# Imagining the "other"



## Guest (Mar 18, 2012)

There's a new thread about music you cannot listen to, and one of the responses to that expressed what I consider the chief difficulty about carrying on a conversation about music, especially if it's about music that's at all new.

Here's the relevant exchange from that thread, which I hope doesn't do any of that derailing thing to it:

"


neoshredder said:


> Basically the whole miminimism subgenre. So repetitive. Hard to listen to something that is in constant repetition. *No idea how anyone can btw.*


You have just expressed the fundamental difficulty about having a conversation about music. The "no idea how anyone can" part of things.

It's what drives practically every dispute about the merits of current music. (Current for many listeners being that which was written in the past hundred years!!)"

There you have it. The inability to imagine what anyone else could possibly hear in a piece of music. Only what I can hear is audible. Anything else is unimaginable.

And not to single out neoshredder or anything. This notion is a common as air. And it's only worth bringing up in order to try to get rid of it. With a little imagination, you can understand how anyone can listen to anything, including all those things you cannot listen to yourself.

Just think of the pleasure you get out of listening to whatever it is that you enjoy. So, you understand that pleasure, right? Now imagine someone else listening to something else, something you find disgusting, but with the same pleasure you get out of listening to what you do like.

One tiny little adjustment, and we could usher in the new millenium....

Hah! Now we all know my little dream.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I think the question is not the _what_ (pleasure) but the _how_ (in neoshredder's case, how minimalism --> pleasure). This is something that is genuinely unimaginable, and there's nothing wrong with that. We just have to make sure we don't use the limitations of our own experience and imagination as a basis for condemning music we don't enjoy.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I can understand neoshredder's viewpoint. There has to be a balance between predictable and random elements of music. I'm talking about the tastes of most people, not just a few who like things at more extreme ends of that spectrum.

I did this thread below, this is based on psychological research. Anyway, it's old now, and there was a full discussion on that quote I did there in my OP. A lot of members here agreed with the gist of the quote.

I would say the vast majority of classical listeners, even those into more recent musics, would not enjoy sitting through really long works like Satie's Vexations or Morton Feldman's six hour string quartet. That is okay, there is nothing wrong with saying you are part of the majority. I actually don't mind something but there has to be some variation. That's where most people are, although I think I'm more interested in new / newer musics, so that interest/passion is what makes the difference, not the endurance of doing a Feldman or Satie marathon.

Anyway my thread with related issues here -

http://www.talkclassical.com/17622-balancing-predictable-surprising-music.html


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

_Some guy_, hold your horses. Let's not generalise too far here.

Member neoshredder gave a specific example (minimalism subgenre) that he does not prefer to listen to. Similarly, I cannot possibly imagine why folks might like noise music or consider an officer tower construction site in progress as music. Some men find enormously obese women sexually attractive, I cannot possibly imagine why either.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I think it's not the "other", it's kids. When you have a bit of listening under your belt, you have less tolerance for mediocrity. You also gain appreciation for a wider range of music, particularly older music, so it's not like you're limited in what to listen to thankfully. I listened to stuff when I was 25 that I'd have no patience for today. And I know about great music nowthat I hadn't even dreamt of then.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

some guy - the only problem seems to be that you do not want to allow others to be free to like or dislike what they please. You seem to want to dictate to everyone that they must like and respect the old fashioned (after all it has been around over 100 years) avant-guard music. Why not just cheerfully accept that other minds and hearts are free to like or dislike what they will?


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Can I just say that minimalism is given a bad name. Everything tagged with minimalism isn't all repetition and what not. I think it is a bit unfair and I can see why a lot of composers reject the genre tag because it pigeon-holes them in a lot of people's minds to composing in an "Einstein on the Beach" way. That isn't exactly the reality.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Cnote11 said:


> Can I just say that minimalism is given a bad name. Everything tagged with minimalism isn't all repetition and what not. I think it is a bit unfair and I can see why a lot of composers reject the genre tag because it pigeon-holes them in a lot of people's minds to composing in an "Einstein on the Beach" way. That isn't exactly the reality.


When I think of minimalism I always think of Yanni. He must have made a bundle of $ in the 1990's. Obviously, a lot of people liked minimalism. Or at least Yanni's version of it.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Truckload said:


> When I think of minimalism I always think of Yanni. He must have made a bundle of $ in the 1990's. Obviously, a lot of people liked minimalism. Or at least Yanni's version of it.


That's the first time I've ever heard Yanni and minimalism in the same sentence.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Cnote11 said:


> That's the first time I've ever heard Yanni and minimalism in the same sentence.


I am not a Yanni fan, but I did see part of one of the PBS specials of his music, and am pretty sure he was described as a "new age minimalist". See below

http://www.fye.com/Live-at-the-Acropolis-Minimalism_stcVVproductId224121VVcatId501282VVviewprod.htm

Perhaps someone into "New Age" would know for sure.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Truckload said:


> some guy - the only problem seems to be that you do not want to allow others to be free to like or dislike what they please. You seem to want to dictate to everyone that they must like and respect the old fashioned (after all it has been around over 100 years) avant-guard music. Why not just cheerfully accept that other minds and hearts are free to like or dislike what they will?


I don't often agree with or defend some guy, but I think you've got him completely wrong. Some guy's (never-ending) pleas on this forum have been towards more freedom than others here seem to desire - of wanting everyone to recognise _precisely_ that people can like and dislike whatever they want, without people who dislike one kind of music thinking that their dislike is a substantial enough reason for them to condemn it. Some guy is an advocate of a laid-back "live and let live" attitude, whereas others seem to approach these matters of taste with a more confrontational "live and let live, but I'll say what I'd like to die".


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2012)

Again. 

Polednice with a wiser and shorter version of what I just typed, and posted before I'd finished mine.

I feel better already!

Thank you, again, Polednice.:tiphat:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Two other things -



some guy said:


> ...
> It's what drives practically every dispute about the merits of current music...


It does, but I must say that there's many things people don't like from the past. & many still highly controversial things, eg. Wagner.



> ...There you have it. The inability to imagine what anyone else could possibly hear in a piece of music. Only what I can hear is audible. Anything else is unimaginable...


Dunno, I know people personally into classical music, and sometimes we hear different things in the same piece of music. We like discussing it, same as on this forum. Some people will hear different things. Some people will connect more than others. If people have heard a piece of music and they don't like it, I'm fine with that. If they prejudge something, I may come down harder on them. But fact is, nobody is going to make me listen to music I don't like or don't have much chance of liking (eg. Wagner is a biggie there & he's not contemporary by far, correspondingly opera is my least favourite genre, but Wagner is my least liked in that).

So what I'm saying is I like diversity of opinions.

& also, it's okay to value what you value as long as one is not nasty and doesn't get too emotional. Some people value experimental music, some value tradition, some like both. Sometimes I don't know why I connect or don't connect with something. It is also changeable, within certain limits. We all have them, I think, of course we can work to expand them and enjoy more, which is I'd guess why many people are here on this forum?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> ...Some guy's (never-ending) pleas on this forum have been towards more freedom than others here seem to desire...


I can say that about most people here, I'd guess (since I haven't met them) & also that many members here are not as vocal as us who respond to these more non specific/general threads. Eg. about thinking about music, in that it's fine to have freedom, but when someone is asking a specific question, making a thread for certain answers, I find little or no reason to have it derailed by people arguing yet again about pros and cons of new classical music, or asking why the person asked the question in the first place. You can have freedom, so can some guy and anyone else, but so can others to ask what they want here.

I set up many threads about music and ideology, but they die, whereas that's the kind of place for these debates, not if someone is saying in an OP eg. "I want contemporary classical music that's not dissonant" or something like that. I'm tired of this navel gazing. Just get on with it and answer the bloody question. Or if you disagree, go elsewhere to talk ideology.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Polednice said:


> I don't often agree with or defend some guy, but I think you've got him completely wrong. Some guy's (never-ending) pleas on this forum have been towards more freedom than others here seem to desire - of wanting everyone to recognise _precisely_ that people can like and dislike whatever they want, without people who dislike one kind of music thinking that their dislike is a substantial enough reason for them to condemn it. Some guy is an advocate of a laid-back "live and let live" attitude, whereas others seem to approach these matters of taste with a more confrontational "live and let live, but I'll say what I'd like to die".


OK, if you say so. But it sure does seem like whenever someone says they don't like avant-guard music and find no value in it some people seem to get very combative. Wasn't that the point of the OP? If i say I personally don't know why someone would like to listen to Gregorian Chant when they could be using that time listening to R. Straus An Alpine Symphony that is my opinion. It doesnt mean I want to take Gregorian Chant off the shelves or ban it or something. And what good would it do to tell me that I must train my ear to appreciate Gregorian Chant?

So somebody says "Truckload - you must not be critical of Gregorian Chant. You must accept it and value it and treasure it and even if it puts you to sleep you must pretend that it is relevant and the government should spend your tax money to support it." HA!

But if you say that people aren't going to jump all over someone becuase they like A and dislike B, then OK. I believe you.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

That is a truckload of assumptions you just made there. The original post doesn't even say that much.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Truckload said:


> OK, if you say so. But it sure does seem like whenever someone says they don't like avant-guard music and find no value in it some people seem to get very combative. Wasn't that the point of the OP? If i say I personally don't know why someone would like to listen to Gregorian Chant when they could be using that time listening to R. Straus An Alpine Symphony that is my opinion. It doesnt mean I want to take Gregorian Chant off the shelves or ban it or something. And what good would it do to tell me that I must train my ear to appreciate Gregorian Chant?
> 
> So somebody says "Truckload - you must not be critical of Gregorian Chant. You must accept it and value it and treasure it and even if it puts you to sleep you must pretend that it is relevant and the government should spend your tax money to support it." HA!
> 
> But if you say that people aren't going to jump all over someone becuase they like A and dislike B, then OK. I believe you.


I am a lover of many types of music, incl. contemporary classical, and I don't think it's necessary to defend EVERY aspect of this genre or period or whatever - as some fans of it seems to do here. & others also very anti-this kind of music too. It's two extremes, is that way I see it.

Anyway, your analogy with Gregorian chant works for me. Funnily enough, I don't like that too much, but recently have been listening to French organ music, old and new, a lot of it based on Gregorian chant. & I love that organ stuff, not the chant, it's basis, so much. Similar with some innovators of modern/new music, I like the innovator half as much as I like another guy who took his ideas and refined them, bought his own unique take and vision to these exciting innovations.

Nothing wrong with that. But problem is, and I'm getting a bit too bitter here, is that the OP (seems to me) to be asking riddles like Princess Turandot, but if we don't get the right answer, his "right" answer, off with our heads like those guys who didn't "get" her riddles. I'll say no more. There are many agendas here and maybe better not to question them, just discuss the music, but I can't help but be inquisitive.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I will strongly second both of Polednice's posts. some guy is definitely not asking or pushing people to like everything. He is simply asking people not to condemn others' musical choices.



some guy said:


> With a little imagination, you can understand how anyone can listen to anything, including all those things you cannot listen to yourself.
> 
> Just think of the pleasure you get out of listening to whatever it is that you enjoy. So, you understand that pleasure, right? Now imagine someone else listening to something else, something you find disgusting, but with the same pleasure you get out of listening to what you do like.
> 
> One tiny little adjustment, and we could usher in the new millenium....


On the other hand, as Polednice stated, believing _that something is true_ is not the same as _understanding that thing_. It is quite reasonable for people to not understand how others can enjoy music they find intolerable. Understanding probably requires enormously more than "one tiny little adjustment." I may be able to imagine someone getting pleasure from pain, but I would not say I can truly understand it. Obviously I am not equating listening to certain music with pain. I am pointing out the difference in _accepting_ certain facts with _understanding_ them.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

In conclusion, I hope, if you like avant guard music, or any kind of music, or noise for that matter, that is OK with me. Have at it. Live it up. Enjoy what you like. I wont even be offended if you try to convince me to like it. I wont be offended if you think what I like such as Beethoven and Dvorak and Liszt, etc. is completely worthless junk. It doesnt matter to me if you hate what I like.

Just don't try to tell me that I have no right to condemn as worthless garbage what I see as worthless garbage. Because trying to dictate to others what they can and cannot like or dislike is offensive to me.


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2012)

Truckload said:


> But it sure does seem like whenever someone says they don't like avant-guard music and find no value in it some people seem to get very combative.


Yes, it does seem like whenever someone combatively says that avant garde music is valueless, someone who values it defends it. Yes.



Truckload said:


> If i say I personally don't know why someone would like to listen to Gregorian Chant when they could be using that time listening to R. Straus An Alpine Symphony that is my opinion. It doesnt mean I want to take Gregorian Chant off the shelves or ban it or something. And what good would it do to tell me that I must train my ear to appreciate Gregorian Chant?


Either you're being disingenuous here, or you haven't read many posts. There are plenty of anti-modernists who would be glad to take avant garde music off the shelves. Indeed, for my sins, I know some of them personally and have seen them take that music off the shelves, have heard them say that if they were the buyer (for X record store), they wouldn't order any of that avant garde crap.

There's combative for ya!



Truckload said:


> So somebody says "Truckload - you must not be critical of Gregorian Chant. You must accept it and value it and treasure it and even if it puts you to sleep you must pretend that it is relevant and the government should spend your tax money to support it." HA!


 We probably shouldn't get into the tax money thing. The government spends your money in lots of ways that you probably don't like. So let's give that a miss.

Otherwise, this is how _I_ would put it. Note the difference between what you attribute to "somebody" and what this actual somebody says: "Truckload, I would like your criticism of Gregorian chant to come from a knowledge of and experience with Gregorian chant. If it simply bores you, then you probably won't have anything useful to say about it. You must neither value it or treasure it or pretend that it is relevant. But please don't feel you can dismiss it without someone else, who loves it, calling you out."

You are free to slam whatever you want. But if you slam something I like, I will feel free to react.

It's not the liking or disliking I react to, it's the slamming. It seems to me that what many people want is to be able to say whatever they want without anyone calling them on it. If that's what you want, I really don't think you're going to be able to get it.

[Edit: I just read your post that appeared while I was still typing this out.

Here's how you ended your post: "Just don't try to tell me that I have no right to condemn as worthless garbage what I see as worthless garbage. Because trying to dictate to others what they can and cannot like or dislike is offensive to me."

Do you see that I am trying to tell you that condemning things as worthless garbage is offensive to people who do not see it that way? That anyone who disagrees with your assessment is free to tell you so?

No one is trying to dictate what you can and cannot like, as you probably already know. Trying to dictate your tastes is also not at all the same kind of thing as telling you that your condemnations are worthless.

Trying to dictate what I can and cannot react to in your posts doesn't really offend me--I would have to have a lot more respect for you for that to happen!--but I must say that trying to dictate what I can and cannot react to in your posts is pretty futile.]


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I think you're missing the point. Just because you dislike it doesn't mean it is worthless garbage. The point is to understand that your viewpoint is subjective and doesn't necessarily hold any real weight. Also, Dvorak, Beethoven, and Liszt are phenomenal.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I signed up to this forum 2 years ago and recently found it again. Someguy is the reason I started posting again. I find the majority of what he says inspiring and highly rational. I can't help but agree with him on almost everything, especially when it comes to his ideas on opinions and their value. There is this strong belief that people are entitled to their opinion, but that doesn't mean they are valuable opinions in any manner. We should not treat an ignorant opinion the same as we would treat a knowledgeable one. If I happened to like something and someone came along and in pure ignorance started calling it worthless garbage, well then I'd surely point out what lazy thinking that was. It is offensive to see people walking around acting like they don't have to think about anything past a basic level. If someone came along and gave an intelligent critique of it then I will accept their valid points, even if I disagree with the conclusion of their argument. We need to stop promoting lazy thinking and hold people responsible for their opinions.


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2012)

Cnote11 said:


> Someguy is the reason I started posting again.


Wow! How cool is _that_? Thanks, Cnote!


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

some guy - you have things a bit backward here. You are the OP. You are the one trying to silence people. You just admitted it. Only an opinion that YOU deem to come from a "knowledge and experience" that agree with you is welcome. So my intial understanding of what you are after was correct. You want to silence anyone who thinks avant-guard music is worthless. You want people to shut up unless they agree with you. Well it aint gonna happen. You are not going to ever stop people from being critical of avant-guard music.

You are not going to be able to control others minds and free speech. No matter how you phrase it, that is what you want. I am not the one who is asking other people to be silent. You are.

Slam anything you want. Slam at me. That is your right. Trying to silence the critics of music you have chosen to say you like is not going to work. 

You should accept the fact that some people will like what you like and some people will not. Stop trying to control others and live and let live.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I don't think anybody should bother to reply. He's from Georgia! He'll never get it.


----------



## Trout (Apr 11, 2011)

Cnote11 said:


> I don't think anybody should bother to reply. He's from Georgia! He'll never get it.


Coincidentally, also the state Mirror Image was from... and he got banned.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Cnote11 said:


> I think you're missing the point. Just because you dislike it doesn't mean it is worthless garbage. The point is to understand that your viewpoint is subjective and doesn't necessarily hold any real weight. Also, Dvorak, Beethoven, and Liszt are phenomenal.


I think you are missing the point. It doesn't matter if my viewpoint is subjective or objective or right or wrong, or has value or does not have value. Just because you do not agree that with my characterization does not mean that I should be silent, or silenced. If someone says Bach is the greatest composer who ever lived and everything after him is garbage. You and I would not agree. We may even believe that we could make an objective case that the statement is factually wrong. But that does not mean that the person has no right to give their opinion.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Cnote11 said:


> I don't think anybody should bother to reply. He's from Georgia! He'll never get it.


Bigot

(I have to make the message longer to be posted)


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I never said they couldn't voice it, but I honestly would hope they would be ignored and given no consideration. I don't take kindly to the watering down of discourse. I'm pretty sure nobody here is out to get you and your opinion silenced. It is okay. You won't end up with a garbage can full of Bach recordings in your bed in the morning. Stop being such an extremist.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

some guy said:


> It's not the liking or disliking I react to, it's the slamming. It seems to me that what many people want is to be able to say whatever they want without anyone calling them on it. If that's what you want, I really don't think you're going to be able to get it.
> 
> [Edit: I just read your post that appeared while I was still typing this out.
> 
> ...


Great. Let them tell me so. I am not the one trying to silence others.



some guy said:


> No one is trying to dictate what you can and cannot like, as you probably already know. Trying to dictate your tastes is also not at all the same kind of thing as telling you that your condemnations are worthless. .]


Don't you mean worthless "in your opinion"? You need to work on having an internally consistent argument. After all, I have no idea if you have enough knowledge and training to call my opinions worthless.



some guy said:


> Trying to dictate what I can and cannot react to in your posts doesn't really offend me--I would have to have a lot more respect for you for that to happen!--but I must say that trying to dictate what I can and cannot react to in your posts is pretty futile.]


You need to point out to me where I tried to dictate to you what you can and cannot react to. You are attempting to accuse me of the very thing that you yourself were trying to do. The entire point of what I am saying is that anyone, even you, should be free to give whatever opinion you want. Unless you are having some reading comprehension problems, you already know this.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Cnote11 said:


> I don't think anybody should bother to reply. He's from Georgia! He'll never get it.


Now that really is below the belt, imo. You already debated truckload's opinions, good idea to leave it at that. These are just stereotypes. Maybe musicians I have come across who think Stockhausen is not to their taste by far, but have studied him, are ******** as well? I don't think so. Putting people in boxes?

Anyway, I won't go on, I've said what I've said here, & people don't reply. Over and out.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> You are free to slam whatever you want. But if you slam something I like, I will feel free to react.


Ah ha! So that's what this thread is _really_ about! ~ Sigh. Play politely boys & gals. Otherwise the chains and locks will come for a lock down.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Trout said:


> Coincidentally, also the state Mirror Image was from... and he got banned.


What a futile comment!!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I like almost all music, but for almost anything I like someone somewhere insults some of it, and me for listening to it. It seems worst among fans of classical music. It makes me angry, and then sad. Fortunately there is an "ignore" function. 

Recently there was an age-poll on the community forum, and it turns out a very large number of people active here are really young. When you get older, if you stay off the internet, you'll rarely meet anyone who'll blame you for your music.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Some guy is an advocate of a laid-back "live and let live" attitude.


Actually, he's not.

He openly scorns people, such as me, who have sought a prioritized list of recommendations.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Truckload, I think you have once again misinterpreted the point of this thread.

Although some guy would say that the most valuable opinions are those that are based on knowledge and experience, he is not trying to "silence" those who condemn certain music out of ignorance and inexperience. Instead, I think he is advocating a more respectful way of expression. You have every right to say that you find Gregorian chant boring, and some may find it interesting to hear why, but you shouldn't frame that dislike with terms like "worthless garbage". Consider these two statements:

1) I dislike avant-garde music and think it is worthless garbage.
2) I dislike Beethoven and think his music is worthless garbage.

To many people's ears, 2 will be jarring than 1, but if you think that either statement is more rational and acceptable than the other, you're still approaching this whole question of taste in completely the wrong way. These statements are both equally useless and unfounded. If you instead agree that both statements are equal but that they are also valid, then I don't think reasonable conversation is possible.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Now that really is below the belt, imo. You already debated truckload's opinions, good idea to leave it at that. These are just stereotypes. Maybe musicians I have come across who think Stockhausen is not to their taste by far, but have studied him, are ******** as well? I don't think so. Putting people in boxes?
> 
> Anyway, I won't go on, I've said what I've said here, & people don't reply. Over and out.


But Sid, southerners belong in the dust-bin. They truly are worthless garbage.

I hope you get the point of my post now. Sorry for not being explicit enough, Sid.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Polednice said:


> Truckload, I think you have once again misinterpreted the point of this thread.
> 
> Although some guy would say that the most valuable opinions are those that are based on knowledge and experience, he is not trying to "silence" those who condemn certain music out of ignorance and inexperience. Instead, I think he is advocating a more respectful way of expression. You have every right to say that you find Gregorian chant boring, and some may find it interesting to hear why, but you shouldn't frame that dislike with terms like "worthless garbage". Consider these two statements:
> 
> ...


Thank you Polednice for trying to frame your post in a more meaningful light, despite the fact that I disagree with your assertion that I am approaching the question of taste in the wrong way. I do not acknowledge your right to tell me how I should or should not frame my comments. But I appreciate the fact that you are trying to give me what you believe to be good advice and that your motivation is to try to be helpful. I am not so sure about the motives of others.

In any event you have truly touched upon a much bigger issue that is perhaps at the core of this discussion. The elephant in the room, so to speak. That being the difference between a matter of taste and a matter of objective judgment. There seems to be an apparent inability by some, or perhaps a philosophical objection to, making rational value judgments regarding the art of music.

Let us use two extreme examples for the sake of clarity. Most critics would agree that the music of Beethoven embodies so many virtues that his music was objectively better than any of his contemporaries. They can point to his use of form, his innovations, the perfect usage of functional harmony, the individual style and voice that he created and the net uplifting effect of his music upon the human soul. His music elevates, it improves, it transcends generations, nationalities, races, and religions. I could go on but you get the point. Therefor Beethoven was a Great Master, perhaps the greatest. This is not a matter of taste. This is an objectively rational characterization based upon objective analysis.

Now let us consider modern "hip hop, urban, rap" music. I can point to limited use of harmonic variety, the woeful lack of melodic invention, the lack of instrumental variety and timbre, the over reliance upon the element of rhythm to maintain interest, and the content of violent, misogynistic, anti-social, and hateful lyrics. I can also point to the effect of the music upon listeners in supporting and glorifying violent criminal behavior. Therefor this "type" of so-called music is worthless garbage. This is not a matter of taste. This is a rational value judgment based on objective facts regarding the art of music.

Now we could further discuss the role of making rational value judgments in art of music and the value in doing so. And I am sure that in the current debased state of our culture there would be many who see no value in striving to towards ever greater, more noble and more beautiful attainments in the art of music. However, if you see either of the above judgments as useless and unfounded, then as you say, no reasonable conversation about music is possible.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Truckload said:


> Thank you Polednice for trying to frame your post in a more meaningful light, despite the fact that I disagree with your assertion that I am approaching the question of taste in the wrong way. I do not acknowledge your right to tell me how I should or should not frame my comments. But I appreciate the fact that you are trying to give me what you believe to be good advice and that your motivation is to try to be helpful. I am not so sure about the motives of others.
> 
> In any event you have truly touched upon a much bigger issue that is perhaps at the core of this discussion. The elephant in the room, so to speak. That being the difference between a matter of taste and a matter of objective judgment. There seems to be an apparent inability by some, or perhaps a philosophical objection to, making rational value judgments regarding the art of music.
> 
> ...


No, a lot of what you say is "objective fact" is actually just opinion. For instance, is a "instrumental variety" really a virtue? Maybe in your opinion; in someone else's opinion choral music unaccompanied by instruments could be the best best form of music.

And some of what you say is "objective fact" is incorrect. Hip-hop or rap music transcends nationality at least as effectively as Beethoven's music, and if you don't believe that, google K-pop. Or, if we were to agree that transcending nationality is a virtue (I'm not sure of that), we'd next have to see that strong rhythms are far more universal than complex harmonies.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

science - are you serious or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? I never pointed to a lack of international presence as a fault of hip hop music. Reread my post.

Also, Beethoven's ability to write for orchestra, chamber music, solo piano, a mass, etc. is an objectively positive factor in an analysis of his music. 

Being limited to one format is an objectively negative factor. A composer who can only write for solo piano and never wrote anything else can never be considered on the same level as a master like Beethoven. However, if the piano music is good enough they might still be a great composer despite that one failing.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

First of all, let me just state that I don't think anyone is telling anyone else what they "should" or shouldn't do - there's no forcing, no coercing, no silencing, only suggestions of how it is more helpful and congenial to speak to each other.

That said, I agree with science above. There are very few objective facts in art, and none of them regard assessments of worth. Your points about Beethoven are demonstrably true _if and only if_ we begin with the premise that the characteristics you praise him for are good. Many of us would state that those characteristics are good, but it is not necessary to believe that they are and many people don't. _Within_ that framework, Beethoven is praiseworthy, but in some other, equally valid framework, he may not be.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Polednice said:


> First of all, let me just state that I don't think anyone is telling anyone else what they "should" or shouldn't do - there's no forcing, no coercing, no silencing, only suggestions of how it is more helpful and congenial to speak to each other.
> 
> That said, I agree with science above. There are very few objective facts in art, and none of them regard assessments of worth. Your points about Beethoven are demonstrably true _if and only if_ we begin with the premise that the characteristics you praise him for are good. Many of us would state that those characteristics are good, but it is not necessary to believe that they are and many people don't. _Within_ that framework, Beethoven is praiseworthy, but in some other, equally valid framework, he may not be.


Thank you for that very clear reply. I like your posts. You express yourself well.

Sadly, we will never agree in this area of discussion as our paradigms of art are completely different. I am confident that one can make valid objective value judgements about the worth of music or any art. I can confidently assert that the Sistine Chapel is objectively great art. I can confidently assert that the average kindergarten finger painting will end up in the kitchen garbage appropriately. I do not agree that all opinions and all art ar of equal value. There is an objective standard.

But now that we have that out of the way, and we have identified the core of the philosophical difference, we can hopefully move on to enjoying some music.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Truckload said:


> Thank you for that very clear reply. I like your posts. You express yourself well.
> 
> Sadly, we will never agree in this area of discussion as our paradigms of art are completely different. I am confident that one can make valid objective value judgements about the worth of music or any art. I can confidently assert that the Sistine Chapel is objectively great art. I can confidently assert that the average kindergarten finger painting will end up in the kitchen garbage appropriately. I do not agree that all opinions and all art ar of equal value. There is an objective standard.
> 
> But now that we have that out of the way, and we have identified the core of the philosophical difference, we can hopefully move on to enjoying some music.


Actually, I think we can have an enormously interesting discussion. What are the objective measures by which we can evaluate art? We can limit the discussion to music if it's more practical, but that's up to you.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

science - I have started a new thread on The Objective Qualities of Great Music / Composers. I think staying with music, since this a music site is probably more practical.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Sid James said:


> it's fine to have freedom, but when someone is asking a specific question, making a thread for certain answers, I find little or no reason to have it derailed by people arguing yet again about pros and cons of new classical music


If you're asking questions looking for specific answers, there isn't much point asking the question. If you don't really want a variety of answers, just state your conclusions and don't bother to read other people's thoughts.

Intellectual honesty demands tolerance of differing ideas. If those ideas come from a place of knowledge and careful analysis, you are required to respect those different opinions, even if you don't agree with them yourself.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

bigshot said:


> If you're asking questions looking for specific answers, there isn't much point asking the question. If you don't really want a variety of answers, just state your conclusions and don't bother to read other people's thoughts.
> 
> Intellectual honesty demands tolerance of differing ideas. If those ideas come from a place of knowledge and careful analysis, you are required to respect those different opinions, even if you don't agree with them yourself.


I think perhaps you're misinterpreting what Sid meant - unless I've got it wrong, I'm thinking of threads where people ask for recommendations of good examples of certain kinds of music, and someone offers a response that attempts to undermine the very point of asking the question in the first place, which is just useless and impractical.


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2012)

Coupla things.

The whole "dictate" thing is a non-starter, I think. We're online. No one can dictate anything to anyone. It's just not possible.

There are some common rules of discourse. The one forbidding ad hominems is broken the most frequently. And the one about supporting assertions. Mostly, people don't seem to know what ad hominems are. And mostly people want to be able to make assertions without any support. Sometimes you get an assertion "supported" by other assertions, but that hardly counts! (These are not my rules, just by the way. They're just rules. I cannot force you to abide by them (see "non-starter," above).)

And how about that OP?

"Just think of the pleasure you get out of listening to whatever it is that you enjoy. So, you understand that pleasure, right? Now imagine someone else listening to something else, something you find disgusting, but with the same pleasure you get out of listening to what you do like."

Here's my confession. I cannot imagine why some people find that simple act to be difficult if not impossible.


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2012)

Polednice said:


> I think perhaps you're misinterpreting what Sid meant - unless I've got it wrong, I'm thinking of threads where people ask for recommendations of good examples of certain kinds of music, and someone offers a response that attempts to undermine the very point of asking the question in the first place, which is just useless and impractical.


Hmmm. I've done that.

Looks bad, put like this.

I may have to change my ways....

(Though I do think that questioning premises can be useful, can it not?)


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> "Just think of the pleasure you get out of listening to whatever it is that you enjoy. So, you understand that pleasure, right? Now imagine someone else listening to something else, something you find disgusting, but with the same pleasure you get out of listening to what you do like."


I'm not perverted enough to do that.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

some guy said:


> Hmmm. I've done that.
> 
> Looks bad, put like this.
> 
> ...


I think there are appropriate places to question questions, but sometimes people just come online for a little practical advice.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Truckload said:


> When I think of minimalism I always think of Yanni. He must have made a bundle of $ in the 1990's. Obviously, a lot of people liked minimalism. Or at least Yanni's version of it.


If Yanni is part of what you think to call minimalism, then no wonder you can't imagine anyone liking anything else falling under that genre tag. Yanni is not and never was a part of what is thought of as 'minimalist' style in classical music. You might want to look up the basic article in Wikipedia, and examine, at least, the long list of composers in that category, and do a quick survey of some of their music to see how varied one is from the other. This is a forum open to all, but the weight of a comment so completely uninformed as yours should not be expected to Have Any Weight, and it seems you think it should.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

There's nothing I can't listen to, it's just a matter of priorities. Minimalist music is enjoyable, but the enjoyment quantity for me is greater even in Lady Gaga, who I rarely listen to. It's relaxing and calming and clever and I can sense the musical qualities into it; it's not inexplicable at all, I understand the music.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I have no objections. What is with all the Lady Gaga love on here lately though?


----------

