve posterity in music are just doing their best to appeal to certain human emotions and biological wants. Whether that is relaxation, anger, shock, happiness, sadness,-it doesn't matter what it is.

The people who are better at doing that achieve "greatness" while the people who fail to do so as well achieve obscurity or become less great. So in the sense of appealing to general human nature (which is not abstract; it can be biologically defined), you could measure a sort of degree to which some composers are more appealing than others.

Again, I think this is a sterile way of looking at things. Is someone "objectively wrong" for liking CPE Bach more than JS Bach when JS Bach is more appealing to human nature over time?

Again, don't get caught up in what humans tend to like or not like. It doesn't and shouldn't have any standing in how you feel personally about a composer.

Let me put it this way: If every human on the earth somehow hated Bach except for you, it shouldn't change whether you felt his music is great or not.

Think about what a composer personally means to you and what emotions you can receive from their music-not some sort of popularity contest about who appeals better to human nature and who has more "informed consensus" and "objective greatness".

These kinds of things are all sterile and for some people could be a possible ego boost, sub-consciously or otherwise. I understand that there is an appeal to following cultural or intellectual trends. I understand that being "objectively correct" about something gives yourself a sense of superiority because you're right and they're wrong. I'm saying these things are all fairly meaningless relative to how much you personally like a composer's music.

And to be clear; I don't believe these things because I'm some kind of non-conformist like some of the others discussing this point. In terms of music, I actually adhere to mainstream hierarchy. The music that most experts consider great generally lines up with the music I consider great.

So I think I'm being as unbiased as possible when I'm telling people not to get caught up in what experts or the consensus believe. I think Mozart, Bach, Beethoven are great not because of what others think or say, or what kind of biological trends they follow, but because what their music speaks to me personally.

This should be the case for all people who enjoy certain composers. If you think Mozart isn't that interesting, or you listened to Beethoven so much that you're sick of him, you're not "objectively wrong" just because most humans don't feel the way you do.


----------



## chu42

millionrainbows said:


> I think math and geometry have a lot to do with brain structure. A giant super-intelligent honeybee being might have a different kind of mathematics than we do.


Yeah, but if they are "objectively correct" about it then it's just a different way of coming to the same conclusions about reality.


----------



## Mandryka

I just note in passing that there may not be a single “objectively correct” mathematics. A couple of things to think about 

1. Axiom of choice or not? 
2. Sets or mereology?


----------



## millionrainbows

chu42 said:


> Yeah, but if they are "objectively correct" about it then it's just a different way of coming to the same conclusions about reality.


But "objective facts" about reality might be different to a giant super-intelligent honeybee, if he sees *reality* differently.

In this sense, "facts" are not "facts" if there are different ways of seeing the "facts."

You seem to think that "reality" is a fixed thing.


----------



## chu42

Mandryka said:


> I just note in passing that there may not be a single "objectively correct" mathematics. A couple of things to think about
> 
> 1. Axiom of choice or not?
> 2. Sets or mereology?


I have a high school education in mathematics so I am in no way qualified to discuss the more ontologically-leaning aspects of the field.

I will say that there is an objectively correct reality within the realm of math. Even if math doesn't have meaning outside of human perception, within itself there are objective truths. From basic things like 1+1=2 to more complex algorithms like FFT/DFT.

If you don't accept these certain "truths" you would have no way of determining a useful perception of reality; that is, useful to human development and progression. If you believe that the world is flat you're still confined to the physics of a spherical globe.

On the other hand, if you don't accept certain beauty standards or music, it really doesn't matter very much. If you think a turd on a stick is somehow more "beautiful" than the Sistine Chapel, all of humanity might disagree but it does not mean that your perception of reality is "objectively wrong."


----------



## chu42

millionrainbows said:


> But "objective facts" about reality might be different to a giant super-intelligent honeybee, if he sees *reality* differently.
> 
> In this sense, "facts" are not "facts" if there are different ways of seeing the "facts."
> 
> You seem to think that "reality" is a fixed thing.


I guess it's not. After all, honeybees do not see colors the way that we do, so in that sense, even colors aren't technically "objective".

But that's kind of trivial in my opinion. Within the realm of human perception, there are certain realities that must be accepted to create advancements in civilization. And that's the important part.


----------



## millionrainbows

chu42 said:


> ...I will say that there is an objectively correct reality within the realm of math. Even if math doesn't have meaning outside of human perception, within itself there are objective truths. From basic things like 1+1=2 to more complex algorithms like FFT/DFT.


But what if 1+1=2 because our brains and bodies are bicameral (two arms, two legs, two brain halves)?
To a giant super-intelligent honeybee, it could be that 1+1=6.


----------



## chu42

millionrainbows said:


> But what if 1+1=2 because our brains and bodies are bicameral (two arms, two legs, two brain halves)?
> To a giant super-intelligent honeybee, it could be that 1+1=6.


Are you suggesting a different language convention is used? I don't see how that would matter since numbers are numbers no matter if they are Arabic, Chinese, or Roman.

If this isn't what you're suggesting, then elaborate further. I suspect that this could develop into a very interesting discussion.


----------



## millionrainbows

chu42 said:


> I guess it's not. After all, honeybees do not see colors the way that we do, so in that sense, even colors aren't technically "objective".
> 
> But that's kind of trivial in my opinion. Within the realm of human perception, there are certain realities that must be accepted to create advancements in civilization. And that's the important part.


And there are certain "unrealities" that must be rejected.

In my opinion, 99.9% of all humans are walking around in total darkness. Except you & me, of course.


----------



## millionrainbows

chu42 said:


> Are you suggesting a different language convention is used? I don't see how that would matter since numbers are numbers no matter if they are Arabic, Chinese, or Roman.
> 
> If this isn't what you're suggesting, then elaborate further. I suspect that this could develop into a very interesting discussion.


Well really what I'm suggesting is sort of Platonic. The number 1 is synonymous with our idea of "one-ness;" the same for 2, perceived as a quality of "two-ness" that is associated with the number.

Maybe a honeybee's idea of "one-ness" is 6. In other words, the "base" system might be conditioned by brain structure.


----------



## chu42

millionrainbows said:


> Well really what I'm suggesting is sort of Platonic. The number 1 is synonymous with our idea of "one-ness;" the same for 2, perceived as a quality of "two-ness" that is associated with the number.
> 
> Maybe a honeybee's idea of "one-ness" is 6. In other words, the "base" system might be conditioned by brain structure.


But they are simply differing perceptions of the same reality. They are directly translatable. An intelligent bee may consider 1 to be our idea of "1/6" while we view 1 as "the whole", but it's just the same reality through a different lens. It wouldn't change how we applied math to other fields like architecture or accounting, since a bicameral base conditioning already hardly affects the way we use math in applied fields.

An interesting concept to point out, though.


----------



## Mandryka

chu42 said:


> I have a high school education in mathematics so I am in no way qualified to discuss the more ontologically-leaning aspects of the field.
> 
> I will say that there is an objectively correct reality within the realm of math. Even if math doesn't have meaning outside of human perception, within itself there are objective truths. From basic things like 1+1=2 to more complex algorithms like FFT/DFT.
> 
> If you don't accept these certain "truths" you would have no way of determining a useful perception of reality; that is, useful to human development and progression. If you believe that the world is flat you're still confined to the physics of a spherical globe.
> 
> On the other hand, if you don't accept certain beauty standards or music, it really doesn't matter very much. If you think a turd on a stick is somehow more "beautiful" than the Sistine Chapel, all of humanity might disagree but it does not mean that your perception of reality is "objectively wrong."


Imagine someone who said that 1+1=2 for all time past and for the next 1M years, and then 1+1=2+delta. It's the preferences of the mathematical community which leads them to reject the weird theory, not anything in observation or logic.

(I last thought about this stuff in 1986, so I could be very wrong. Kripke, Quine, Dummett.)

What I'm leading to is that the same sort of subjectivity occurs in maths and science as you find in aesthetics.


----------



## Boychev

If there was such a thing as objectively good music, what in your opinion would be the harm in, say, banning the performance of objectively bad music? Why does objectively bad music need to exist at all? Let's throw it all to the pyre and have everyone only listen to J. S. Bach afterwards. What is the value in free expression when there is an objective standard as to what constitutes good and bad expression?


----------



## Mandryka

Boychev said:


> If there was such a thing as objectively good music, what in your opinion would be the harm in, say, banning the performance of objectively bad music? Why does objectively bad music need to exist at all? Let's throw it all to the pyre and have everyone only listen to J. S. Bach afterwards. What is the value in free expression when there is an objective standard as to what constitutes good and bad expression?


Objectively bad music may be good for making money from people with objectively bad taste. I mean, think of all those sales Vivaldi makes.


----------



## ArtMusic

millionrainbows said:


> In my opinion, 99.9% of all humans are walking around in total darkness. Except you & me, of course.


Hey buddy, shouldn't I be included in your club, too? Thanks :lol:


----------



## ArtMusic

Boychev said:


> If there was such a thing as objectively good music, what in your opinion would be the harm in, say, banning the performance of objectively bad music? Why does objectively bad music need to exist at all? Let's throw it all to the pyre and have everyone only listen to J. S. Bach afterwards. What is the value in free expression when there is an objective standard as to what constitutes good and bad expression?


I don't think anyone here is stating that bad music should be banned. Schoenberg's music has value in theoretical studies to explore the extremities of harmony and students should study it, and it could deserve the odd performance to keep the small group of supporters. What I am saying is that this music is no way near as great as say, Mozart's and that art music is certainly not egalitarian in quality.


----------



## BachIsBest

chu42 said:


> The world works in a certain way regardless of how or who is looking at it. Math and science is just figuring out this certain way.


Science is about explaining and predicting the results of experiments; whether or not this corresponds to an "absolute reality" is something scientist may think about but do not concern themselves with.

Mathematics is about developing and creating the most sophisticated formal logic system every conceived; I think most mathematicians would agree that the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in science would point to something very special about math, but it is not the primary concern of the pure mathematician especially.



chu42 said:


> Even if humans were wrong about physics-even if we haven't figured it out yet-physics still has to work in a certain, objective, way. It doesn't matter whether or not the organism figuring it out is human or not because the physical world does not change when the point of view changes. If you want to say that the physical world only has scientific meaning because of humans, then you're getting into trivialities even if you're technically correct.


Physics is under no obligation to work in a certain objective way. Although I personally think the theory is wrong (it has philosophical and scientific problems in my view), there is an actual physical theory (as in, it has mathematics to back it up) that states (roughly) subjective experience creates objective reality; it's called Quantum Bayesianism.

Yes, I want to say that the physical world only has scientific meaning because of humans. This is a triviality. However, it certainly kills the argument that science is objective and art evaluation is not because art evaluation only has meaning because of humans.



chu42 said:


> Whereas when you're talking about beauty, there is no objective perception of beauty in the world that remains"correct" regardless of your personality or your genetic makeup or your species. There just isn't.


How do you know this? Certainly, there are shocking commonalities in the human perception of beauty. I'm not sure to what extent other species experience or know beauty, and neither do you, so I don't think this can possibly factor into the discussion.



chu42 said:


> Among humans, everyone finds different things beautiful. Different species find different things attractive. A chimp is no more "correct" in finding a female chimp attractive than we are in finding models attractive. Someone who finds Scarlett Johansson attractive is no more "correct" than someone finding her ugly.


I'm sorry, but please find me a sane person that thinks all sunsets are ugly. Does anyone think Scarlett Johansson is ugly? Have you met such a person?

Please don't bring up chimps. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you've never had a conversation with a chimp on what said chimp finds beautiful.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> ..These kinds of things are all sterile and for some people could be a possible ego boost, sub-consciously or otherwise. I understand that there is an appeal to following cultural or intellectual trends. I understand that being "objectively correct" about something gives yourself a sense of superiority because you're right and they're wrong. I'm saying these things are all fairly meaningless relative to how much you personally like a composer's music...


I guess, in the end, you can't be sure that you are objectively correct about your view of objectivity.


----------



## RogerWaters

chu42 said:


> Whereas when you're talking about beauty, there is no objective perception of beauty in the world that remains"correct" regardless of your personality or your genetic makeup or your species. There just isn't.





BachIsBest said:


> How do you know this? Certainly, there are shocking commonalities in the human perception of beauty. I'm not sure to what extent other species experience or know beauty, and neither do you, so I don't think this can possibly factor into the discussion.


Commonalities in the human perception of beauty reinforce chu's point. They don't overturn it! Why? Because there are commonalities in human genetic makeup and chu is arguing, correctly, that attraction to members of the opposite sex is a product of evolution by natural selection operating on this genetic makeup.

If 'ugly' features in our partners made for a better chance of them passing on our genetic material, we would in actual fact find them beautiful. If our judgements about beauty are as arbitrary as this, then they cannot be objective. Unless your concept of objective is overly permissive, relying only on the individual subordinating personal/individual judgement to convention (including the conventions hit on by natural selection at the population level).



BachIsBest said:


> I'm sorry, but please find me a sane person that thinks all sunsets are ugly. Does anyone think Scarlett Johansson is ugly? Have you met such a person?


Again, the existence of species-wide patterns in what we find beautiful is NOT a good argument for the 'objectivity' of beauty.

Humans generally find ice cream to be delicious. Do you really think this is an objective judgement? If so, I want your definition of 'objective' (and not in essay format, please), as I would wager it's so permissive as to destroy any meaningful distinction between objective and subjective.


----------



## DaveM

It’s just my guess that the major ice-cream and chocolate based companies are betting on the fact that there is objective evidence that the majority of humans are likely to like ice-cream and chocolate. In addition, I’m also guessing that this is due to some common property of deliciousness.


----------



## RogerWaters

DaveM said:


> It's just my guess that the major ice-cream and chocolate based companies are betting on the fact that there is objective evidence that the majority of humans are likely to like ice-cream and chocolate.


Right. And this is fully consistent with the deliciousness of ice-cream being utterly contingent on the biology of human taste buds and brains.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> It's just my guess that the major ice-cream and chocolate based companies are betting on the fact that there is objective evidence that the majority of humans are likely to like ice-cream and chocolate. In addition, I'm also guessing that this is due to some common property of deliciousness.


There is indeed objective evidence that humans like chocolate and ice cream. And these are entirely explained by biological processes, rather than some abstract objective "deliciousness" that exists outside of human perception, which would stipulate that all people who dislike chocolate or ice cream are "objectively wrong" and bending the rules of reality.

I will say this again:

I think Mozart, Bach, Beethoven are great not because of what others think or say, or what kind of trends that humans like follow, but because what their music speaks to me personally.

This should be the case for all people who enjoy or don't enjoy the things that humans tend to enjoy.

If you're sick of the Beatles, or you-God forbid, find Scarlet Johansson unattractive-you're not "objectively wrong" just because most humans don't feel the way you do.


----------



## DaveM

RogerWaters said:


> Right. And this is fully consistent with the deliciousness of ice-cream being utterly contingent on the biology of human taste buds and brains...


Hmm, if I'm not mistaken, you made a major edit on deliciousness in the post I responded to after I posted: Something about 'if you think that is objective evidence of deliciousness, you are seriously mistaken. Or something like that.


----------



## RogerWaters

DaveM said:


> Hmm, if I'm not mistaken, you made a major edit on deliciousness in the post I responded to after I posted: Something about 'if you think that is objective evidence of deliciousness, you are seriously mistaken. Or something like that.


I did. I will move those additions to this post, so we can continue the conversation properly.

Are you happy with the 'beauty' of Bach (or whoever) being contingent on human biological makeup? I may be wrong, but I suspect proponents of the line that beauty is objective have something stronger in mind than the arbitrary results of evolution by natural selection. For example, I suspect you would all want to say that Bach (or whoever) would remain 'beautiful' even if humans suddenly became extinct. But to this conclusion you are, unfortunately, not entitled as a matter of empirical and logical fact.

If, in fact, you _are _happy with beauty being beholden to the vagaries of evolution by natural selection, I would ask you what force the 'objectivity' of beauty, thus delivered, has on the judgements of dissenting individuals? If all you mean by 'Bach is objectively beautiful' is that, by virtue of the biology of human auditory systems and brains, _most_ people find (or would find, if given the chance to become familiar with JS) Bach beautiful, I would ask, so what?! Most people find ice cream delicious but there would be some individuals who don't. For individual variation is the very stuff of biology. On the population level, variation is the fuel for evolution by natural section. There is nothing 'incorrect' about it!


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> Hmm, if I'm not mistaken, you made a major edit on deliciousness in the post I responded to after I posted: Something about 'if you think that is objective evidence of deliciousness, you are seriously mistaken. Or something like that.


I would like to clarify that evidence that people objectively _tend to like chocolate is not evidence that chocolate is objectively delicious. They are two disparate concepts.

And these trends say more about our taste buds and brains rather than what is inherent to the nature of chocolate itself._


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> There is indeed objective evidence that humans like chocolate and ice cream. And these are entirely explained by biological processes, rather than some abstract objective "deliciousness" that exists outside of human perception.


Well, there you are. IMO, we may be talking at cross purposes in this discussion. Perhaps I'm assuming that we're talking about human perception at the moment and you're not. And maybe going off on a tangent about ice-cream or some such is not all that relevant to the discussion of the alleged objective 'beauty' of Bach.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> Well, there you are. IMO, we may be talking at cross purposes in this discussion. Perhaps I'm assuming that we're talking about human perception at the moment and you're not. And maybe going off on a tangent about ice-cream or some such is not all that relevant to the discussion of the alleged 'beauty' of Bach.


If our taste buds were genetically ever so slightly different, we may trend towards the taste of cardboard rather than chocolate. Who knows.

The main point is that there is no inherent meaning to the "deliciousness" of chocolate other than the meaning that individual humans give it. And when many individual humans agree on something, it's a trend.

Just because humans trend towards an idea does not necessarily make said idea "objectively correct." It's not hard to identify ideas that humans have held around the world for thousands of years that aren't "objectively correct".


----------



## RogerWaters

DaveM said:


> Well, there you are. IMO, we may be talking at cross purposes in this discussion. Perhaps I'm assuming that we're talking about human perception at the moment and you're not. And maybe going off on a tangent about ice-cream or some such is not all that relevant to the discussion of the alleged objective 'beauty' of Bach.


Human perception (conditioned, as it is, by biology) is _extremely relevant_ to this discussion of the alleged objective beauty of Bach. How else do you think we come to judge the B minor Mass as beautiful?


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> I would like to clarify that evidence that people objectively _tend to like chocolate is not evidence that chocolate is objectively delicious. They are two disparate concepts.
> 
> And these trends say more about our taste buds and brains rather than what is inherent to the nature of chocolate itself._


_

You've agreed that ' There is indeed objective evidence that humans like chocolate and ice cream.' But now that's not evidence that they are objectively delicious? There has to be some characteristic/quality that would explain the objective evidence of people liking chocolate and ice-cream. What else could it be other than deliciousness?  (I'm finding this a little humorous now.)_


----------



## RogerWaters

DaveM said:


> You've agreed that '_ There is indeed objective evidence that humans like chocolate and ice cream.'_ But now that's not evidence that they are objectively delicious? There has to be some characteristic/quality that would explain the objective evidence of people liking chocolate and ice-cream. What else could it be other than deliciousness?  (I'm finding this a little humorous now.)


Have you not been reading my posts? It's called evolution by natural selection wiring your brain in a certain way due to selection pressures in our past. Sugar was scarce in the history of our species. As a result, natural selection favoured those individuals whose brains happened to be wired such that sugar was delicious. These individuals had more offspring than those who found sugar disgusting (as a result being attracted to seek out an energy-rich resource). A taste for sugar thus came to predominate in the species as the sugar-haters contributed less offspring in the next generation while sugar-lovers contributed more.

This is your 'deliciousness'. It is utterly arbitrary, beholden to the vagaries of the evolutionary history of our species.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> You've agreed that '_ There is indeed objective evidence that humans like chocolate and ice cream.'_ But now that's not evidence that they are objectively delicious? There has to be some characteristic/quality that would explain the objective evidence of people liking chocolate and ice-cream. What else could it be other than deliciousness?  (I'm finding this a little humorous now.)


It's our taste buds. Let's say 99.8% of people have the genetic makeup to enjoy ice cream-.2% don't. Why is the 99.8% more "objectively correct" when they say that ice cream is genetic? They only like it because they are genetically predisposed to (as Roger correctly pointed out, due to natural selection in the gene pool), not because ice cream has an "objective deliciousness".

Is objectivity a vote? What if only 90%, 80%, or 70% percent of people had the genetic makeup to enjoy ice cream? Where's the cutoff between being objectively correct and only having an opinion?


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> If our taste buds were genetically ever so slightly different, we may trend towards the taste of cardboard rather than chocolate. Who knows.
> 
> The main point is that there is no inherent meaning to the "deliciousness" of chocolate other than the meaning that individual humans give it. And when many individual humans agree on something, it's a trend.
> 
> Just because humans trend towards an idea does not necessarily make said idea "objectively correct." It's not hard to identify ideas that humans have held around the world for thousands of years that aren't "objectively correct".


I don't think any of that answers my post. You admitted to there being objective evidence for people liking chocolate and ice-cream, but then seem to be inferring that the reason is a mystery. I think the reason is pretty clear to companies that make and sell these products.

One can get too far into the weeds on this subject. It isn't rocket science.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> I don't think any of that answers my post. You admitted to there being objective evidence for people liking chocolate and ice-cream, but then seem to be inferring that the reason is a mystery. I think the reason is pretty clear to companies that make and sell these products.
> 
> One can get too far into the weeds on this subject. It isn't rocket science.


When did I say that the reason is a mystery...? I have clearly pointed to genetic predisposition as the main reason why someone would enjoy something.

When people had no conception of science or biology, they pointed at ideas such as "objective beauty" and "objective greatness" to explain the things that they could not explain through mere observation. Today, it seems like some of these people are still out and about.


----------



## BachIsBest

RogerWaters said:


> Commonalities in the human perception of beauty reinforce chu's point. They don't overturn it! Why? Because there are commonalities in human genetic makeup and chu is arguing, correctly, that attraction to members of the opposite sex is a product of evolution by natural selection operating on this genetic makeup.


If your point is that human perceptions of beauty have to do with our genetics, then you are correct. However, human genetics have to do with our perception and comprehension of everything and anything: this is not specific to beauty.



RogerWaters said:


> If 'ugly' features in our partners made for a better chance of them passing on our genetic material, we would in actual fact find them beautiful. If our judgements about beauty are as arbitrary as this, then they cannot be objective. Unless your concept of objective is overly permissive, relying only on the individual subordinating personal/individual judgement to convention (including the conventions hit on by natural selection at the population level).


Sexual attraction and beauty are not the same things. Even sexual attraction isn't determined entirely by natural selection. This is obvious due to the fact what is widely consider sexually attractive changes over time and cultures.



RogerWaters said:


> Again, the existence of species-wide patterns in what we find beautiful is NOT a good argument for the 'objectivity' of beauty.
> 
> Humans generally find ice cream to be delicious. Do you really think this is an objective judgement? If so, I want your definition of 'objective' (and not in essay format, please), as I would wager it's so permissive as to destroy any meaningful distinction between objective and subjective.


I agree that the existence of species-wide patterns do not in and of themselves constitute an argument for the objectivity of beauty. However, the absence of species-wide patterns would constitute an argument against the objectivity of beauty; it appeared to me that chu42's argument was (in a very general sense) along these lines, hence my refutation.

I realise that everyone wants a twenty-word tweet nowadays, but I can't properly explain my thoughts on objectivity in so short a format. I do use the dictionary definition of objective truth, in that these are truths independent of any one individual's personal thoughts and feelings. I think everyone uses roughly this definition, but we are disagreeing as to the class of things that fall under this definition. I do not feel that my personal evaluation of objectivity renders the difference between objectivity and subjectivity meaningless; you may look earlier in the thread to find more of my thoughts.

I personally would think it is likely you could make some sort of objective statement regarding the fact that ice cream tastes good. In general though, I would hazard a guess that food perception is a lot more subjective than art evaluation. As a final thought, I would also like it noted that I'm not arguing for the total objectivity of art evaluation; of course some people like some art more than others, rather, I am merely arguing that there is, to some degree, an objective component in art evaluation.


----------



## chu42

BachIsBest said:


> If your point is that human perceptions of beauty have to do with our genetics, then you are correct. However, human genetics have to do with our perception and comprehension of everything and anything: this is not specific to beauty.


They have to do with our perception and comprehension of everything-sure. But it doesn't change the objective elements of reality. If I am somehow genetically predisposed to not believe in an objective reality such as gravity, gravity still affects me. This isn't the same thing as being genetically predisposed to disliking ice cream.



BachIsBest said:


> Sexual attraction and beauty are not the same things. Even sexual attraction isn't determined entirely by natural selection. This is obvious due to the fact what is widely consider sexually attractive changes over time and cultures.


Yes, sexual attractiveness can change due to arbitrary cultural events and artefacts; for example, absurdly small feet became attractive and desirable in China when it was said that a Tang Dynasty concubine danced remarkably well due to her small feet (or something like that). It's not as if sexual attraction and beauty simply comes out of an abstract, objective force of beauty somewhere. There are always reasons for why cultures behave and perceive the way they do.



BachIsBest said:


> I agree that the existence of species-wide patterns do not in and of themselves constitute an argument for the objectivity of beauty. However, the absence of species-wide patterns would constitute an argument against the objectivity of beauty; it appeared to me that chu42's argument was (in a very general sense) along these lines, hence my refutation.


The very idea of an objective beauty is that there is a standard for beauty outside of human interpretation. E.g., Mozart is beautiful even if no human believed it to be. Or that there is an inherent beauty in Bach's music regardless of how humans perceive it.

So no, the absence of species-wide patterns would not constitute of an argument against the objectivity of beauty. Arguing that it does actually hurts the very idea of an abstract, objective, beauty.



BachIsBest said:


> I realise that everyone wants a twenty-word tweet nowadays, but I can't properly explain my thoughts on objectivity in so short a format. I do use the dictionary definition of objective truth, in that these are truths independent of any one individual's personal thoughts and feelings. I think everyone uses roughly this definition, but we are disagreeing as to the class of things that fall under this definition. I do not feel that my personal evaluation of objectivity renders the difference between objectivity and subjectivity meaningless; you may look earlier in the thread to find more of my thoughts.
> 
> I personally would think it is likely you could make some sort of objective statement regarding the fact that ice cream tastes good.


It is a non-arbitrary, culturally credible, statement. It does not mean that ice cream objectively tastes good. It means that humans objectively trend towards liking ice cream.



BachIsBest said:


> In general though, I would hazard a guess that food perception is a lot more subjective than art evaluation.


Art evaluation is more complex than food perception. Both are subjective to cultural zeitgeist.



BachIsBest said:


> As a final thought, I would also like it noted that I'm not arguing for the total objectivity of art evaluation; of course some people like some art more than others, rather, I am merely arguing that there is, to some degree, an objective component in art evaluation.


There are non-arbitrary, credible, components to art evaluation. That is, statements that can be assessed favorably by the _opinions_ of experts and/or the general public. But since informed consensus is still, at its very root, opinion, it's very difficult for me to agree that there are truly objective components in art or music evaluation.


----------



## ArtMusic

Objective or not in the arts, it's what humans give it meaning and the collective will determine its posterity.


----------



## chu42

ArtMusic said:


> Objective or not in the arts, it's what humans give it meaning and the collective will determine its posterity.


Yes, this is not in contention.


----------



## DaveM

BachIsBest said:


> I personally would think it is likely you could make some sort of objective statement regarding the fact that ice cream tastes good. In general though, I would hazard a guess that food perception is a lot more subjective than art evaluation. As a final thought, I would also like it noted that I'm not arguing for the total objectivity of art evaluation; of course some people like some art more than others, rather, I am merely arguing that there is, to some degree, an objective component in art evaluation.


Several studies over years have confirmed that '_Human desire for sweet taste spans all ages, races, and cultures'_ as stated in the opening of a Journal of Nutrition review. This would apply to typically sweet foods such as ice cream and chocolate.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> Several studies over years have confirmed that '_Human desire for sweet taste spans all ages, races, and cultures'_ as stated in the opening of a Journal of Nutrition review. This would apply to typically sweet foods such as ice cream and chocolate.


This is not in contention either.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> This is not in contention either.


Well then, I posit that the deliciousness of ice cream and chocolate correlates directly with the fact that they are sweet-tasting foods. You can't separate the attraction of these foods from their deliciousness since both are due mainly to the sweet sugary taste.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> Well then, I posit that the deliciousness of ice cream and chocolate correlates directly with the fact that they are sweet-tasting foods. You can't separate the attraction of these foods from their deliciousness since both are due mainly to the sweet sugary taste.


Ok, so where does "objectively delicious" come out of this line of reasoning?


----------



## ArtMusic

DaveM said:


> Well then, I posit that the deliciousness of ice cream and chocolate correlates directly with the fact that they are sweet-tasting foods. You can't separate the attraction of these foods from their deliciousness since both are due mainly to the sweet sugary taste.


Exactly right. Mother Nature has cleverly evolved our senses and the plants to produce sugars that attract us, other animals and insects, just the same as great music is "sweetness" to our ears.


----------



## RogerWaters

BachIsBest said:


> If your point is that human perceptions of beauty have to do with our genetics, then you are correct. However, human genetics have to do with our perception and comprehension of everything and anything: this is not specific to beauty


We can say that it is a matter of degree (to which human biology contributes to our perception of something).

In the cases of the 'deliciousness' of ice cream, the 'beauty' of Bach, and the 'two-ness' of some trees standing in a field, there is an interaction between two things: human perception and something in the external world. In response to some external state of affairs, the human being makes a statement that represents worldstuff in to be a certain way (ice cream that is delicious, Bach that is beautiful, trees that are two in number).

The difference is that, with the first two, the property ascribed depends almost completely on the human observer while the property of 'two-ness', applied to 1+1 trees standing alone in a field, obviously does not depend as much on the human observer (of course, the particular symbol used by English speakers to identify that there are 'two' trees is contingent).

Another way of putting this is as follows: there would be no beauty in Bach if human beings suddenly ceased existing (say we all dropped dead suddenly due to a disease while old broadcasts of Bach's music continued travelling out into space), while the two trees would remain standing in their field and would not suddenly turn into one or three (or no) trees.

In the case of objective interactions between human beings and the world, the concepts expressed are 'mirrors' help up to reality while the concepts used in subjective reactions with the world impart much more content that 'colour' the thing(s) described.


----------



## BachIsBest

chu42 said:


> The very idea of an objective beauty is that there is a standard for beauty outside of human interpretation. E.g., Mozart is beautiful even if no human believed it to be. Or that there is an inherent beauty in Bach's music regardless of how humans perceive it.
> 
> So no, the absence of species-wide patterns would not constitute of an argument against the objectivity of beauty. Arguing that it does actually hurts the very idea of an abstract, objective, beauty.


I realise you wrote a long refutation, and apologise for only quoting this part, but I feel this touches the crux of the disagreement.

You, and RogerWaters, appear to believe in reality independent of all human perception and therefore a truth independent of all human perception and belief; in other words Kant's "absolute truth" which is the term I'll use to describe this sort of truth. With this belief, it is then easy to "define" objective truth as absolute truth. However, I don't do this and draw a heavy distinction between absolute truth and objective truth.

Objective truth, and this is, as far as I can tell, the usual definition, is truth independent of an individual humans thoughts, feelings, and bias. Absolute truth is truth independent of all human perception. The key point being, that although objective truth can not depend on one man's thoughts, feelings, and bias, it can depend on the collective perception of humanity in a general sense; absolute truth can not.

Unfortunately, I don't think anything can be known of this absolute truth (or if it even exists) and thus consider its philosophical use fallacious. The reason is very simple; everything we as humans know is based off of human perception; therefore, determining truth independent of human perception is an impossibility; thus, to answer the question raised in the quoted post, to say if there is, or is not, a standard of beauty outside of human interpretation is an impossibility.


----------



## RogerWaters

BachIsBest said:


> You, and RogerWaters, appear to believe in reality independent of all human perception


And you don't? You literally think that, if all human beings died tomorrow, reality would cease to exist?!



BachIsBest said:


> everything we as humans know is based off of human perception


I address this in my last post to you. You are gleefully glossing over clear differences in human representation. Some human representations colour the thing represented to a much greater degree than others, which more or less mirror reality.

"Rock there" more or less mirrors reality (if true); "Beauty there" colours it, imparting content instilled almost entirely by the human brain.



BachIsBest said:


> to say if there is, or is not, a standard of beauty outside of human interpretation is an impossibility.


How on earth could there be a standard of beauty outside human interpretation that wouldn't at the same time be the standard of some sentient creature, with all the vagaries of _its _physical makeup?!


----------



## Boychev

ArtMusic said:


> I don't think anyone here is stating that bad music should be banned. Schoenberg's music has value in theoretical studies to explore the extremities of harmony and students should study it, and it could deserve the odd performance to keep the small group of supporters. What I am saying is that this music is no way near as great as say, Mozart's and that art music is certainly not egalitarian in quality.


What use is the value judgment then? What do you do with it? Do you just flaunt it in front of people to profess your superior taste?


----------



## BachIsBest

RogerWaters said:


> And you don't? You literally think that, if all human beings died tomorrow, reality would cease to exist?!


In my heart I do, but I don't believe we can know any absolute truths about it. I should have worded that first sentence to read "appear to believe _we can determine_ reality independent of all human perception".

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post. I wrote a three-paragraph response detailing my thoughts and you selected three sentence fragments, took them out of context, and then refuted views I don't really even recognise as my own.


----------



## RogerWaters

BachIsBest said:


> In my heart I do, but I don't believe we can know any absolute truths about it. I should have worded that first sentence to read "appear to believe _we can determine_ reality independent of all human perception".


I think you mean in your heart you do believe in an external world? Good, because not doing so seems to commit the fallacy of drawing metaphysical conclusions from epistemological premises:

"Because we can't _know _(epistemology) the external world separate from our perceptions of it, there _is _(metaphysics) no external world separate from our perceptions of it."

This obviously bad reasoning. We can't _know _the existence of many distant stars without scientific equipment, but this does not validate the claim that _the existence_ of these stars depends on our scientific equipment.



BachIsBest said:


> I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post. I wrote a three-paragraph response detailing my thoughts and you selected three sentences, took them out of context, and then refuted views I don't really even recognise as my own.


What did I falsely attribute to you? I didn't do it intentionally, and you disengaging gives me no opportunity to repair the damage.


----------



## chu42

BachIsBest said:


> I realise you wrote a long refutation, and apologise for only quoting this part, but I feel this touches the crux of the disagreement.
> 
> You, and RogerWaters, appear to believe in reality independent of all human perception and therefore a truth independent of all human perception and belief; in other words Kant's "absolute truth" which is the term I'll use to describe this sort of truth. With this belief, it is then easy to "define" objective truth as absolute truth. However, I don't do this and draw a heavy distinction between absolute truth and objective truth.
> 
> Objective truth, and this is, as far as I can tell, the usual definition, is truth independent of an individual humans thoughts, feelings, and bias. Absolute truth is truth independent of all human perception. The key point being, that although objective truth can not depend on one man's thoughts, feelings, and bias, it can depend on the collective perception of humanity in a general sense; absolute truth can not.
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't think anything can be known of this absolute truth (or if it even exists) and thus consider its philosophical use fallacious. The reason is very simple; everything we as humans know is based off of human perception; therefore, determining truth independent of human perception is an impossibility; thus, to answer the question raised in the quoted post, to say if there is, or is not, a standard of beauty outside of human interpretation is an impossibility.


Your idea of "objective truth"-as opposed to absolute or even scientific truth, which I know are not the same thing but closer to each other than your idea of objective truth-corresponds with my idea of credible perception or non-arbitrary perception, the credibility of which can be determined by much your perception generally corresponds with that of other humans.

I think that the idea of credible perception is a more accurate term to use as it also implies a spectrum, i.e., something can be more credible or less credible. Whereas when you use the term objective, something is either objectively true or it is not. And since we don't know the cutoff, it's a bit silly to discuss it in binary terms. Case in point:

You would easily be able to say that Bach or Mozart are "objectively great." That's not hard to determine.

But what about Brahms or Wagner? Or Haydn, Schumann, Tchaikovsky? Many consider them great-but not as unanimously as the consensus for Bach.

Thus calling these composers great is still fairly credible (that is, to human perception) but not as credible as calling someone in the Big Three great. Whereas someone calling Carl Czerny great would have almost no expert/public support and thus hold a less credible opinion by that criteria.

This credibility spectrum is more accurate and agreeable because if you were to instead use the term "objectively great", you would have a problem delineating where greatness starts and ends, because that is different for all people.

I do believe, however, that you can inject some form of objectivity into a discussion by drawing upon reasoning that doesn't come from your personal beliefs but from the beliefs of a consensus. You could even say you are being "as objective as possible" in doing so, but even then it is impossible to achieve objectivity since your presentation or interpretation of the consensus may not be objective, and the consensus itself is nothing more than opinions representative of human trends. Just as water can get very close to being ice without actually reaching a frozen state, a person could get very close to being objective while never actually being really _objective_.


----------



## ArtMusic

Boychev said:


> What use is the value judgment then? What do you do with it? Do you just flaunt it in front of people to profess your superior taste?


The value of it depends on whether the collective accepts it or not, indeed with time, whether posterity accepts the art as great.


----------



## chu42

ArtMusic said:


> The value of it depends on whether the collective accepts it or not, indeed with time, whether posterity accepts the art as great.


How do you know when posterity has accepted art as great? Could you tell me whether or not posterity has accepted Schumann, or Brahms? I am dying to know!


----------



## RogerWaters

ArtMusic said:


> The value of it depends on whether the collective accepts it or not, indeed with time, whether posterity accepts the art as great.


Who constitutes 'the collective'?!

If it's classical music lovers, then your claim is tautological (something is great if those who think it's great think it's great). If it's the general population, then I'm not sure classical music _is _vindicated as 'great' because _this_ collective couldn't give a damn about classical music.


----------



## ArtMusic

chu42 said:


> How do you know when posterity has accepted art as great? Could you tell me whether or not posterity has accepted Schumann, or Brahms? I am dying to know!


Yes, of course. Schumann and Brahms are among the accepted canon of great composers.



RogerWaters said:


> Who constitutes 'the collective'?!
> 
> If it's classical music lovers, then your claim is tautological (something is great if those who think it's great think it's great). If it's the general population, then I'm not sure classical music _is _vindicated as 'great' because _this_ collective couldn't give a damn about classical music.


Collective meaning history and posterity over time. Pure and simple, no need for philosophy.


----------



## Boychev

ArtMusic said:


> The value of it depends on whether the collective accepts it or not, indeed with time, whether posterity accepts the art as great.


Interesting. Are you willing to do this for other objective judgments as well? Something like:

"The value of Newtonian physics depends on whether the collective accepts it or not, indeed with time, whether posterity accepts its propositions to be true."

"The value of the idea that antibiotics kill bacteria depends on whether the collective accepts it or not."

Sounds like you're making a case for universal _subjectivity_ - everything can be true insofar as the collective (indeed with time) accepts it. If everyone for the last 10,000 years has accepted that the Earth is flat, that idea must be true. Right?


----------



## ArtMusic

^ Dude, I'm talking about art/classical music, not Newtonian physics, nor whether the earth is flat. :lol:


----------



## DaveM

ArtMusic said:


> ^ Dude, I'm talking about art/classical music, not Newtonian physics, nor whether the earth is flat. :lol:


What about the antibiotics?


----------



## Boychev

ArtMusic said:


> ^ Dude, I'm talking about art/classical music, not Newtonian physics, nor whether the earth is flat. :lol:


Why do you use one set of criteria for objective quality in classical music and another set of criteria when it comes to other facts of the world? There is only one truth and one reality and all of it should be judged the same. With literally everything else in the world it's a fallacy to say "Well many people over a large period of time have agreed that this is so, therefore it's so". Either you use the same way of reasoning for both, or you concede that what you're talking about is not an objective fact.

Either the goodness of music is a property of an object or it isn't. If it is, you'll be able to measure it. If it isn't, appealing to authority or to popular consensus or to the strong feelings you or someone else might have about this music won't prove anything.


----------



## ArtMusic

^Dude, that's fine. People will still regard Mozart as great as has been the case over the last 200+ years. Deal with it if you can't accept that.


----------



## Boychev

ArtMusic said:


> ^Dude, that's fine. People will still regard Mozart as great as has been the case over the last 200+ years. Deal with it if you can't accept that.


Mozart in 2021 has literally been relegated to "music for babies" and "music middle class people put on in the background while having dinner and cleaning the house" status, dude. Deal with it if you can't accept that. :lol:


----------



## ArtMusic

Boychev said:


> Mozart in 2021 has literally been relegated to "music for babies" and "music middle class people put on in the background while having dinner and cleaning the house" status, dude. Deal with it if you can't accept that. :lol:


I happily accept that. We have Mozart for dinner all the time.


----------



## ArtMusic

hammeredklavier said:


> Is there a line (standard of quality) differentiating between the two? What are some examples of "masterpieces" by John Cage, and "less successful/valuable works" by him, for example? What are the individual elements or traits that determine "quality" in those works?
> 
> Here's an example of "standard of quality" in common practice music":
> *Malcolm Bilson: Taste in Mozart and Chopin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (3:02~5:40)*
> 
> Is there a similar method of reasoning for avant-garde music, in distinguishing the great stuff from the average/mediocre stuff?


Just for sheer enjoyment, here is the Christian Bach. Delightful great work.


----------



## consuono

Boychev said:


> Mozart in 2021 has literally been relegated to "music for babies" and "music middle class people put on in the background while having dinner and cleaning the house" status, dude. Deal with it if you can't accept that. :lol:


Which means that at least it's being heard.

Unlike avant garde stuff. (Sorry.)


----------



## Boychev

ArtMusic said:


> I happily accept that. We have Mozart for dinner all the time.


So much for serious appreciation and serious art then.


----------



## millionrainbows

Boychev said:


> So much for serious appreciation and serious art then.


Sometimes that's just the way people listen. Yesterday I used Boulez' _*Pli selon Pli *_as background music while I surfed the net, and it worked excellently.


----------



## chu42

ArtMusic said:


> Yes, of course. Schumann and Brahms are among the accepted canon of great composers.


So are Schoenberg, Webern, Stockhausen, Ligeti. Yet you somehow think that they are "objectively bad".

You cannot say that Mozart is great because of the canon and then say that Schoenberg is bad _despite_ the canon! You are completely being subjective when applying the canon since apparently it only applies to the composers that you like.


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> Sometimes that's just the way people listen. Yesterday I used Boulez' _*Pli selon Pli *_as background music while I surfed the net, and it worked excellently.


I'm sure it was on in our local fish and chip shop too last time I was in there...


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> Which means that at least it's being heard.
> Unlike avant garde stuff. (Sorry.)


General avant-garde stuff is also being heard, mainly as background music for horror film. (Ever since Stanley Kubrick started using it)


----------



## hammeredklavier

^btw, I don't wanna hear the typical "there's-more-to avant-garde-music-than-just-horror-film-effects" arguments as replies to my comment. By the same logic, there's more to Mozart than just "18th century tafelmusik".


----------



## millionrainbows

hammeredklavier said:


> General avant-garde stuff is also being heard, mainly as background music for horror film. (Ever since Stanley Kubrick started using it)


Examples? I doubt this until I see some examples. HK? HK?

17th-18th century stuff is also being heard, mainly as background music for sci-fi films. (Ever since Stanley Kubrick used it in 2001: A Space Odyssey)


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> I'm sure it was on in our local fish and chip shop too last time I was in there...


I guess the UK is not as progressive as the US. Yesterday in Long John Silver's they were playing John Cage's 4'33".


----------



## hammeredklavier

Boychev said:


> Why do you use one set of criteria for *objective quality in classical music*


I don't really consider the general avant-garde aesthetics "bad". Instead I categorize avant-garde music as an entirely different genre from classical music, created for different intents and purposes.


----------



## millionrainbows

Boychev said:


> Why do you use one set of criteria for objective quality in classical music and another set of criteria when it comes to other facts of the world? There is only one truth and one reality and all of it should be judged the same. With literally everything else in the world it's a fallacy to say "Well many people over a large period of time have agreed that this is so, therefore it's so". Either you use the same way of reasoning for both, or you concede that what you're talking about is not an objective fact.
> 
> Either the goodness of music is a property of an object or it isn't. If it is, you'll be able to measure it. If it isn't, appealing to authority or to popular consensus or to the strong feelings you or someone else might have about this music won't prove anything.


Art is like religion or metaphysics. 
In that sense, music is a personal tool, like religion. Nothing can be proven about it.


----------



## BachIsBest

RogerWaters said:


> I think you mean in your heart you do believe in an external world? Good, because not doing so seems to commit the fallacy of drawing metaphysical conclusions from epistemological premises:
> 
> "Because we can't _know _(epistemology) the external world separate from our perceptions of it, there _is _(metaphysics) no external world separate from our perceptions of it."
> 
> This obviously bad reasoning. We can't _know _the existence of many distant stars without scientific equipment, but this does not validate the claim that _the existence_ of these stars depends on our scientific equipment.


I agree this is bad reasoning. All I'm claiming is because we can't know the external world separate from our perceptions of it, it's pointless to discuss a notion of truth independent of human perception since we can't find anything out about it; if we tried, it would instantly become dependant upon our perception.

I ultimately have no idea whether there is an external world separate from our perceptions of it. As I pointed out earlier, if you were to believe our current mathematical understanding of the world and take the unperceived world to be what we more or less assume it to be in physics, it is very unclear to me if this really corresponds to any sort of reality as we know it. Thus, even if you tried to axiomatise (i.e. take as given in some sense) the existence of absolute reality, I'm not sure how you would make it look so that it is consistent with the perceived world.


----------



## BachIsBest

chu42 said:


> Your idea of "objective truth"-as opposed to absolute or even scientific truth, which I know are not the same thing but closer to each other than your idea of objective truth-corresponds with my idea of credible perception or non-arbitrary perception, the credibility of which can be determined by much your perception generally corresponds with that of other humans.


I believe in scientific truth, as it can be defined in terms of reproducible human perceptions. Whether or not scientific truth is absolute truth is completely unclear and I don't know any scientists who would claim that knowledge.

I also want to note, that it would be, in my view, perfectly self-consistent to say that objective truth is just scientific truth. However, this precludes all formal reasoning, including mathematics, from being true, and so this seems to me to be a poor choice.



chu42 said:


> I think that the idea of credible perception is a more accurate term to use as it also implies a spectrum, i.e., something can be more credible or less credible. Whereas when you use the term objective, something is either objectively true or it is not. And since we don't know the cutoff, it's a bit silly to discuss it in binary terms. Case in point:
> 
> You would easily be able to say that Bach or Mozart are "objectively great." That's not hard to determine.
> 
> But what about Brahms or Wagner? Or Haydn, Schumann, Tchaikovsky? Many consider them great-but not as unanimously as the consensus for Bach.
> 
> Thus calling these composers great is still fairly credible (that is, to human perception) but not as credible as calling someone in the Big Three great. Whereas someone calling Carl Czerny great would have almost no expert/public support and thus hold a less credible opinion by that criteria.
> 
> This credibility spectrum is more accurate and agreeable because if you were to instead use the term "objectively great", you would have a problem delineating where greatness starts and ends, because that is different for all people.
> 
> I do believe, however, that you can inject some form of objectivity into a discussion by drawing upon reasoning that doesn't come from your personal beliefs but from the beliefs of a consensus. You could even say you are being "as objective as possible" in doing so, but even then it is impossible to achieve objectivity since your presentation or interpretation of the consensus may not be objective, and the consensus itself is nothing more than opinions representative of human trends. Just as water can get very close to being ice without actually reaching a frozen state, a person could get very close to being objective while never actually being really _objective_.


I really agree with pretty much all the evidence here, but just disagree with the conclusions being drawn. I never claimed my "informed consensus" was a definition of objectivity, only the best approximate criterion I could come up with based on the definition of objectivity. I also never claimed that it was easy to know every objective truth and that there would be no disagreements on it. Truth being difficult to determine is not an argument against the truth.

And I agree, it is impossible for me to be entirely objective about anything; that does not preclude the notion of objectivity still having meaning.


----------



## chu42

BachIsBest said:


> I believe in scientific truth, as it can be defined in terms of reproducible human perceptions. Whether or not scientific truth is absolute truth is completely unclear and I don't know any scientists who would claim that knowledge.
> 
> I also want to note, that it would be, in my view, perfectly self-consistent to say that objective truth is just scientific truth. However, this precludes all formal reasoning, including mathematics, from being true, and so this seems to me to be a poor choice.
> 
> I really agree with pretty much all the evidence here, but just disagree with the conclusions being drawn. I never claimed my "informed consensus" was a definition of objectivity, only the best approximate criterion I could come up with based on the definition of objectivity. I also never claimed that it was easy to know every objective truth and that there would be no disagreements on it. Truth being difficult to determine is not an argument against the truth.
> 
> And I agree, it is impossible for me to be entirely objective about anything; that does not preclude the notion of objectivity still having meaning.


Yes, which is my bottom point-you can be as objective as possible when making an opinion but it does not change that it's an opinion and not fact. It means something to most human perception, and thus it is credible, non-arbitrary, yet still subjective.


----------



## Mandryka

What’s the difference between objective and subjective chu? I mean if the beliefs are non arbitrary, why isn’t their content objective?


----------



## chu42

Mandryka said:


> What's the difference between objective and subjective chu? I mean if the beliefs are non arbitrary, why isn't their content objective?


Non-arbitrary just suggests an idea that is more "in line with human perception", which is just mass opinion anyways. So if I say that Mozart is great, this is more credible than saying Czerny is great, since more people would trend towards the idea that Mozart is greater than Czerny. That doesn't make this objectively true, just less arbitrary in line with human perception.

My idea of objective truth is that it has little to do with what humans think. If everyone thought that the earth was flat, that does not make this idea any more "objectively true". So why should everyone liking Mozart mean that Mozart is "objectively great"? It's just mass opinion, suggestive of how our brains work on a general plane.


----------



## Mandryka

I think you think that there’s a sense of truth which is independent of justifiable assertability. I also think that, if I were your metaphysics prof, I’d give you a hard time about that!

But I’m not.


----------



## hammeredklavier

millionrainbows said:


> Examples? I doubt this until I see some examples. HK? HK?
> 17th-18th century stuff is also being heard, mainly as background music for sci-fi films. (Ever since Stanley Kubrick used it in 2001: A Space Odyssey)


https://www.musicmusingsandsuch.com...or-film-soundtrack-and-why-less-can-mean-more
"The former film's score uses limited transposition and impressionistic strings; Stockhausen-inspired movements and exposing Olivier Messiaen's theory of grouping melodies around interval groups."


----------



## chu42

Mandryka said:


> I think you think that there's a sense of truth which is independent of justifiable assertability.


Maybe there isn't, but there are "realities" that are fundamental to the progression of human civilization (such as basic physics, math, science, etc.) while there are "realities" that don't mean anything unless you want them to. Like the idea that Mozart is "objectively great".

Which I agree with. But if I didn't or even if all humans didn't, we wouldn't be much worse for wear.

If humanity collectively denied basic principles of science, nature, physics, mathematics, we would cease to function as a society or progress as a civilization.


----------



## SanAntone

chu42 said:


> Maybe there isn't, but there are "realities" that are fundamental to the progression of human civilization (such as basic physics, math, science, etc.) while there are "realities" that don't mean anything unless you want them to. Like the idea that Mozart is "objectively great".
> 
> Which I agree with. But if I didn't or even if all humans didn't, we wouldn't be much worse for wear.
> 
> If humanity collectively denied basic principles of science, nature, physics, mathematics, we would cease to function as a society or progress as a civilization.


There is a limit to the objectivity of science, that is, science is a process which over time updates past "facts" as new data is discovered. And not all scientists will embrace new theories. The explanation of the universe has undergone changes until finally the Big Bang was accepted by a majority. Although some still held out.

Newtonian physics was found to have limits of what it can explain as quantum physics was discovered. And the best we can do with quantum physics are probabilities of behavior - but which can be precisely known. The idea of relativity unhinges the idea of objectivity. Over history basic scientific explanations have undergone entire reversals. And the ones that have come under the worst scrutiny were those based on human perception to explain the natural world.

Why should our perception of art or music be any more reliable than our perception that the sun revolves around earth? We know it doesn't but we still talk of the sun setting and rising.

There are some concepts which mathematically are shown, the concept of infinity, but which we as finite beings cannot experience other than as a intellectual construct.


----------



## BachIsBest

chu42 said:


> Maybe there isn't, but there are "realities" that are fundamental to the progression of human civilization (such as basic physics, math, science, etc.) while there are "realities" that don't mean anything unless you want them to. Like the idea that Mozart is "objectively great".
> 
> Which I agree with. But if I didn't or even if all humans didn't, we wouldn't be much worse for wear.
> 
> If humanity collectively denied basic principles of science, nature, physics, mathematics, we would cease to function as a society or progress as a civilization.


Yes, but if we denied basic principles of courtesy, ethics, law, and culture, we would also cease to exist or progress as a civilization. Do you consider scientific progress with social stagnation true progress but not the other way around?

The other question I have is that it would seem to me mathematics is a "reality" in much the same way Mozart being great is a "reality".


----------



## chu42

BachIsBest said:


> Yes, but if we denied basic principles of courtesy, ethics, law, and culture, we would also cease to exist or progress as a civilization.


What does liking Mozart have to do with ethics? What if we considered CPE Bach the greatest Bach, like Mozart and most of the 18th century did? Would it matter?



BachIsBest said:


> Do you consider scientific progress with social stagnation true progress but not the other way around?
> 
> The other question I have is that it would seem to me mathematics is a "reality" in much the same way Mozart being great is a "reality".


I don't see how holding a certain composer as "objectively great" has anything at all to do with social progress. The vast, majority of people living on this planet are hardly knowledgeable about classical music. It's just a hobby that some people have in mostly first-world countries. It's not exactly shaping the entire world as we know it.


----------



## Mandryka

chu42 said:


> What if we considered CPE Bach the greatest Bach, like Mozart and most of the 18th century did? Would it matter?
> 
> .


I would like to ask the people who think that _great_ makes sense, if there are any, to address this question. This is, I think, the heart of the matter.


----------



## DaveM

Mandryka said:


> I would like to ask the people who think that _great_ makes sense, if there are any, to address this question. This is, I think, the heart of the matter.


I'll simply quote the post I made after endless discussion on 'objectivity'.



DaveM said:


> The dilemma we are facing here is that any of us who have a close relationship and deep history with classical music knows that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are *for good reasons* widely considered to be among our greatest composers and yet those who are confusing this discussion with a philosophy lesson or contest are trying to tie up in knots anybody who tries to express this truth all because of one word 'objectivity'.
> 
> I suggest a better word: 'credibility'. Thus, within the classical music community, given the skill and accomplishments it is credible (i.e. convincing or believable) to say that Bach is a great composer. This doesn't require a test of objectivity. And it can allow for an 'informed consensus' and 'value judgment'. Think of a jury trial where experts testify. Some would say that their opinion is objective, others would argue not. But the jury doesn't have to weigh their objectivity, they just have to weigh their credibility. And it doesn't have to be unanimous in most trials.
> 
> Thus, the classical community can be thought of as one big jury where they evaluate based on their own education and experience and that of the experts. Therefore, I proclaim the credible evidence supporting the fact that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are among our very greatest composers.


----------



## Mandryka

DaveM said:


> I'll simply quote the post I made after endless discussion on 'objectivity'.


I'm sorry I don't see how this is answering the question, why would it matter if we considered CPE Bach the greatest Bach? I know that as a matter of fact people don't. But imagine a world like, so chu says, Mozart's world, where people did. What would be different in this imaginary world, other than CPE Bach being considered the greatest Bach?

To give you an example, if I imagine a world where the Earth is flat, it would make this difference: if I travel in a straight line I won't get back to where I started.

Now, if I imagine a world in which CPE Bach is considered the greatest Bach, it would make this difference: . . .

You fill in the dots, please.


----------



## DaveM

Mandryka said:


> I'm sorry I don't see how this is answering the question, why would it matter if we considered CPE Bach the greatest Bach? I know that as a matter of fact people don't. But imagine a world like, so chu says, Mozart's world, where people did. What would be different in this imaginary world, other than CPE Bach being considered the greatest Bach?


Your question was:



Mandryka said:


> I would like to ask the people who think that _great_ makes sense, if there are any, to address this question. This is, I think, the heart of the matter.


You asked a simple question; I gave an answer which gives a context wherein I think 'great' makes sense. Given your response, it seems like you want to go back to square one. Addressing my answer, are you telling me that there is no credible evidence that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are among our greatest composers?


----------



## ArtMusic

chu42 said:


> My idea of objective truth is that it has little to do with what humans think. If everyone thought that the earth was flat, that does not make this idea any more "objectively true". So why should everyone liking Mozart mean that Mozart is "objectively great"? It's just mass opinion, suggestive of how our brains work on a general plane.


That sense of "objective truth" as you wrote is irrelevant to great works of art. Works of art are what greets the senses of humans, and collectively, humans will determine over time whether the work is great or not - this is the _correct objective and subjective greatness_, or use whatever words you like. How the brains work delivering mass opinion of one of consistency, irrespective of time and place, is all that art needs, it doesn't need that "objective truth".


----------



## ArtMusic

Mandryka said:


> What's the difference between objective and subjective chu? I mean if the beliefs are non arbitrary, why isn't their content objective?


It gives comfort to those who buy that line of reasoning that because "objective truth" doesn't/can't be applied to arts, therefore anyone's opinion is as valid. While of course, but that does nothing, absolutely nothing I stress, to the work's posterity.


----------



## Mandryka

DaveM said:


> Your question was:
> 
> You asked a simple question; I gave an answer which gives a context wherein I think 'great' makes sense. Given your response, it seems like you want to go back to square one. Addressing my answer, are you telling me that there is no credible evidence that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are among our greatest composers?


I am asking you to imagine a world like, so chu says, Mozart's world, where people thought that CPE Bach was the greatest Bach. What would be different in this imaginary world compared to our own, other than CPE Bach being considered the greatest Bach? I am starting to think that the answer is "none - no difference."


----------



## ArtMusic

Mandryka said:


> I am asking you to imagine a world like, so chu says, Mozart's world, where people thought that CPE Bach was the greatest Bach. What would be different in this imaginary world compared to our own, other than CPE Bach being considered the greatest Bach? I am starting to think that the answer is "none - no difference."


That's trivially obvious. If Emanuel Bach wrote music that peoples' listening senses identified more highly than Mozart's, then his music would be as profound as it should be, "natural selection" at work. That's not the case in reality because Mozart's music identifies more strongly with people, as great a composer Emanuel Bach was (I love the three Bach sons' music - Wilhelm, Emanuel and Christian).


----------



## BachIsBest

chu42 said:


> What does liking Mozart have to do with ethics? What if we considered CPE Bach the greatest Bach, like Mozart and most of the 18th century did? Would it matter?
> 
> I don't see how holding a certain composer as "objectively great" has anything at all to do with social progress. The vast, majority of people living on this planet are hardly knowledgeable about classical music. It's just a hobby that some people have in mostly first-world countries. It's not exactly shaping the entire world as we know it.


My point was there are things that matter beyond narrow definitions of scientific truth. I don't think something needs to be deeply important in order to be true.

As to the question about CPE Bach, I'm not sure this is relevant to the debate. I can think up of esoteric scientific or mathematical errors in belief that would have no effect on our reality. I mean, what if we thought the forty thousandth digit of pi was 9? Literally, nothing would ever come of this belief, but it certainly would be wrong.

I would argue that great art enriches the lives of those whom experience it so if more people experienced less great art their lives would be correspondingly deprived. Ultimately though, believing CPE Bach was greater than his father will have very little effect compared to say believing the earth is flat. But surely the "truthiness" of something is not determined by how catastrophic getting it wrong would be?


----------



## DaveM

Mandryka said:


> I am asking you to imagine a world like, so chu says, Mozart's world, where people thought that CPE Bach was the greatest Bach. What would be different in this imaginary world compared to our own, other than CPE Bach being considered the greatest Bach? I am starting to think that the answer is "none - no difference."


I answered your original simple question and it didn't say anything about 'greatest' Bach'. You answered my post with an irrelevant post about the 'greatest Bach' and chu's reasoning. If that was the subject you wanted to discuss you should have asked it originally.

Why are you rehashing reasoning that has already been addressed in a dozen or more ways? And please answer my other question.


----------



## chu42

Here's the thing: If I didn't enjoy Mozart, I have zero reason to subscribe to the idea that his music is great, other than perhaps conformity, and even then most people don't care about what music you personally enjoy.

You posit that if less people enjoyed great art, then people's lives would be deprived. That's fallacious reasoning since great art is great not because of any inherent "greatness", but because people enjoy it.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> Here's the thing: If I didn't enjoy Mozart, I have zero reason to subscribe to the idea that his music is great, other than perhaps conformity, and even then most people don't care about what music you personally enjoy.


I'm sorry that you are not capable of recognizing that there is credible evidence that a composer is great if you simply don't like that composer. I'm not locked in to such a narrow recognition of credible evidence. I'm not a fan of atonal music, but I recognize that there is credible evidence supporting the fact that Schoenberg was a great atonal composer.



> You posit that if less people enjoyed great art, then people's lives would be deprived. That's fallacious reasoning since great art is great not because of any inherent "greatness", but because people enjoy it.


Who is the 'you' you are referring to here?


----------



## ArtMusic

chu42 said:


> Here's the thing: If I didn't enjoy Mozart, I have zero reason to subscribe to the idea that his music is great, other than perhaps conformity, and even then most people don't care about what music you personally enjoy.


While you might not, others do. Even I do, for example, I don't enjoy Monteverdi as much as many other composers, maybe twenty other composers before him in my ranking. I do appreciate Monteverdi's and recognize his greatness, as does posterity, and would consider a great composer in the top twenty.


----------



## consuono

chu42 said:


> Here's the thing: If I didn't enjoy Mozart, I have zero reason to subscribe to the idea that his music is great, other than perhaps conformity, and even then most people don't care about what music you personally enjoy...


Certainly, but you're most likely always going to be outside the consensus.


----------



## RogerWaters

consuono said:


> Certainly, but you're most likely always going to be outside the consensus.


And who on earth would care about that (of course, after sustained attempt to come to terms with the consensus, and finding that one's own tastes continue to diverge from the consensus)?

The very job description of a concept of 'objectivity', it's reason for being, is surely to differentiate those judgements held by mere consensus from those judgements that are.... well.... (objectively) true!

It wasn't (objectively) true that madness was caused by the devil in the middle ages

It wasn't (objectively) true that Jews were evil in the middle ages

It wasn't (objectively) true that weak children should be exposed to die in the classical world of Sparta

It wasn't (objectively) true that the earth was flat before Copernicus

Et cetera...


----------



## consuono

> And who on earth would care about that (of course, after sustained attempt to come to terms with the consensus, and finding that one's own tastes continue to diverge from the consensus)?


Nobody, outside the simple fact that there is a consensus. I'm outside the consensus when it comes to Tchaikovsky. It doesn't bother me in the least.


----------



## RogerWaters

consuono said:


> Nobody, outside the simple fact that there is a consensus. I'm outside the consensus when it comes to Tchaikovsky. It doesn't bother me in the least.


You have good taste!


----------



## chu42

consuono said:


> Nobody, outside the simple fact that there is a consensus. I'm outside the consensus when it comes to Tchaikovsky. It doesn't bother me in the least.


In that case you should be fine in thinking that the consensus does not represent "objective greatness".

I almost completely follow the consensus and I still don't subscribe to an idea of "objective greatness".


----------



## consuono

By the way,


> It wasn't (objectively) true that weak children should be exposed to die in the classical world of Sparta


Maybe that was objectively true from the viewpoint of Sparta. Can you prove objectively that it wasn't? Now we're getting into metaphysical "human rights and worth" territory.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> I'm sorry that you are not capable of recognizing that there is credible evidence that a composer is great if you simply don't like that composer. I'm not locked in to such a narrow recognition of credible evidence. I'm not a fan of atonal music, but I recognize that there is credible evidence supporting the fact that Schoenberg was a great atonal composer.


Only because people disagree with you. If you didn't know who Schoenberg was and you didn't enjoy his music, you would never come to that conclusion.



DaveM said:


> Who is the 'you' you are referring to here?


I was referring to something that BachisBest said, not responding to you. Sorry.


----------



## chu42

consuono said:


> By the way,
> Maybe that was objectively true from the viewpoint of Sparta. Can you prove objectively that it wasn't? Now we're getting into metaphysical "human rights and worth" territory.


Something cannot be only "objectively true" to a single culture. It is then a view subjective to the conventions of the culture. Not at all anything "objective".

That's why even if Mozart is "objectively great" in accordance to the classical institution, there is no objective greatness inherent in Mozart's music, in a general sense. You wouldn't be able to compare Mozart to Chinese traditional music (or some other ethnomusic) and have an objective winner.


----------



## RogerWaters

BachIsBest said:


> I agree this is bad reasoning. All I'm claiming is because we can't know the external world separate from our perceptions of it, it's pointless to discuss a notion of truth independent of human perception since we can't find anything out about it; if we tried, it would instantly become dependant upon our perception.


Hmmm, I'm certainly not talking about truth independent of human perception. I don't know about the metaphysics of truth, but I would assume truth is some kind of relation between a judgement (something related to human cognition) and something in the external world (something not mind-dependent).

So objective truth needn't be something that has no relation to human judgement.

If this is true, I don't see the relevance of your point to the question of objective musical standards.



BachIsBest said:


> I ultimately have no idea whether there is an external world separate from our perceptions of it. As I pointed out earlier, if you were to believe our current mathematical understanding of the world and take the unperceived world to be what we more or less assume it to be in physics, it is very unclear to me if this really corresponds to any sort of reality as we know it. Thus, even if you tried to axiomatise (i.e. take as given in some sense) the existence of absolute reality, I'm not sure how you would make it look so that it is consistent with the perceived world.


I'm not sure its useful to even have a conversation about objective truth with someone who entertains such radical scepticism as you do.

Your position seems to me to be this:

1. Call into question the very existence of anything mind-independent, or, at the very least, call into question the ability for us to know 'anything about' this mind-independent reality (despite the fact we have shot human beings out of the earth's atmosphere into the vacuum of space and got them back... alive, indicating to my limited intelligence that we know _a great deal_ about mind-independent reality - but maybe you would dismiss this all as the deceptions of an evil daemon).
2. As a result, all truth becomes 'subjective', in some sense.
3. As a result, the nature of musical judgement comes to be seen, when compared with scientific and other judgements which have now been demoted, equally as 'certain' (which is to say, not very, given the uncertainty you seem to think we inhabit generally).


----------



## RogerWaters

consuono said:


> Maybe [killing weak infants] was objectively true from the viewpoint of Sparta


Objectively true from the relative standpoint of a single culture is a contradiction in terms, at least to me...


----------



## consuono

RogerWaters said:


> Objectively true from the relative standpoint of a single culture is a contradiction in terms, at least to me...


So what's your objective standard? And please don't say "empathy" when so many don't really have it.


----------



## ArtMusic

chu42 said:


> Something cannot be only "objectively true" to a single culture. It is then a view subjective to the conventions of the culture. Not at all anything "objective".
> 
> That's why even if Mozart is "objectively great" in accordance to the classical institution, there is no objective greatness inherent in Mozart's music, in a general sense. You wouldn't be able to compare Mozart to Chinese traditional music (or some other ethnomusic) and have an objective winner.


The objective winner is the one who has convinced billions of listeners as Mozart has done, that his music is worth repeating in performances over time and further musicological study (and I'm not comparing his music to other music outside of western classical music heritage). This is not difficult to understand because art appreciation is a social and artistic matter, not a philosophical and scientific one.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

chu42 said:


> Here's the thing: If I didn't enjoy Mozart, I have zero reason to subscribe to the idea that his music is great, other than perhaps conformity...


This mindset breeds stagnation. If I do not enjoy a composer considered great, that means that I have not completely understood him, and the responsibility is mine to train my tastes to accord with what is great. In all cases where I have not initially appreciated a composer, knowing their high reputation has kept me with them until I enjoyed their music and gained invaluable understanding in the process.


----------



## RogerWaters

consuono said:


> So what's your objective standard? And please don't say "empathy" when so many don't really have it.


Objective standard for what? I'm not arguing either way... I'm agnostic.


----------



## RogerWaters

Isaac Blackburn said:


> This mindset breeds stagnation. If I do not enjoy a composer considered great, that means that I have not completely understood him, and the responsibility is mine to train my tastes to accord with what is great. In all cases where I have not initially appreciated a composer, knowing their high reputation has kept me with them until I enjoyed their music and gained invaluable understanding in the process.


So every single composer in the canon, you enjoy?

Anyway, one can easily keep in mind the concept that composer X is held in high regard by classical music listeners, and use this as motivation to devote time and energy to the composer, without having to commit to the metaphysically baggy notion that musical taste is objective!


----------



## SanAntone

Isaac Blackburn said:


> This mindset breeds stagnation. If I do not enjoy a composer considered great, that means that I have not completely understood him, and the responsibility is mine to train my tastes to accord with what is great. In all cases where I have not initially appreciated a composer, knowing their high reputation has kept me with them until I enjoyed their music and gained invaluable understanding in the process.


I disagree 100%.

Brahms and Bach are my two favorite composers. From the classical period, I enjoy Beethoven and Haydn most, then Schubert; Mozart is last, except for the operas. I have listened to Mozart plenty; I understand what is going on; I just don't care about the music that much. The Classical period is the least interesting period for me.

I couldn't care less how many people think Mozart is a great composer. I have no obligation to Mozart, no obligation to listen to his music, to enjoy his music. Mozart is just another composer, and one whose music (except for the operas) doesn't interest me very much.


----------



## consuono

RogerWaters said:


> Objective standard for what? I'm not arguing either way... I'm agnostic.


Objective overarching standard for determining that Sparta's conviction that killing "unfit" infants within their society was objectively wrong.


----------



## RogerWaters

consuono said:


> Objective overarching standard for determining that Sparta's conviction that killing "unfit" infants within their society was objectively wrong.


I didn't say it was. All I said was that I highly doubt it was objective right, simply because of Sparta-wide consensus.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

RogerWaters said:


> So every single composer in the canon, you enjoy?
> 
> Anyway, one can easily keep in mind the concept that composer X is held in high regard by classical music listeners, and use this as motivation to devote time and energy to the composer, without having to commit to the metaphysically baggy notion that musical taste is objective!


Yes, and it did not start out that way.

True. The subjective view, however, makes available an excuse for writing off certain composers.


----------



## consuono

RogerWaters said:


> I didn't say it was. All I said was that I highly doubt it was objective right, simply because of Sparta-wide consensus.


So the question then becomes is there an "objective right" at all. If not, then this culture considering Jews to be evil is following "its truth". Consensus is really all you've got at that point.


----------



## arpeggio

*To Tchaikovsky or not to Tchaikovsky.*



consuono said:


> Nobody, outside the simple fact that there is a consensus. I'm outside the consensus when it comes to Tchaikovsky. It doesn't bother me in the least.


If one took the time to the check out the history of this forum they would find that among its members, Tchaikovsky is a very popular composer, even with modernists.

For example Nereffid conducted a poll concerning the popularity of various composers:

https://www.talkclassical.com/classical-music-discussion-polls/poll-2621-these-composers-do-you.html

Over 80% of the respondents like his music.

His problem is that his most popular work (_1812 Overture_) may have been complete garbage (In spite its flaws, I still love it.).

There are a few who think he is a bad composer.

I have performed _Romeo and Juliet_ and it was an awesome experience.


----------



## consuono

> If one took the time to the check out the history of this forum they would find that among its members, Tchaikovsky is a very popular composer, even with modernists.


And I'm not a big Tchaikovsky fan. That's what I mean. Even so, I'm not really going to call Tchaikovsky incompetent or fourth rate or whatever. He forgot more about orchestration than I'll even ever know. And I respect the fact that so many find enjoyment in his work. It just doesn't work for me, but maybe one day I'll reconsider.


----------



## RogerWaters

consuono said:


> So the question then becomes is there an "objective right" at all. If not, then this culture considering Jews to be evil is following "its truth". Consensus is really all you've got at that point.


I think the consensus of a group on a moral belief that is in direct contradiction to another belief the group holds would betray something erroneous happening. And also, I think bad reasoning from the moral 'axioms' of a group to a moral belief held by that group betrays something erroneous happening. So, even though I don't believe that moral beliefs are objective in the sense of mathematical and scientific beliefs, I don't think consensus is the be all and end all.

Back to music, are you arguing, in effect, that because consensus is all we really have in the moral sphere (assuming this is true), consensus is enough for binding people to the dictates of the group in the musical sphere?


----------



## RogerWaters

Isaac Blackburn said:


> Yes, and it did not start out that way.
> 
> True. The subjective view, however, makes available an excuse for writing off certain composers.


Only if you dismiss the wisdom of classical music listeners, taken as a collective.


----------



## consuono

> I think the consensus of a group on a moral belief that is in direct contradiction to another belief the group holds would betray something erroneous happening.


OK, prove which one is in "error", whatever that may mean. In ancient Sparta, a warlike state might have, to them, objectively required infanticide for the survival of the state, just as a mother cat will let a weak offspring starve.


> Back to music, are you arguing, in effect, that because consensus is all we really have in the moral sphere (assuming this is true), consensus is enough for binding people to the dictates of the group in the musical sphere?


I'm saying that a wide consensus, especially over a long period of time, may mean that there is more there than just what is subject to strictly individual taste. You have that many tastes resulting in the same judgement, something must be working there.


----------



## RogerWaters

consuono said:


> OK, prove which one is in "error", whatever that may mean.


I don't know. Out of the two hypothetically contradicting beliefs, the one that doesn't follow as well from the moral 'axioms' of the community is probably the one to be jettisoned.



consuono said:


> In ancient Sparta, a warlike state might have, to them, objectively required infanticide for the survival of the state, just as a mother cat will let a weak offspring starve.


What on earth do you mean by '_objectively _required' infanticide?!



consuono said:


> I'm saying that a wide consensus, especially over a long period of time, may mean that there is more there than just what is subject to strictly individual taste. You have that many tastes resulting in the same judgement, something must be working there.


Of course.

As has been mentioned previously, the music that gets considered the best is that which best titillates the human cognitive system. No need for anything more objective than that.

When it comes to morality, consensus over a long period of time could be due to any number of divergent and messy factors:

- Survival of the group
- Institutional power
- Fit with innate human preferences
- etc.


----------



## chu42

Isaac Blackburn said:


> This mindset breeds stagnation. If I do not enjoy a composer considered great, that means that I have not completely understood him, and the responsibility is mine to train my tastes to accord with what is great. In all cases where I have not initially appreciated a composer, knowing their high reputation has kept me with them until I enjoyed their music and gained invaluable understanding in the process.


This is my personal mindset as well, and I actually enjoy nearly all "great" composers because of it.

But someone who does not isn't objectively wrong. You cannot "force" someone into liking a composer by shoving expert opinion or music theory in their faces. Someone could even get sick of "great" music.


----------



## Boychev

Isaac Blackburn said:


> This mindset breeds stagnation. If I do not enjoy a composer considered great, that means that I have not completely understood him, and the responsibility is mine to train my tastes to accord with what is great. In all cases where I have not initially appreciated a composer, knowing their high reputation has kept me with them until I enjoyed their music and gained invaluable understanding in the process.


If everyone did this the end result would be that nobody would listen to anything new and nothing new would be made as everyone would be too busy listening to what is already popular and well-established. That's stagnation.


----------



## Art Rock

Isaac Blackburn said:


> If I do not enjoy a composer considered great, that means that I have not completely understood him, and the responsibility is mine to train my tastes to accord with what is great. In all cases where I have not initially appreciated a composer, knowing their high reputation has kept me with them until I enjoyed their music and gained invaluable understanding in the process.


Well, it worked for you, but do not extrapolate that to others. Some of the established names never clicked for me, no matter how often I tried (also not with pauses of a few years in-between attempts). I also fail to see the logic behind the supposition that what many consider great MUST be appreciated by everyone.


----------



## ArtMusic

One way of trying to connect with the established canon of great composers, especially early composers is to listen to historically informed performances. A Steinway grand piano doesn't work the same way for a Mozart or Beethoven sonata as well a late 18th century fortepiano played with 18th century practices.

Watch this impressive video, if you don't have time, watch it from [10:40]:


----------



## consuono

> What on earth do you mean by 'objectively required' infanticide?!


Ask a cat.


> When it comes to morality, consensus over a long period of time could be due to any number of divergent and messy factors:
> 
> - Survival of the group
> - Institutional power
> - Fit with innate human preferences
> - etc.


The human race has had millennia of wars, murder, rape, slavery, torture, robbery and on and on...and the human race has flourished to the point that now we're told there are too many. No offense, and not wanting to get into a philosophical/religious debate, but I'm a little weary of the "it's a survival mechanism" catch-all.


----------



## hammeredklavier

millionrainbows said:


> Examples? I doubt this until I see some examples. HK? HK?


This was obviously inspired by Stockhausen's Gesang der junglinge:


----------



## Mandryka

hammeredklavier said:


> This was obviously inspired by Stockhausen's Gesang der junglinge:


Either I need new ears or you do, or I'm not listening to the bit you have in mind


----------



## RogerWaters

consuono said:


> Ask a cat.


It might be a more valuable interlocutor, at this point.



consuono said:


> The human race has had millennia of wars, murder, rape, slavery, torture, robbery and on and on...and the human race has flourished to the point that now we're told there are too many. No offense, and not wanting to get into a philosophical/religious debate, but I'm a little weary of the "it's a survival mechanism" catch-all.


Who said morality is completely a survival mechanism?


----------



## consuono

RogerWaters said:


> It might be a more valuable interlocutor, at this point.


No doubt.


> Who said morality is completely a survival mechanism?


Well, that's what it will usually boil down to. Its the general-purpose explanation. But enough about that.


----------



## ArtMusic

hammeredklavier said:


> This was obviously inspired by Stockhausen's Gesang der junglinge:


I can't say I agree, my friend. It is clearer to me that it correlates with _Cosmic Pulses_ given the theme that the Moon Landing didn't take place.


----------



## RogerWaters

consuono said:


> Well, that's what it will usually boil down to. Its the general-purpose explanation. But enough about that.


It depends on the theory.

Some who study the natural history of morality think morality is an evolutionary adaptation.

Other people who study morality from a naturalistic standpoint think it's the product of power and that pro-social emotions (less sophisticated than moral beliefs) were what actually held groups together so that individual human beings originally could reap the rewards of cooperation. This is not a general-purpose evolutionary explanation but one that is more sociological in nature (when it comes to morality, the pro-social emotions being evolutionary adaptations).

The second link is a response to the first, and the two together make for a gripping academic debate about human nature, the evolution of human cooperation, and the nature of moral judgements. This is from the second:



> Abstract: Philip Kitcher's The Ethical Project tries to vindicates ethics through an
> analysis of its evolutionary and cultural history, a history which in turn, he thinks,
> supports a particular conception of the role of moral thinking and normative practices
> in human social life. As Kitcher sees it, that role could hardly be more central: most
> of what makes human life human, and preferable to the fraught and impoverished
> societies of the great apes, depends on moral cognition. From this view of the role of
> the ethical project as a social technology, Kitcher derives an account of moral progress
> and even moral truth; a normative analogue of the idea that truth is the convergence of
> rational enquiry. To Kitcher's history, I present an anti-history. Most of what is good
> about human social life depends on the expansion of our social emotions, not on our
> capacities to articulate and internalise explicit norms. Indeed, since the Holocene and
> the origins of complex society, normative thought and normative institutions have been
> more prominent as tools of exploitation and oppression than as mechanisms of a social
> peace that balances individual desire with collective co-operation. I argue that the
> vindication project fails in its own terms: even given Kitcher's distinctive pragmatic
> concept of vindication, history debunks rather than vindicates moral cognition.


----------



## EmperorOfIceCream

Just to respond to the original post, I think the basic measure of a masterpiece simply has to be how good it sounds when you hear it—the aesthetic shock and strangeness of something truly great that we experience from pieces like Hammerklavier or La Mer. I have never heard a masterpiece from John Cage, so I cannot comment on that. There is a problem with post 19th-century music, that some people recoil in shock from dissonance atonality or whatever, whereas other people just truly dislike it. The former is something that can easily be done away with by listening to more of it. I heard avant-garde jazz and 20th century classical music in my house my whole life, so there is not much of it that is foreign to me in that way. As an example, I played Tout un monde lointain for some very good cellists in my school who know lots of other concerti, but they told me they were shocked how dissonant it was, which surprised me as it sounds totally melodic to me. I think from examples like this, the "recoilng" from modern music is often just a product of the environment. However, truly disliking something after becoming acquainted with it is perfectly valid. The idea that you need to become literate in some esoteric avant-garde tradition and study theory to like modern music is wrongheaded. 
So, what type of avant-garde music does this? I think Ligeti's piano concerto and études are pieces that totally click with me when I hear them. I didn't analyze the score or study music theory to like them. They just sounded amazing. On the other hand, people like Milton Babbitt are composers that I just hate listening to, and not from lack of familiarity. The problem is when proponents of the "avant-garde" use ideological or intellectual crutches to defend a lack of expressive content. 
Also, I think there are basic characteristics that make music great besides harmony, melody, and counterpoint—contrast, dynamism, flow, cohesion, etc. The Ligeti piano concerto has lots of all of these. Whereas a work I like less, like Boulez's explosante-fixe, seems to suffer from a static texture.


----------



## DaveM

EmperorOfIceCream said:


> ...Also, I think there are basic characteristics that make music great besides harmony, melody, and counterpoint-contrast, dynamism, flow, cohesion, etc. The Ligeti piano concerto has lots of all of these. Whereas a work I like less, like Boulez's explosante-fixe, seems to suffer from a static texture.


Harmony, melody and counterpoint are components of traditional tonal works. Contrast, dynamism, flow and cohesion would seem to be attempts to describe this avant-garde work, but I'm not sure that they are any kind of standard that would help distinguish great avant-garde from average/mediocre avant-garde. (In keeping with the OP.) It seems that even avant-garde aficionados struggle to describe the qualities of individual works.


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> Harmony, melody and counterpoint are components of traditional tonal works. Contrast, dynamism, flow and cohesion would seem to be adjectives that attempt to describe avant-garde music, but I'm not sure that they are any kind of standard that would help distinguish great avant-garde from average/mediocre avant-garde. (In keeping with the OP. It seems that even avant-garde aficionados struggle to describe the qualities of individual works.


Ah, why go to the trouble in establishing objective standards.

Here's my standard: If I enjoy it, it's good/great. If I don't enjoy it, it's mediocre or even bad.

If enough people enjoy a work, perhaps it will be canonized.


----------



## ArtMusic

DaveM said:


> Harmony, melody and counterpoint are components of traditional tonal works. Contrast, dynamism, flow and cohesion would seem to be attempts to describe this avant-garde work, but I'm not sure that they are any kind of standard that would help distinguish great avant-garde from average/mediocre avant-garde. (In keeping with the OP.) It seems that even avant-garde aficionados struggle to describe the qualities of individual works.


It's not about quality with avant-garde; either you enjoy it or you quietly walk away from it, you are not supposed to judge it. I'm sure the avant-garde aficionados will agree here.


----------



## RogerWaters

chu42 said:


> Ah, why go to the trouble in establishing objective standards.
> 
> Here's my standard: If I enjoy it, it's good/great. If I don't enjoy it, it's mediocre or even bad.
> 
> If enough people enjoy a work, perhaps it will be canonized.


I would actually be interesting in learning the regularities behind what makes good vs bad avant garde music, as I have the sneaking suspicion there aren't any - and that its admirers simply like disorder or, at most, 'interesting' sound palates. Thus, what makes good avant garde music would be disorganisation and tone colour and what makes bad avant garde music would be too much regularity, or too much of the 'wrong' kind of regularity (tonality, for example).


----------



## RogerWaters

DaveM said:


> Harmony, melody and counterpoint are components of traditional tonal works. Contrast, dynamism, flow and cohesion would seem to be attempts to describe this avant-garde work, but I'm not sure that they are any kind of standard that would help distinguish great avant-garde from average/mediocre avant-garde. (In keeping with the OP.) It seems that even avant-garde aficionados struggle to describe the qualities of individual works.


What are the standards that distinguish Beethoven from his less distinguished contemporaries? Can we only identify these in broad strokes (which may still be more than the avant-garde can do) like 'mastery of tonality'?


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> This was obviously inspired by Stockhausen's Gesang der junglinge:


No way, man. Totally different. This one sounds like those pseudo-Satanic chants in horror films. Kinda like this. Pretty spooky ending to a creepy film. The director had a real witchcraft expert consultant for the film. The Stockhausen is way more meticulously put together.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


>


^This reminds me of:


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> Ah, why go to the trouble in establishing objective standards.
> Here's my standard: If I enjoy it, it's good/great. If I don't enjoy it, it's mediocre or even bad.
> If enough people enjoy a work, perhaps it will be canonized.


Especially in the case of avant-garde 'establishing objective standards' may be impossible which probably was part of the point of my post.


----------



## DaveM

RogerWaters said:


> What are the standards that distinguish Beethoven from his less distinguished contemporaries? Can we only identify these in broad strokes (which may still be more than the avant-garde can do) like 'mastery of tonality'?


An interesting subject for another thread.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

DaveM said:


> *Harmony, melody and counterpoint* are components of traditional tonal works.


I disagree, it entirely depends on the work. Harmony, melody and counterpoint have functions in lots of AV-G works and aren't mutually exclusive with avant-garde. To be fair, melody is the one whose role has been diminished the most, but harmony and counterpoint are abundant.


----------



## mikeh375

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I disagree, it entirely depends on the work. Harmony, melody and counterpoint have functions in lots of AV-G works and aren't mutually exclusive with avant-garde. To be fair, melody is the one whose role has been diminished the most, but harmony and counterpoint are abundant.


Absolutely.
There is still such a thing as a 'top line' and harmony and counterpoint are as vital as ever to many a composer's composition. Admittedly the relevance of 'function' in the common practice sense has lost its grip but that has expanded the scope for expressive possibilities.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

mikeh375 said:


> Absolutely.
> There is still such a thing as a 'top line' and harmony and counterpoint are as vital as ever to many a composer's composition. Admittedly the relevance of 'function' in the common practice sense has lost its grip but that has only expanded the scope for possibilities and expression


I personally find myself more drawn to avant-garde music that displays a cohesive development of ideas. When I can't grasp a tangible idea or concept that's going on, it's not for me.

Something like this for instance is cool in concept, but has no listening value or interest for my taste. I like the tuba's timbre and the overlapping reverberation and the atmosphere, but I can't do just a pure 'soundscape'. Soundscapes are important to me, but having nothing else but one is dreadfully boring for me as a listener.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

EmperorOfIceCream said:


> Just to respond to the original post, I think the basic measure of a masterpiece simply has to be how good it sounds when you hear it-the aesthetic shock and strangeness of something truly great that we experience from pieces like Hammerklavier or La Mer. I have never heard a masterpiece from John Cage, so I cannot comment on that. There is a problem with post 19th-century music, that some people recoil in shock from dissonance atonality or whatever, whereas other people just truly dislike it. The former is something that can easily be done away with by listening to more of it. I heard avant-garde jazz and 20th century classical music in my house my whole life, so there is not much of it that is foreign to me in that way. As an example, I played Tout un monde lointain for some very good cellists in my school who know lots of other concerti, but they told me they were shocked how dissonant it was, which surprised me as it sounds totally melodic to me. I think from examples like this, the "recoilng" from modern music is often just a product of the environment. However, truly disliking something after becoming acquainted with it is perfectly valid. The idea that you need to become literate in some esoteric avant-garde tradition and study theory to like modern music is wrongheaded.
> So, what type of avant-garde music does this? I think Ligeti's piano concerto and études are pieces that totally click with me when I hear them. I didn't analyze the score or study music theory to like them. They just sounded amazing. On the other hand, people like Milton Babbitt are composers that I just hate listening to, and not from lack of familiarity. The problem is when proponents of the "avant-garde" use ideological or intellectual crutches to defend a lack of expressive content.
> Also, I think there are basic characteristics that make music great besides harmony, melody, and counterpoint-contrast, dynamism, flow, cohesion, etc. The Ligeti piano concerto has lots of all of these. Whereas a work I like less, like Boulez's explosante-fixe, seems to suffer from a static texture.


Does this not sound expressive to you?


----------



## Mandryka

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I personally find myself more drawn to avant-garde music that displays a cohesive development of ideas. When I can't grasp a tangible idea or concept that's going on, it's not for me.
> 
> Something like this for instance is cool in concept, but has no listening value or interest for my taste. I like the tuba's timbre and the overlapping reverberation and the atmosphere, but I can't do just a pure 'soundscape'. Soundscapes are important to me, but having nothing else but one is dreadfully boring for me as a listener.


Can you give me an example of music where you can grasp an idea of what's going on, ancient or modern? Just to try and get clearer about what's missing for you.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Mandryka said:


> Can you give me an example of music where you can grasp an idea of what's going on, ancient or modern? Just to try and get clearer about what's missing for you.


I'm going to stick with the context of avant-garde to be germane to the thread.

I can find countless tangible, intelligible ideas in Black Angels by George Crumb.





]

This Stockhausen just sounds like noise to me, a lot of noise that I like from the intrinsic sound of it itself, but doesn't appeal to me in the wider context of a _piece_, if that makes sense.






On the other hand, there's things like this that don't have a clear development of tangible ideas to my ears (apart from one certain figure), but I still really like in spite of that: 



 (György Ligeti - Continuum) (Don't want to paste three videos in one post for the sake of other people reading the thread and loading the page :lol


----------



## consuono

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I'm going to stick with the context of avant-garde to be germane to the thread.
> 
> I can find countless tangible, intelligible ideas in Black Angels by George Crumb.
> ...


I actually think that's an interesting piece, but I honestly don't know if I would have found it *as* interesting if I hadn't been following along with the score.
PS -- I'll have to look this one up sometime:


----------



## Mandryka

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I'm going to stick with the context of avant-garde to be germane to the thread.
> 
> I can find countless tangible, intelligible ideas in Black Angels by George Crumb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> This Stockhausen just sounds like noise to me, a lot of noise that I like from the intrinsic sound of it itself, but doesn't appeal to me in the wider context of a _piece_, if that makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, there's things like this that don't have a clear development of tangible ideas to my ears (apart from one certain figure), but I still really like in spite of that:
> 
> 
> 
> (György Ligeti - Continuum) (Don't want to paste three videos in one post for the sake of other people reading the thread and loading the page :lol


Ah, I don't know either of those pieces,


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Mandryka said:


> Ah, I don't know either of those pieces,


No worries. What are some AV-G pieces you like, and some you don't care for so much?


----------



## Mandryka

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> No worries. What are some AV-G pieces you like, and some you don't care for so much?


That changes with the wind, this afternoon I was listening to about an hour of Eliane Radigue's _Adnos_ and really enjoyed it. This morning I tried to get into something called _Circular Music No. 7_ by Jürg Frey, but it meant nothing to me! It could be just the opposite tomorrow. As Shakespeare said, the readiness is all.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Mandryka said:


> That changes with the wind, this afternoon I was listening to about an hour of Eliane Radigue's _Adnos_ and really enjoyed it. This morning I tried to get into something called _Circular Music No. 7_ by Jürg Frey, but it meant nothing to me! It could be just the opposite tomorrow. As Shakespeare said, the readiness is all.


Hmm, that's interesting. I'm not really like that, either I like something and will always like it or I dont like something and it either grows on me or it doesn't.

What are your favorite AV-G composers you'd say?


----------



## Mandryka

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> What are your favorite AV-G composers you'd say?


Couldn't possibly say. Recently I've been enjoying Richard Barrett, this in particular

https://livestream.com/uol/events/8038731/videos/171315780


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Mandryka said:


> Couldn't possibly say. Recently I've been enjoying Richard Barrett and Nikolaus Brass. But these things change all the time.


I've never heard of them. There's just so many contemporary composers I feel like I've hardly scratched the tip of the iceberg. I guess nowadays its easier for someone to make a name for themselves thanks to internet, media, all around accessibility, while composer from older times just sadly fade into obscurity.


----------



## Mandryka

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> There's just so many contemporary composers.


Yes that's right. For me this is fabulous, I'm like a kiddie in a sweet shop.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> Yes that's right. For me this is fabulous, I'm like a kiddie in a sweet shop.


What's a good way to keep up and stay apprised? Links, please. And pass me those black-eyed peas.


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> What's a good way to keep up and stay apprised? Links, please. And pass me those black-eyed peas.


I think you should buy Tim Rutherford-Johnson's book _Music after the Fall_ and follow the leads on streaming services or YouTube


----------



## SanAntone

I've posted these two YouTube channels before:

*incipitsify*

*Score Follower*


----------



## SanAntone

Mandryka said:


> I think you should buy Tim Rutherford-Johnson's book _Music after the Fall_ and follow the leads on streaming services or YouTube


Thanks for this, I didn't know about it, and just purchased the Kindle version.


----------



## ArtMusic

This was uploaded yesterday, so it must be very new I suppose. But I can't tell if it was composed recently or in 1950 or in 2000. I would like to know if there is a skill in identifying the time roughly, like we can with say Baroque versus Romantic versus Classical versus 20th century.


----------



## SanAntone

ArtMusic said:


> This was uploaded yesterday, so it mus be very new I suppose. But I can't tell if it was composed recently or in 1950 or in 2000. I would like to know if there is a skill in identifying the time roughly, like we can with say Baroque versus Romantic versus Classical versus 20th century.


It says in the description below the video that it was composed in 2019.



> performed by Allison Balcetis
> Kundalini II by Rodrigo Bussad (2019)


Your concerns are not my concerns.


----------



## RogerWaters

ArtMusic said:


> This was uploaded yesterday, so it must be very new I suppose. But I can't tell if it was composed recently or in 1950 or in 2000. I would like to know if there is a skill in identifying the time roughly, like we can with say Baroque versus Romantic versus Classical versus 20th century.


This is hilarious. I can't conceive of literally any reason why any particular 'note' (i should say, _sound_, for I can detect no sense in which musical tone plays a functional role here) follows from a preceding one.

How on earth could there be quality, better or worse, standards, etc, surrounding this kind of 'music', with it being the case that 'note' choice is arbitrary? Unless, of course, the standard simply is about being as arbitRary as possible... in that case i would have to start agreeing with some of the more hard-line traditionalists around here that this kind of music does not belong on the same forum as bach, mozart, beethoven, brahms, wagner, bruckner, mahler, sibelius, stravinsky, ravel, debussy, and even shoenberg.

That's what this thread is about.


----------



## ArtMusic

RogerWaters said:


> This is hilarious. I can't conceive of literally any reason why any particular 'note' (i should say, _sound_, for I can detect no sense in which musical tone plays a functional role here) follows from a preceding one.
> 
> How on earth could there be quality, better or worse, standards, etc, surrounding this kind of 'music', with it being the case that 'note' choice is arbitrary? Unless, of course, the standard simply is about being as arbitRary as possible... in that case i would have to start agreeing with some of the more hard-line traditionalists around here that this kind of music does not belong on the same forum as bach, mozart, beethoven, brahms, wagner, bruckner, mahler, sibelius, stravinsky, ravel, debussy, and even shoenberg.
> 
> That's what this thread is about.


This one in the video below takes the prize I think. It is about being arbitrary as demonstrated in the video. Well you know what, we can all "compose" that way. It's easy!


----------



## SanAntone

Wonderful -


----------



## SanAntone

Here's an old one.

*John Cage: Credo in US *(1942)






Fantastic.


----------



## SanAntone

*John Cage: A Book of Music *(1944)






Beautiful.


----------



## SanAntone

*John Cage: Two5* (1991)






This is very nice.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

RogerWaters said:


> This is hilarious. I can't conceive of literally any reason why any particular 'note' (i should say, _sound_, for I can detect no sense in which musical tone plays a functional role here) follows from a preceding one.


And I can't think of a reason why there has to be a reason why one sound follows from the previous.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

SanAntone said:


> *John Cage: Two5* (1991)
> 
> This is very nice.


I've just started getting into the so-called "number pieces". I'll have to check this one out.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> And I can't think of a reason why there has to be a reason why one sound follows from the previous.


I mean, I disagree with RogerWaters (Syd Barett may have thought totally differently who knows?) but I get where he's coming from as I can entertain a thought without accepting it. To more conservative-minded posters, this kind of music comes across as an egregious slap in the face to tradition and toil and craftsmanship because these bozos with an edgy attitude of being provocative and different just for its own sake can spin random notes together and get applauded for it, 'the emperor has no clothes', the classic cliché to criticize modern music. They don't see a process or anything determining that talent went into it. They just dress it up in their fancy scores and notation to make it look like some more profound object than it is.

Now I disagree with that statement for various reasons I've stated across this thread and others. There is plenty of AV-G where one can see the genuine originality, talent, and beauty of the work, and I don't just automatically like something just by virtue of the fact it's avant-garde.


----------



## SanAntone

“Trauma is certainly a common theme in contemporary art and has grown particularly in response to the increased presence of groups in mainstream culture that had hitherto been marginalized (and hence traumatized) on the basis of gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or class. Yet it may also be argued that trauma is not a force in itself but rather a symptom of external forces, such as, for example, gender or race discrimination, globalization, technological alienation, and economic inequality. Already, some of the forces that shape contemporary culture, the status of individuals within it, and the ways in which they might respond through music, are starting to surface. "

"With all this in mind, I suggest that the main developments of the last twenty-five years that might enable or inspire the stylistic development of new music are social liberalization, globalization, digitization, the Internet, late capitalist economics, and the green movement. There may be others, of course, and some will appear at points in this book. But these six provide a useful set of vectors along which much of the musical activity of the last twenty-five years, to say nothing of the wider cultural and political landscape, might be understood.”

“That said, these forces do not serve as simple chapter headings. Instead, I have taken a further step toward abstraction, at least on the highest organizational level, and chosen a series of quasi-psychological states that reflect the intersections between these techno-socioeconomic axes. There are five of these: permission, fluidity, mobility, excess, and loss. 

"After this introduction and a second chapter describing some of the structural changes that have taken place around new music after 1989, these make up the largest part of this book. A final chapter focuses on what I am calling “afterness,” that is, the approaches to the past (or pasts) that emerge from the changed conditions of the post-1989 world.”

— Music after the Fall: Modern Composition and Culture since 1989 by Tim Rutherford-Johnson

His point is (and this is important because of the many TC members here who claim there is no connection between the avant-garde and the classical tradition of Bach, Beethoven and Brahms) that because of societal, technological and global seismic changes since approximately 1989, there has been a rupture between the environment for classical music written today and what had been written in the past. 

However, many of today's composers still see themselves as, and wish to be seen as, a continuation of the classical music tradition.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

How is the book SanAntone? Would you recommend it?


----------



## ArtMusic

SanAntone said:


> However, many of today's composers still see themselves as, and wish to be seen as, a continuation of the classical music tradition.


I think that's stretching it.


----------



## Mandryka

ArtMusic said:


> I think that's stretching it.


Listen to Peter Garland, Laurence Crane, John Corigliano, John Adams, Krysztof Penerecki.


----------



## SanAntone

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> How is the book SanAntone? Would you recommend it?


I'm just getting into it. Early days yet.


----------



## RogerWaters

SanAntone said:


> "Trauma is certainly a common theme in contemporary art and has grown particularly in response to the increased presence of groups in mainstream culture that had hitherto been marginalized (and hence traumatized) on the basis of gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or class. Yet it may also be argued that trauma is not a force in itself but rather a symptom of external forces, such as, for example, gender or race discrimination, globalization, technological alienation, and economic inequality. Already, some of the forces that shape contemporary culture, the status of individuals within it, and the ways in which they might respond through music, are starting to surface. "
> 
> "With all this in mind, I suggest that the main developments of the last twenty-five years that might enable or inspire the stylistic development of new music are social liberalization, globalization, digitization, the Internet, late capitalist economics, and the green movement. There may be others, of course, and some will appear at points in this book. But these six provide a useful set of vectors along which much of the musical activity of the last twenty-five years, to say nothing of the wider cultural and political landscape, might be understood."
> 
> "That said, these forces do not serve as simple chapter headings. Instead, I have taken a further step toward abstraction, at least on the highest organizational level, and chosen a series of quasi-psychological states that reflect the intersections between these techno-socioeconomic axes. There are five of these: permission, fluidity, mobility, excess, and loss.
> 
> "After this introduction and a second chapter describing some of the structural changes that have taken place around new music after 1989, these make up the largest part of this book. A final chapter focuses on what I am calling "afterness," that is, the approaches to the past (or pasts) that emerge from the changed conditions of the post-1989 world."
> 
> - Music after the Fall: Modern Composition and Culture since 1989 by Tim Rutherford-Johnson


It's almost has though the author thinks modern 'classical' composers are punk musicians instead of some of the most privileged, educated and institutionalised people on the planet, writing music for a small set of equally privileged, educated and institutionalised listeners.

He certainly has read and memorised his Gramsci, Adorno, Derrida, Deleuze, Spivak, bell hooks, Coates, Butler, and Segwik, though, hasn't he?



SanAntone said:


> His point is (and this is important because of the many TC members here who claim there is no connection between the avant-garde and the classical tradition of Bach, Beethoven and Brahms) that *because* of societal, technological and global seismic changes since approximately 1989, there has been a rupture between the environment for classical music written today and what had been written in the past.


What kind of 'because' is this?

How can "liberalization, globalization, digitization and the internet" cause a composer to write music with blowing sounds instead of notes?

It seems to be more likely that modern composers want to fit in with a movement, and so what 'causes' their music is the above kind of theorising as opposed to what this theorising purports to be about ("liberalization, globalization, digitization and the internet")


----------



## Mandryka

RogerWaters said:


> How can "liberalization, globalization, digitization and the internet" cause a composer to write music with blowing sounds instead of notes?


Well, the answers are plethoric and obvious. Example Globalisation






Example internet






Example liberalization


----------



## RogerWaters

Mandryka said:


> Well, the answers are plethoric and obvious. Example Globalisation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Example internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Example liberalization


As I said, I'm sceptical. I tend to think it's the _ideas _that academic sociologists expouse, about globalization, et al., which causes the above attempts at music, not the sociological forces themselves.


----------



## ArtMusic

RogerWaters said:


> It seems to be more likely that modern composers want to fit in with a movement, and so what 'causes' their music is the above kind of theorising as opposed to what this theorising purports to be about ("liberalization, globalization, digitization and the internet")


Exactly right. The avant-garde has no link to western classical musical heritage, such a fanciful notion is nothing more than just pulling down the great classical western music heritage. Bach was mentioned. When did Stockhausen compose every score in the name of God as Bach did? When did Cage write music because his employer want private concert music performed in his private estate? When did avant-garde noise music ever wrote music that gave meaning to the stage?


----------



## chu42

ArtMusic said:


> Bach was mentioned. When did Stockhausen compose every score in the name of God as Bach did? When did Cage write music because his employer want private concert music performed in his private estate? When did avant-garde noise music ever wrote music that gave meaning to the stage?


I don't understand how the motives behind a composition has anything to do with classical music heritage. There is no one single reason why a composer writes music.

Furthermore, there are plenty of modern composers who write for religious reasons, and others who write because they are commissioned to. It is a strange thing to say that Stockhausen did not "compose in the name of God" as if there are no modern composers who have done so (and Stockhausen himself was very religious and there is plenty spiritual influence in his music).

It seems to me that you know next to nothing about modern composers other than the fact that you dislike most of their music. This general lack of knowledge was very apparent in your hackish summary of Samuel Barber's style that you ripped straight off Wikipedia, and Barber was a composer that you _did_ like.



ArtMusic said:


> Exactly right. The avant-garde has no link to western classical musical heritage, such a fanciful notion is nothing more than just pulling down the great classical western music heritage.


The avant-garde has always been a part of western classical music. You don't believe that Liszt or Wagner or Bruckner or Mahler were considered avant-garde? What about Beethoven?

It seems to me that the music you consider avant-garde is simply innovative music that you don't like. The innovative music you _do_ like is a part of the Western canon.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> "Trauma is certainly a common theme in contemporary art and has grown particularly in response to the increased presence of groups in mainstream culture that had hitherto been marginalized (and hence traumatized) on the basis of gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or class. Yet it may also be argued that trauma is not a force in itself but rather a symptom of external forces, such as, for example, gender or race discrimination, globalization, technological alienation, and economic inequality. Already, some of the forces that shape contemporary culture, the status of individuals within it, and the ways in which they might respond through music, are starting to surface. "
> 
> "With all this in mind, I suggest that the main developments of the last twenty-five years that might enable or inspire the stylistic development of new music are social liberalization, globalization, digitization, the Internet, late capitalist economics, and the green movement. There may be others, of course, and some will appear at points in this book. But these six provide a useful set of vectors along which much of the musical activity of the last twenty-five years, to say nothing of the wider cultural and political landscape, might be understood."
> 
> "That said, these forces do not serve as simple chapter headings. Instead, I have taken a further step toward abstraction, at least on the highest organizational level, and chosen a series of quasi-psychological states that reflect the intersections between these techno-socioeconomic axes. There are five of these: permission, fluidity, mobility, excess, and loss.
> 
> "After this introduction and a second chapter describing some of the structural changes that have taken place around new music after 1989, these make up the largest part of this book. A final chapter focuses on what I am calling "afterness," that is, the approaches to the past (or pasts) that emerge from the changed conditions of the post-1989 world."
> 
> - Music after the Fall: Modern Composition and Culture since 1989 by Tim Rutherford-Johnson
> 
> His point is (and this is important because of the many TC members here who claim there is no connection between the avant-garde and the classical tradition of Bach, Beethoven and Brahms) that because of societal, technological and global seismic changes since approximately 1989, there has been a rupture between the environment for classical music written today and what had been written in the past.
> 
> However, many of today's composers still see themselves as, and wish to be seen as, a continuation of the classical music tradition.


Without getting into a political debate, what's described isn't so much "trauma" as it is just neo-Marxist politics with aggrieved groups taking the place of the traditional proletariat. It's politics first, which has become the new quasi-religious motive among western "literati". All too often it's also used as an excuse for blah art as long as the artist's political heart is in the right place. It still has its value as a "statement" or "commentary" or whatnot. As I've said before, no thanks.


----------



## SanAntone

I don't use the term "avant-garde" since I don't think it clarifies anything about new music, and it is often used to paint in a broad brush a large swathe of contemporary work, and on TC is used in a pejorative manner.

For example, *John Luther Adams* is a composer writing new music, but not what I'd call avant-garde. But some people might.

I like this recording of three pieces, "Night Peace" is especially enjoyable.














"The Far Country" and "Everything That Rises" (the longest at nearly an hour) are the other two works on this recording.

Adams' style is expansive, meditative, and slow moving. He takes inspiration from nature, landscapes, and the culture of Alaska, his home.


----------



## hammeredklavier

chu42 said:


> The avant-garde has always been a part of western classical music. You don't believe that Liszt or Wagner or Bruckner or Mahler were considered avant-garde? What about Beethoven?
> It seems to me that the music you consider avant-garde is simply innovative music that you don't like. The innovative music you _do_ like is a part of the Western canon.


Liszt, Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler, Beethoven never believed in ideas such as "everything we do is music", (which aren't even found in "non-classical" genres such as jazz or prog-rock). There's no objective standard to classify stuff like Einaudi or Kuramoto "non-classical music", but every single avant-gardist "classical" either. It would be crazy to consider everything in the 1000-year period belongs in one single musical genre. Some composers are more different to others than classical is to jazz. If "we were to be intellectually honest", we should agree to establish some "guidelines" for categorizing classical stuff separately from avant-garde stuff. For example, Ligeti modelling his polyrhythmic compositions on 19th-century keyboard music counts as "classical". Xenakis writing music in a way that its sheet music would resemble statistical diagrams and pictograms doesn't count as "classical". Call it whatever you want -"contemporary avant-garde ART music" or whatever - it doesn't belong in the same genre as Beethoven, Liszt, Wagner. 
Stop saying things like "there's no point since the line is blurry". The line between film music (like John Williams') and classical music is also blurry. But look, there's a subforum for "film music" at TC. Why isn't there a subforum for "contemporary avant-garde ART music"? 
I think this is because some people (including ones in the TC management) are insecure creating any sort of "division" to separate the avant-garde from the canon would eventually cause avant-garde music and its fandom to be "alienated" from the mainstream. So, no matter how much disagreement in terms of standards and philosophies there is constantly, between classical music fans and avant-garde music fans, they are always dumped in the same camp. It's kind of sad. Some things can never mix, like oil and water -but some people just don't realize this.


----------



## ArtMusic

chu42 said:


> I don't understand how the motives behind a composition has anything to do with classical music heritage. There is no one single reason why a composer writes music.
> 
> Furthermore, there are plenty of modern composers who write for religious reasons, and others who write because they are commissioned to. It is a strange thing to say that Stockhausen did not "compose in the name of God" as if there are no modern composers who have done so (and Stockhausen himself was very religious and there is plenty spiritual influence in his music).
> 
> It seems to me that you know next to nothing about modern composers other than the fact that you dislike most of their music. This general lack of knowledge was very apparent in your hackish summary of Samuel Barber's style that you ripped straight off Wikipedia, and Barber was a composer that you _did_ like.
> 
> The avant-garde has always been a part of western classical music. You don't believe that Liszt or Wagner or Bruckner or Mahler were considered avant-garde? What about Beethoven?
> 
> It seems to me that the music you consider avant-garde is simply innovative music that you don't like. The innovative music you _do_ like is a part of the Western canon.


Most avant-garde do not fit those criteria on which the original quote above was aimed at. Fact.

And that argument that Beethoven etc. was once considered avant-garde is non-sensical. Beethoven wrote music to please his employers, his audiences and publishers by and large. Yes, he certainly did push the boundaries and took Classicism to Romanticism. But don't forget, he still fundamentally composed music, real music, not noise music. He didn't go to his local Blacksmith to compose sounds that sounded like that. He didn't roll dice and wrote music off the outcome of rolling dice. He didn't ask his singers to cough, sing out of tune on stage. Fact again.

Avant-garde composers may go ahead to compose as they please. *But they should not have the nerve to ever compare themselves with western classical music heritage. Period.*


----------



## hammeredklavier

ArtMusic said:


> Most avant-garde do not fit those criteria on which the original quote above was aimed at. Fact.
> And that argument that Beethoven etc. was once considered avant-garde is non-sensical. Beethoven wrote music to please his employers, his audiences and publishers by and large. Yes, he certainly did push the boundaries and took Classicism to Romanticism.


I just don't get the logic that we have to genuinely consider anything that's labelled as "contemporary" or "avant-garde" as part of classical music. To me, this is "tyranny" and "dogma". Let's not forget, Cage himself considered noise more musically interesting than Mozart or Beethoven. His musical philosophies were not "classical". A classically-trained jazz artist may consider jazz more musically interesting than classical music; the same logic applies to Cage.



hammeredklavier said:


> Even in that Beethoven was following the footsteps of his predecessors. I personally think the piece is a masterpiece of common practice music. Yes, there are some "rough edges", and a certain disregard for the 18th century rules of "good taste", but that is to be expected of Beethoven. He creates agitation and resolves it convincingly throughout the narrative, which consists of various phases such as variations, a march, etc. I consider it to be in a similar vein as Berlioz's more ground-breaking works -early "19th-century artistic creativity". I think Beethoven wanted to expand on the ideas of the scherzo of his 9th symphony to make one final statement. (He followed his passions while respecting the conventions)
> I know Shostakovich, Bartok, Stravinsky found it inspirational , but I don't think it can ever be compared to the "effects" of Stockhausen, Babbit, Xennakis, who were just avant-garde for the sake of being avant-garde. I think Beethoven would have spat his tea upon hearing avant-garde ideas such as "everything we do is music", "who cares if you listen", "noise is also music", etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "the fact remains that the "Great Fugue" is "a controlled violence without parallel in music before the twentieth century and anticipated only by Mozart in the C minor fugue for two pianos (K.426)"
> < Opera's Second Death / Slavoj Žižek, Mladen Dolar / P.128 >
> "Mozart later arranged this fugue for strings as well, adding the introductory Adagio, K. 546. The traditional Baroque idiom that is developed in this fugue for two pianos lays great stress on dissonant chromatic semitones and appoggiaturas. The intensity of the fugal writing is startling, foreshadowing the fugal textures in some of Beethoven's later works, such as the first movement of the Piano Sonata in C Minor, op.111, which exploits a variant of the same idiom. Beethoven was so taken by this piece, in fact, that he copied out the entire fugue in score."
> < Mozart's Piano Music / William Kinderman / P.46 >
> "although it also has some hair-raising dissonances that would not have been allowed in the strict style. It was surely bound to please Swieten and may have been written especially for his concerts."
> < Mozart, Haydn and Early Beethoven: 1781-1802: 1781-1802 / Daniel Heartz / P.64 >


----------



## ArtMusic

hammeredklavier said:


> I just don't get the logic that we have to genuinely consider anything that's labelled as "contemporary" or "avant-garde" as part of classical music. To me, this is "tyranny" and "dogma". Let's not forget, Cage himself considered noise more musically interesting than Mozart or Beethoven. His musical philosophies were not "classical". A classically-trained jazz artist may consider jazz more musically interesting than classical music; the same logic applies to Cage.


I agree. It's just white-labelling.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> I don't use the term "avant-garde" since I don't think it clarifies anything about new music, and it is often used to paint in a broad brush a large swathe of contemporary work, and on TC is used in a pejorative manner.


I don't use the term "avant garde" in a pejorative or favorable manner. If the avant garde has given itself such a bad name that the term is now somehow "dirty", that's not my fault.



> For example, *John Luther Adams* is a composer writing new music, but not what I'd call avant-garde. But some people might.
> 
> I like this recording of three pieces, "Night Peace" is especially enjoyable.
> ...
> 
> "The Far Country" and "Everything That Rises" (the longest at nearly an hour) are the other two works on this recording.
> 
> Adams' style is expansive, meditative, and slow moving. He takes inspiration from nature, landscapes, and the culture of Alaska, his home.


That actually does sound nice in a way, but I'd call it more "ambient music". I don't hear much of a difference between that and a lot of film scores.


----------



## chu42

ArtMusic said:


> I agree. It's just white-labelling.


There is the common practice period, and there is classical music. You are conflating the two.

Modernism and post-modernism is officially considered classical music, whether you like it or not. It is distinct from the common practice period, and represents a break from the rules established in the common practice period.

But modern music is classical, nonetheless. Any recent classical music canon that did not include Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Stockhausen, or Ligeti would be laughed out of circulation.


----------



## ArtMusic

chu42 said:


> But modern music is classical, nonetheless. Any recent classical music canon that did not include Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Stockhausen, or Ligeti would be laughed out of circulation.


Don't worry. People are having a good laugh at much of what they wrote since the 1950s. :lol:


----------



## chu42

> Avant-garde composers may go ahead to compose as they please. But they should not have the nerve to ever compare themselves with western classical music heritage. Period.


And why not? The vast majority of avant-garde artists were MASTERS of the traditional styles and the "classical heritage". They excelled in it, got bored of it, and then went off in a new direction. Just because you don't like their music doesn't make them poor composers.

Picasso painted this before painting Les Demoiselles d'Avignon.

Ives composed this before he composed his Concord Sonata.

Schoenberg composed this before he composed his Pierrot Lunaire.

Ligeti composed this before he composed his Requiem.

Composers don't just randomly jump into "random noises". There is a progression in their style and a reason how they ended up the way they did. If you don't like it, then don't listen to it. But respect their talent and their skill.


----------



## Phil loves classical

ArtMusic said:


> Most avant-garde do not fit those criteria on which the original quote above was aimed at. Fact.
> 
> And that argument that Beethoven etc. was once considered avant-garde is non-sensical. Beethoven wrote music to please his employers, his audiences and publishers by and large. Yes, he certainly did push the boundaries and took Classicism to Romanticism. But don't forget, he still fundamentally composed music, real music, not noise music. He didn't go to his local Blacksmith to compose sounds that sounded like that. He didn't roll dice and wrote music off the outcome of rolling dice. He didn't ask his singers to cough, sing out of tune on stage. Fact again.
> 
> Avant-garde composers may go ahead to compose as they please. But they should not have the nerve to ever compare themselves with western classical music heritage. Period.


There are clear ties from the big name Avant-Gardists to the Masters. It's a legitimate view that the common practice period was an incomplete view of the possibilities of Western Classical Music. Wagner saw it, as did Mahler, Prokofiev and others. Why not say Classical Music died with Brahms?


----------



## ArtMusic

Phil loves classical said:


> There are clear ties from the big name Avant-Gardists to the Masters. It's a legitimate view that the common practice period was an incomplete view of the possibilities of Western Classical Music. Wagner saw it, as did Mahler, Prokofiev and others. Why not say Classical Music died with Brahms?


CM died with Vaugh-Williams.


----------



## SanAntone

chu42 said:


> And why not? The vast majority of avant-garde artists were MASTERS of the traditional styles and the "classical heritage". They excelled in it, got bored of it, and then went off in a new direction. Just because you don't like their music doesn't make them poor composers.
> 
> Picasso painted this before painting Les Demoiselles d'Avignon.
> 
> Ives composed this before he composed his Concord Sonata.
> 
> Schoenberg composed this before he composed his Pierrot Lunaire.
> 
> Ligeti composed this before he composed his Requiem.
> 
> Composers don't just randomly jump into "random noises". There is a progression in their style and a reason how they ended up the way they did. If you don't like it, then don't listen to it. But respect their talent and their skill.


Why do you engage with these people? Let them think what they want, it doesn't matter.


----------



## Mandryka

RogerWaters said:


> As I said, I'm sceptical. I tend to think it's the _ideas _that academic sociologists expouse, about globalization, et al., which causes the above attempts at music, not the sociological forces themselves.


The forces cause the ideas, the ideas cause the music. Causation is transitive. So the forces cause the music.


----------



## Phil loves classical

ArtMusic said:


> CM died with Vaugh-Williams.


Here's an idea for a poll. Which composer did CM die with? Allow an option for that it's not dead.


----------



## hammeredklavier

chu42 said:


> Modernism and post-modernism is officially considered classical music, whether you like it or not. It is distinct from the common practice period, and represents a break from the rules established in the common practice period.
> But modern music is classical, nonetheless. Any recent classical music canon that did not include *Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Stockhausen, or Ligeti* would be laughed out of circulation.


But still, among them, there are some that are like "musical equivalents" of:

"It's not only artists who are at fault; it is equally the fault of the so-called art community: the museum heads, gallery owners, and the critics who encourage and financially enable the production of this rubbish. It is they who champion graffiti and call it genius, promote the scatological and call it meaningful. It is they who, in reality, are the naked emperors of art, for who else would spend $10 million dollars on a rock and think it is art."





And is there a solid "objective" reason to exclude 


hammeredklavier said:


> "Yuhki Kuramoto is a Japanese pianist and composer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuhki_Kuramoto
> At school, he studied Rachmaninoff and performed as a part-time soloist in orchestras.
> Kuramoto's style of music shows influence from a variety of composers from different periods. Most notably, by Rachmaninoff, Chopin and Ravel.
> https://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/yuhki-kuramoto.html
> He was considered an heir to Rachmaninoff and Chopin."


from classical music?


----------



## chu42

Who's excluding him from classical music?


----------



## hammeredklavier

chu42 said:


> Who's excluding him from classical music?


Whatabout Einaudi and Yiruma with their "piano song cycles"?








Nocturne No.3 in A minor: 



Nocturne No.4 in Db:


----------



## chu42

If they want to identify as classical music, then no one is stopping them. They aren't likely gain the audience of many classical fans, however.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> .
> ...Composers don't just randomly jump into "random noises". There is a progression in their style and a reason how they ended up the way they did. If you don't like it, then don't listen to it. But respect their talent and their skill.


On what basis should we respect their talent and their skill after you have posted in umpteen different ways that there is nothing to prove that any composer is great or is objectively gifted, talented and skilled? From all your past posting, these are purely individual assessments.

So here you are now telling others to respect the talent and skill of composers you like. But that infers accomplishment that others should be able to hear and acknowledge which wasn't good enough for you when we were talking about Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. No-o-o, then it was impossible that their talent and skill was on some level objectivity obvious.

The very act of demanding that others respect the talent or skill of any composer assumes that there are qualities that others can and should respect, something that objectively indicates that we should respect that skill and talent and which distinguishes that composer from others with little or no skill or talent, all of which conflicts with your rejection of a collective appreciation and assumption of skill, talent and, yes, greatness.


----------



## consuono

DaveM said:


> On what basis should we respect their talent and their skill after you have posted in umpteen different ways that there is nothing to prove that any composer is great or is objectively gifted, talented and skilled? From all your past posting, these are purely individual assessments.
> 
> So here you are now telling others to respect the talent and skill of composers you like. But that infers accomplishment that others should be able to hear and acknowledge which wasn't good enough for you when we were talking about Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. No-o-o, then it was impossible that their talent and skill was on some level objectivity obvious.
> 
> The very act of demanding that others respect the talent or skill of any composer assumes that there are qualities that others can and should respect, something that objectively indicates that we should respect that skill and talent and which distinguishes that composer from others with little or no skill or talent, all of which conflicts with your rejection of a collective appreciation and assumption of skill, talent and, yes, greatness.


Boom. Exactly. We can debate til the cows come home over whether there is an objective "standard of greatness". But an undeniable fact is that Bach, Mozart and even Beethoven believed that there is such a thing and aspired to it. Not even with late Beethoven was the artistic standard *strictly* an individual thing.

As I said before, people are absolutely free to like what they like...but I'm also absolutely free to dislike that same thing, even *strongly and vocally* dislike it, just as anyone's free to dislike Bach, Mozart or Beethoven without having to apologize to a bunch of mortally offended Big Three fans. I think the demand either to like this "new music" or else have the courtesy to shut up about it betrays an insecurity about the artistic worth of such music.


chu42 said:


> If they want to identify as classical music, then no one is stopping them. They aren't likely gain the audience of many classical fans, however.


Nor is the avant garde.


----------



## ArtMusic

chu42 said:


> If they want to identify as classical music, then no one is stopping them. They aren't likely gain the audience of many classical fans, however.


Let's just say they are more likely to gain more _listeners_ in general without pretense.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I'm a musical wh*re. I get tired of the old pretty quickly no matter how great or beautiful. I also get tired of music that is striving for the new pretty quickly, and go back to my old partners.


----------



## SanAntone

“The postwar decades are frequently caricatured for their inwardness, their prioritization of cerebral over physical pleasure, and a turning away of audiences, but by the 1980s composers had begun to discover they could compose without ideological constraints and with a new sense of permission. By the twenty-first century that degree of permissibility, in which everything—and in every combination—was possible, had become the new norm.”

— Music after the Fall: Modern Composition and Culture since 1989 by Tim Rutherford-Johnson


----------



## chu42

ArtMusic said:


> Let's just say they are more likely to gain more _listeners_ in general without pretense.


So is Ariana Grande.



> Nor is the avant garde.


Except most classical professionals play avant-garde music, and most experienced listeners of classical music listen to some form of avant garde music.

If you mean people who have _just started_ listening to classical music, obviously they won't jump straight into Schoenberg. I don't know why you feel the need to point this out.


----------



## Haydn70

chu42 said:


> Except most classical professionals play avant-garde music, and most experienced listeners of classical music listen to some form of avant garde music.


You just make stuff like this up as you go along, correct?


----------



## chu42

DaveM said:


> On what basis should we respect their talent and their skill after you have posted in umpteen different ways that there is nothing to prove that any composer is great or is objectively gifted, talented and skilled? From all your past posting, these are purely individual assessments.


Yes, they are. So I'm clearly not forcing you to think that they are talented. You should be able to arrive at your own conclusion based on the evidence that I showed you.



DaveM said:


> So here you are now telling others to respect the talent and skill of composers you like. But that infers accomplishment that others should be able to hear and acknowledge which wasn't good enough for you when we were talking about Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. No-o-o, then it was impossible that their talent and skill was on some level objectivity obvious.


Just because music is objective does not mean I cannot have opinions about anything.



DaveM said:


> The very act of demanding that others respect the talent or skill of any composer assumes that there are qualities that others can and should respect, something that objectively indicates that we should respect that skill and talent and which distinguishes that composer from others with little or no skill or talent, all of which conflicts with your rejection of a collective appreciation and assumption of skill, talent and, yes, greatness.


Yes, there are objective standards of the common practice period that one can measure different composers against. These avant-garde composers have mastered the common practice period.

Just because there are objective rules under a certain context does not mean there is an objective standard to all of music. The rules of the common practice period do not apply to Aboriginal music.

After what seems like an eon of discussion, you clearly still do not understand the definition of the word "objective".

So please, stop responding in a deliberately ignorant manner. If you're not being deliberately ignorant, then I can't help you.


----------



## Simon Moon

hammeredklavier said:


> Liszt, Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler, Beethoven never believed in ideas such as "everything we do is music"


I don't think Chu42 was making the statement that they were avantgarde in the same exact way that some of the composers of the 20th century were avantgarde. Only that they might have been considered avantgarde (even if that term was not used) for their time, compared to their contemporaries.

And the composers of the avantgarde that could be considered part of the "everything we do is music" movement (if that even exists), are in the vast minority of composers.



> (which aren't even found in "non-classical" genres such as jazz or prog-rock).


Absolutely not true.

Jazz has its avantgarde and free jazz subgenres, that utilize a whole lot of extended techniques and 'squeaking' and 'squawking' noises on their instruments. Anthony Braxton, The Art Ensemble of Chicago, Cecil Taylor, Sun Ra, Archie Shepp, etc, make some 'god awful noises', or 'beautiful noises', depending on the ear of the listener.

And prog-rock has several subgenres: avant-prog and RIO, that can rival some classical avantgarde composers, of whom many avant-prog bands were influenced by. Bands such as: Univers Zero, Art Zoyd, Thnking Plague, Motor Totemist Guild, Henry Cow, Far Corner, etc, etc,. These bands, and others in this subgenre, used many of the same techniques as avantgarde classical composers.


----------



## chu42

Haydn70 said:


> You just make stuff like this up as you go along, correct?


This is based on my experience in music schools. Avant-garde music is taught as standard in all curriculum.

Even you may recognize some of the names below:

Sviatoslav Richter-Berg Chamber Concerto

Glenn Gould-Schoenberg Op.41

Mitsuko Uchida-Schoenberg Piano Concerto

Claudio Arrau-Schoenberg Op.11

Emanuel Ax-Schoenberg Piano Concerto

Vladimir Horowitz-Barber Piano Sonata

Maurizio Pollini-Stockhausen Klavierstücke 

Yuja Wang-Ligeti Etudes

Hilary Hahn-Schoenberg Violin Concerto

Mstislav Rostropovich-Lutoslawski Cello Concerto

Yo Yo Ma-Lutoslawski Cello Concerto


So yes, even the most famous musicians of all time-the populist classical artists who are best known for their Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Chopin-played avant-garde music. Even if their audiences did not necessarily appreciate it. Even if less people would've bought their recordings.

These are the musicians who are regarded as being the finest interpreters and communicators of the common practice period. Yet they somehow still seem to find value in the avant-garde.

But if random users on some Internet forum thinks that SVS is all inferior music, then surely it must be so!

And it seems to me, Haydn70, that you're quite disconnected from what actually goes on among the classical world. I have never seen someone so surprised to learn that modernist music has been canonized and recorded by great musicians.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> After what seems like an eon of discussion, you clearly still do not understand the definition of the word "objective". So please, stop responding in a deliberately ignorant manner. If you're not being deliberately ignorant, then I can't help you.


Apparently a number of other people seemed to resonate with my post, so what you consider ignorant may just be something you can't understand.



> *Yes, there are objective standards of the common practice period that one can measure different composers against*. These avant-garde composers have mastered the common practice period.
> 
> *Just because there are objective rules under a certain context* does not mean there is an objective standard to all of music.





chu42 said:


> ...Composers don't just randomly jump into "random noises". There is a progression in their style and a reason how they ended up the way they did.* If you don't like it, then don't listen to it. But respect their talent and their skill.*


Over a long period earlier in this thread, when we were talking about composers of the common practice period, you rejected even the slightest element of objectivity in comparing the talent, skill and greatness of composers and you did so with a dismissive attitude as if no one knew what they were talking about except you.

Now you admit that there are '_objective standards of the common practice period that one can measure different composers against'_. If you had said something like that way back, you would have saved a lot of our posting.

Repeating myself, your direction for us to 'respect the talent and skill' of avant-garde composers further infers the presence of objective parameters that allow us to appreciate their talent and skill. Well, I'm sure we should and I'm sure there are. Point being that here again you are suggesting a level of objectivity that you totally rejected early on.


----------



## ArtMusic

chu42 said:


> .... I have never seen someone so surprised to learn that modernist music has been canonized and recorded by great musicians.


Yes, it has been recorded by _a few_ musicians.


----------



## consuono

chu42 said:


> .
> Yes, there are objective standards of the common practice period that one can measure different composers against. *These avant-garde composers have mastered the common practice period.*
> ...


Can you or they demonstrate that? You talk in such vague terms or throw out weasel words so that you can bend them any way you like when someone objects. What is meant by "mastered the common practice period"?


chu42 said:


> Except most classical professionals play avant-garde music, and most experienced listeners of classical music listen to some form of avant garde music.


What's your source? Do you have any numbers? What is "some form of avant garde music"? 


chu42 said:


> I have never seen someone so surprised to learn that modernist music has been canonized and recorded by great musicians.


Ohhhh, so _now_ consensus and the canon matter.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I think guys like Schoenberg, Ligeti, Messiaen count as classical music composers. At least they showed by words and actions that they didn't indulge in mindless avant-garde philosophies.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Simon Moon said:


> Absolutely not true. Jazz has its avantgarde and free jazz subgenres, that utilize a whole lot of extended techniques and 'squeaking' and 'squawking' noises on their instruments. Anthony Braxton, The Art Ensemble of Chicago, Cecil Taylor, Sun Ra, Archie Shepp, etc, make some 'god awful noises', or 'beautiful noises', depending on the ear of the listener.
> And prog-rock has several subgenres: avant-prog and RIO, that can rival some classical avantgarde composers, of whom many avant-prog bands were influenced by. Bands such as: Univers Zero, Art Zoyd, Thnking Plague, Motor Totemist Guild, Henry Cow, Far Corner, etc, etc,. These bands, and others in this subgenre, used many of the same techniques as avantgarde classical composers.


Ferneyhough is far more different from general western classical music than these








are from general prog-rock and general jazz.


----------



## hammeredklavier

chu42 said:


> These avant-garde composers have mastered the common practice period.


Sorry, classically-influenced film composers and new-age composers "mastered" the common practice period better than them.
Romancing Time - Yuhki Kuramoto
Waltz For Chopin - Yuhki Kuramoto
Appassionato - Yuhki Kuramoto


----------



## chu42

hammeredklavier said:


> Sorry, classically-influenced film composers and new-age composers "mastered" the common practice period better than them.
> Romancing Time - Yuhki Kuramoto
> Waltz For Chopin - Yuhki Kuramoto
> Appassionato - Yuhki Kuramoto


If you like this kind of music, fine. But to me, it's just blank imitation. It might as well have been computer generated.

I will say that I like the music of Richard Strauss, who really stuck with the common practice period despite his colleagues long abandoning it.


----------



## arpeggio

consuono

Over the years we have provided examples of common tonality works that were composed by avant-garde composers. I even found a suite of Greek folk dances for piano by Xenakis.

It does not do any good. The anti-modernists always come up with a list a reasons on why our responses were invalid.

Like I stated earlier, in the fifteen year history of this forum I have not found one example of a person who thought avant-garde was bad/ugly convince a person who liked avant-garde music to change his mind.


----------



## chu42

consuono said:


> Can you or they demonstrate that? You talk in such vague terms or throw out weasel words so that you can bend them any way you like when someone objects. What is meant by "mastered the common practice period"?


The truth is, many of the early compositions by budding composers are not published or commonly recorded. This is typically because they were written in conservatory under music theory tutelage and do not represent the composer's mature style.

But nonetheless, some of these works survive and you can decide whether or not these compositions represent a mastery of the common practice period.

Schoenberg-Verklarte Nacht

Ives Symphony No.1

Ornstein-Piano Sonata No.4

Berg-Piano Sonata

Messiaen-Preludes for piano

Lutoslawski-Symphonic Variations


If you disagree, then that's fine. These are my opinions. Anyone who says anything that isn't a fact is presenting an opinion until proven otherwise.

It's quite inconvenient to have to hold up a giant sign that says "This is my opinion and I'm not presenting it as objective fact". But it seems like I have to do this with certain users like you. I'm spoon-feeding sentences to you since you wouldn't understand them otherwise.

The reason that people can have discussions is because they are able to present non-arbitrary, credible, statements-not as fact-but as a matter of opinion, which can bring about meaning in certain contexts. They are not provable ideas and thus are not objective facts. Yet they have meaning to certain people in a certain place and a certain time.

If you are going to question the definition of every single word I say as if you are ignorant of what the English language means to you, then go ahead. You will appear quite the lunatic.



consuono said:


> What's your source? Do you have any numbers? What is "some form of avant garde music"?


I already posted this:

Sviatoslav Richter-Berg Chamber Concerto

Glenn Gould-Schoenberg Op.41

Mitsuko Uchida-Schoenberg Piano Concerto

Claudio Arrau-Schoenberg Op.11

Emanuel Ax-Schoenberg Piano Concerto

Vladimir Horowitz-Barber Piano Sonata

Maurizio Pollini-Stockhausen Klavierstücke 

Yuja Wang-Ligeti Etudes

Hilary Hahn-Schoenberg Violin Concerto

Mstislav Rostropovich-Lutoslawski Cello Concerto

Yo Yo Ma-Lutoslawski Cello Concerto


A non-exhaustive list of avant-garde performances by absurdly famous populist musicians.



consuono said:


> Ohhhh, so _now_ consensus and the canon matter.


They don't matter to me. I listen to music and consider it great based on my own beliefs, not the beliefs of the canon. You're being deliberately ignorant by acting like I can't have opinions just because I don't believe that the "informed consensus" represents objectivity in music.

But the "informed consensus" matters to you, which is why I brought them up in the argument since you seem to believe that the "informed consensus" is the objective standard for music. In that case, then the SVS and Stockhausen and Xenakis and whomever you hate are all "objectively good" by your standards.


----------



## consuono

chu42 said:


> The truth is, many of the early compositions by budding composers are not published or commonly recorded. This is typically because they were written in conservatory under music theory tutelage and do not represent the composer's mature style.
> 
> But nonetheless, some of these works survive and you can decide whether or not these compositions represent a mastery of the common practice period.
> 
> Schoenberg-Verklarte Nacht
> 
> Ives Symphony No.1
> 
> Ornstein-Piano Sonata No.4
> 
> Berg-Piano Sonata
> 
> Messiaen-Preludes for piano
> 
> Lutoslawski-Symphonic Variations
> 
> 
> If you disagree, then that's fine. These are my opinions. Anyone who says anything that isn't a fact is presenting an opinion until proven otherwise.
> 
> It's quite inconvenient to have to hold up a giant sign that says "This is my opinion and I'm not presenting it as objective fact". But it seems like I have to do this with certain users like you. I'm spoon-feeding sentences to you since you wouldn't understand them otherwise.
> 
> The reason that people can have discussions is because they are able to present non-arbitrary, credible, statements-not as fact-but as a matter of opinion, which can bring about meaning in certain contexts. They are not provable ideas and thus are not objective facts. Yet they have meaning to certain people in a certain place and a certain time.
> 
> If you are going to question the definition of every single word I say as if you are ignorant of what the English language means to you, then go ahead. You will appear quite the lunatic.
> 
> I already posted this:
> 
> Sviatoslav Richter-Berg Chamber Concerto
> 
> Glenn Gould-Schoenberg Op.41
> 
> Mitsuko Uchida-Schoenberg Piano Concerto
> 
> Claudio Arrau-Schoenberg Op.11
> 
> Emanuel Ax-Schoenberg Piano Concerto
> 
> Vladimir Horowitz-Barber Piano Sonata
> 
> Maurizio Pollini-Stockhausen Klavierstücke
> 
> Yuja Wang-Ligeti Etudes
> 
> Hilary Hahn-Schoenberg Violin Concerto
> 
> Mstislav Rostropovich-Lutoslawski Cello Concerto
> 
> Yo Yo Ma-Lutoslawski Cello Concerto
> 
> 
> A non-exhaustive list of avant-garde performances by absurdly famous populist musicians.
> 
> They don't matter to me. I listen to music and consider it great based on my own beliefs, not the beliefs of the canon. You're being deliberately ignorant by acting like I can't have opinions just because I don't believe that the "informed consensus" represents objectivity in music.
> 
> But the "informed consensus" matters to you, which is why I brought them up in the argument since you seem to believe that the "informed consensus" is the objective standard for music. In that case, then the SVS and Stockhausen and Xenakis and whomever you hate are all "objectively good" by your standards.


Your definition of "avant garde" is pretty narrow. What about Ferneyhough's and Saunders' demonstrated "mastery of the common practice period"? And forget mentioning degrees etc. I mean in practical terms.


----------



## hammeredklavier

chu42 said:


> It might as well have been computer generated.


"Xenakis pioneered the use of mathematical models in music such as applications of set theory, stochastic processes and game theory"


----------



## hammeredklavier

chu42 said:


> A non-exhaustive list of avant-garde performances by absurdly famous populist musicians.


Many performers play anything if they're paid enough money for it. And as I said:


hammeredklavier said:


> I think guys like Schoenberg, Ligeti, Messiaen count as classical music composers. At least they showed by words and actions that they didn't indulge in mindless avant-garde philosophies.


----------



## hammeredklavier

chu42 said:


> If you like this kind of music, fine. But to me, it's just blank imitation.
> I will say that I like the music of Richard Strauss, who really stuck with the common practice period


I don't think it's a matter of us liking something or not. It's about classifying things into categories properly.
Wasn't Johann Strauss II a "composer of classical music"? Can we say he wasn't, simply because he wasn't daring or pioneering as, say, R. Wagner?


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> Your definition of "avant garde" is pretty narrow. What about Ferneyhough's and Saunders' demonstrated "mastery of the common practice period"? And forget mentioning degrees etc. I mean in practical terms.


I agree. I did not mean the likes of Schoenberg, Ligeti, Messiaen when I used the term "avant-garde" in the OP of this thread.


----------



## hammeredklavier

arpeggio said:


> Over the years we have provided examples of common tonality works that were composed by avant-garde composers. I even found a suite of Greek folk dances for piano by Xenakis.
> It does not do any good. The anti-modernists always come up with a list a reasons on why our responses were invalid.


So what? Even Paul McCartney also wrote some "classical music"


----------



## mmsbls

hammeredklavier said:


> I agree. I did not mean the likes of Schoenberg, Ligeti, Messiaen when I used the term "avant-garde" in the OP of this thread.


One problem in discussing avant-garde music or composers is that people have a very different view of what they feel is avant-garde. Some view Schoenberg, Ligeti, Messiaen, and Boulez as avant-garde. For example, we all know that Schoenberg destroyed classical music so he was clearly avant-garde. Others accept those people as more conventional composers and reserve the term avant-garde for more "extreme" composers (e.g. Saunders). Many here on TC simply view all these composers as modern/contemporary classical composers following in the tradition of classical music from earlier composers.



hammeredklavier said:


> I don't think it's a matter of us liking something or not. It's about classifying things into categories properly.
> Wasn't Johann Strauss II a "composer of classical music"? Can we say he wasn't, simply because he wasn't daring or pioneering as, say, R. Wagner?


Certainly on TC Johann Strauss is considered classical. He has a composer guestbook and is frequently discussed here.


----------



## Mandryka

mmsbls said:


> One problem in discussing avant-garde music or composers is that people have a very different view of what they feel is avant-garde. Some view Schoenberg, Ligeti, Messiaen, and Boulez as avant-garde. For example, we all know that Schoenberg destroyed classical music so he was clearly avant-garde. Others accept those people as more conventional composers and reserve the term avant-garde for more "extreme" composers (e.g. Saunders). Many here on TC simply view all these composers as modern/contemporary classical composers following in the tradition of classical music from earlier composers.
> 
> Certainly on TC Johann Strauss is considered classical. He has a composer guestbook and is frequently discussed here.


Wouldn't everyone agree that the Schoenberg string trio is avant garde? I can imagine that there'd be disagreement about the 4th quartet though.

Sometimes I think that Beethoven op 135/i is avant garde!


----------



## ArtMusic

I think avant-garde means any music (including bastardisation of it) that is composed by anyone, usually this is people who have studied music formally but not limited to it, and performed with a score and musicians (or not with a score).


----------



## hammeredklavier

mmsbls said:


> One problem in discussing avant-garde music or composers is that people have a very different view of what they feel is avant-garde.





Mandryka said:


> Wouldn't everyone agree that the Schoenberg string trio is avant garde? I can imagine that there'd be disagreement about the 4th quartet though.
> Sometimes I think that Beethoven op 135/i is avant garde!


I didn't create this thread to argue about the semantics. Everyone has their own definition of everything, including "classical music". SanAntone thinks John Williams is a composer of film music, not classical music. 
How else should I have described stuff like Cage, Babbitt, Xenakis then? "Modern philosophical music"? Or "modern garbage stuff", like how some other people do?
To me, they clearly differ from the likes of Schoenberg, Ligeti, Messiaen, who clearly make relation/connection to the common practice tradition.
Jazz has its origins in Ragtime composers who also wrote operas and concertos. The Beatles used Western harmony like classical music, Paul McCartney even wrote some pieces of what he himself calls "classical music". 
Everything has its origins in Western classical music. But that doesn't mean they should all be categorized as "classical music".


----------



## Mandryka

Anyway I’d say the Schoenberg string trio is great avant garde music because of the way it coherently juxtaposes moments in totally unexpected ways. You never know how it’s going to go next, it is utterly unpredictable. There’s a bit of that in the Beethoven I mentioned too, I think - though it’s a long time since I listened to the Beethoven.


----------



## Mandryka

hammeredklavier said:


> I didn't create this thread to argue about the semantics. . . . But that doesn't mean they should all be categorized as "classical music".


This looks like a contradiction to me.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Mandryka said:


> This looks like a contradiction to me.


So you categorize stuff like jazz as "classical music"?


----------



## DaveM

Mandryka said:


> Sometimes I think that Beethoven op 135/i is avant garde!


When that happens, lie down, take a Tylenol and have a nap. The feeling will pass.


----------



## hammeredklavier

It seems that Schoenberg is the definition of "great avantgarde music", since Mandryka, chu42 and other people cite so many examples from his music to prove their point. 
But whatabout Xenakis?


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> Anyway I'd say the Schoenberg string trio is great avant garde music because of the way it coherently juxtaposes moments in totally unexpected ways. You never know how it's going to go next, it is utterly unpredictable. There's a bit of that in the Beethoven I mentioned too, I think - though it's a long time since I listened to the Beethoven.


I think Schoenberg ceased to be "avant garde" probably even before his death. His music now is as "establishment" as Brahms. In fact I don't know if there really is an avant garde anymore in the early 20th century sense. It's the "establishment" that heaps the most praise on contemporary avant garde music, not "commoners" like myself. They're the ones who hand out Pulitzers and professorships.


----------



## mparta

I think the current issue is that one has to decide what version or degree of incomprehensibility actually counts as a forerunner of something that will stick (to be avant there ougth to be a somewhat-related apres, if you get my bad orthographic French).

In 1976 I was in music school and attended a concert of the new thing from NYC, minimalism, and the composers called in afterwards and took questions from the music students. I think Steve Reich was played, don't remember the rest. I thought the music slightly interesting and slightly dull but I managed to stay awake through the whole thing, which is saying something. I do think these composers were on the front of something that would develop over the last 50 years, but I can't think of another nameable stylistic entity that fits. A lot of ugly music goes by the wayside (thank god).


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> I think Schoenberg ceased to be "avant garde" probably even before his death. His music now is as "establishment" as Brahms. In fact I don't know if there really is an avant garde anymore in the early 20th century sense. It's the "establishment" that heaps the most praise on contemporary avant garde music, not "commoners" like myself. They're the ones who hand out Pulitzers and professorships.


Have a listen to the string trio.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

hammeredklavier said:


> It seems that Schoenberg is the definition of "great avantgarde music", since Mandryka, chu42 and other people cite so many examples from his music to prove their point.
> But whatabout Xenakis?


Here's a post I madebfrom earlier in the thread about a Xennakis piece:

https://www.talkclassical.com/69379-great-avant-garde-music-post1997462.html?highlight=#post1997462


----------



## ArtMusic

chu42 said:


> So is Ariana Grande.
> 
> Except most classical professionals play avant-garde music, and most experienced listeners of classical music listen to some form of avant garde music.
> 
> If you mean people who have _just started_ listening to classical music, obviously they won't jump straight into Schoenberg. I don't know why you feel the need to point this out.


I disagree most classical professionals play avant-garde music as part of their art. That's falsehood. It's a fact that a minority are dedicated avant-garde players who play such music. It is a fact that most have played some form of avant-garde at some stage, including myself.

Of course most people who are mature listeners won't listen to Schoenberg for enjoyment but for the sake of studying its atonality.


----------



## Phil loves classical

ArtMusic said:


> Of course most people who are mature listeners won't listen to Schoenberg for enjoyment but for the sake of studying its atonality.


Is that coming from a mature listener?


----------



## ArtMusic

Phil loves classical said:


> Is that coming from a mature listener?


Totally so. Thank you sir.


----------



## Bulldog

ArtMusic said:


> Of course most people who are mature listeners won't listen to Schoenberg for enjoyment but for the sake of studying its atonality.


Another snarky remark soon after the one you made about Cage needing to apologize to your family. Do you place them in your dossier?


----------



## ArtMusic

Bulldog said:


> Another snarky remark soon after the one you made about Cage needing to apologize to your family. Do you place them in your dossier?


I standby my posts with all seriousness. Cage should have given an apology to deaf people for composing _4'33"_.


----------

