# A Suitable Rant for Discussion



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

"The fundamental fascism of the human soul". Enjoy!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Good stuff & funny. But a lot of what he says rings true with me.

But I don't think 'fascistic' attitude is fundamental. Its basically an attitude those have who are insecure. Or want to put others in boxes. Or are uncomfortable with diversity. Or very hypocritical. Take your pick.

Its the us and them, or divide and conquer attitude. Its about imposing order and control. Well, their versions of it. The pack mentality...and yes, it is dictatorial.

But I only mention it on here always as I am well versed in these histories. & I have known survivors from the worst regimes. & what they where subjected to in reality is with similar tactics as some characters use online. But I'm glad to say most people act with restraint, or don't get too personal.

If you are human, act like it, don't act like an ape (or worse).


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Some people just never stops ranting. They must rant as much as they listen to music if not more.


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2012)

Personally, (or subjectively if you 'prefer'...now, there's a word full of limited possibilities) attitudes to bacon are a fundamental issue. I chose my wife on the grounds that like me, she thinks the smell of frying bacon is superior to its taste, and so we share a bacon-free existence (more or less). The same goes for sausages - even Waberthwaite Cumberland sausage.

We only fall out over our taste in rhubarb...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^The bacon thing is spot on. In relation to music, some people have such an entrenched ideological position that its become like a religion to them. Problem is, what of people who are not part of their 'religion?' Its especially the case (it seems online) with fans of a particular composer (as the person below, who was indirectly talking to me but literally wasn't - a favoured tactic of this composers idolators, it seems!). Ha ha.

But I must make it clear I worship that writer guy mentioned by the guy in the clip, I think its Waugh. But no, I like Mark Waugh the Aussie cricketer. He's my idol. Not some highbrow writer. To like both is impossible and against my religion.



Rapide said:


> Some people just never stops ranting. They must rant as much as they listen to music if not more.


Its bought on by negativity. But don't worry. I am now being proactive. I'm putting people who make me angry on my ignore list. & focus on talking about the music. Problem solved! Me hopes...


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

1. Food consumption is non-overlapping while music is, often completely i.e. which song to play on the record, which concert to go to. Since art is communal even things which are solitary e.g. novel reading are really overlapping.

2. There are no status hierarchies formed around taste in food.

3. Extreme physical reactions to certain food by certain people e.g. death by peanut butter means that people are more inclined to accept obfuscating or tautological explanations i.e. "it's biological". This is the most basic non-explanation there is. If you're a materialist, intrinsic taste in anything is biological.

3b. Yeah there are social taboos on certain types of food, culture, religion, etc, but there are still differences in taste w/r/t to things that are 100% kosher. Social taboos can't explain that.

3c. The biological explanation is easier to accept also because the same food particle tastes different depending on how hungry/thirsty you are. Of course similarities to art includes over-consumption e.g. getting tired of whatever food/song/album/genre.

3d. Most materialists don't think through the ultimate consequences of materialism.

3e. There's no satisfactory answer as to why human beings like music at all from an evolutionary/biological standpoint. There are speculations but they are all bad/contradictory.

4. Because of these reasons it's almost never brought up so people don't think about it. People think about what they read about, hear about, etc. Most people even forget important things e.g. the divorce rate stratified by class/financial divorce theft because it's never brought up in the media. Kony 2012. No one cared before, no one will care after. Definition of fad.

5. Within the same social circles different taste in music signifies different values and aesthetic judgments are inextricably tied with value judgments.

6. Food isn't transcendental. (Then again, materialist means that nothing is transcendental but see 3d.)

7. People aren't comfortable with art = subjective taste because that downgrades art into the same category of food - a hollow, meaningless biological function. The origins of "taste in music", etc must stem from be derivative of taste in food, and not the other way around.

8. People with good taste in art are generally higher up in the universally agreed upon dimensions of well being.

9. Suppose a superior entity from a galaxy far far away appears and has a set categories that grades music by various marks of merit (make up whatever: beauty of melody, sublimity of melody, perfection of sonata form, timbre, color, historical influence, etc, etc, all the possible criteria for evaluation of music), of which adds up to a score out of 10,000,000. He grades all the important pieces of music throughout history. He proves his knowledge of the objective value of those pieces by composing the greatest pieces heretofore known in all these categories, art _*and pop*_: opera, music drama, concerto, all the major solo instruments, lieder, and rock, post rock, blue grass, jazz, dubstep, chillwave, metal,_ etc etc etc,_ and manages to seduce the various communities that dwells with those categoreis of music, all of whom proclaim him the greatest composer ever. He then leaves and takes all of his scores and erases the memory of those performances from our mind, but not the memory of our reactions to the music. What is remembered is that this entity visited earth, graded the music there, has unshakable authority, and that the scores remain. He doesn't tell us the criterion of good music since that would be the secret to musical composition, into which only the greatest musical geniuses are allowed incomplete glimpses. only the scores, sum and along various dimensions.

What would that change? Would taste no longer be subjective, or is it just that entity's taste?

9a. TIME MACHINE and a group of rogue musicologists brings Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner, Brahms, Schubert, Liszt, etc. They confer among themselves. They make a list similar to the one proposed above. Would their list have any merit?


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

Rapide said:


> Some people just never stops ranting. They must rant as much as they listen to music if not more.


People will rant about anything, like whether the milk goes in first or last when making a cup of tea. Maybe that's a British thing though...


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

BRIANWALKER.

I thought that was a jolly good rant!!


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> 2. There are no status hierarchies formed around taste in food.


Really? You're _obviously_ not a foodie! Also, there is a world of difference between the perception of someone who shops in Marks and Spencers and someone who will eat budget tier baked beans from Lidl. What about the humble hamburger? There are lots of social assumptions concerning food. Lets not even start discussing taste in wine and spirits.....

Of course, I am luckily enough to have extremely good taste in music, food and wine....


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

I don't think bacon as such was banned just meat from the piggies which includes bacon.  Side note I read somewhere it's possible piggy flesh was banned because pig meat is supposed to taste the most like human.

I don't like bacon, I like rhubarb and enjoy *Evelyn Waugh*. :tiphat:​


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> 1. Food consumption is non-overlapping while music is, often completely i.e. which song to play on the record, which concert to go to. Since art is communal even things which are solitary e.g. novel reading are really overlapping.


Not to be contrary, but food is a very communal thing. Even from the PoV of human evolution, we were not lone hunters. Mealtime is family time, bonding time. The work canteen is where people get together. There is food at family/social gatherings of all kinds. Christmas parties, weddings, even funerals. We even have specific food for specific times of year so, in that regard, the behaviour of society an culture is even shaped by tastes in food. Food being an overlapping experience is even more entrenched in Mediterranean cultures. I remember watching a documentary not long ago where the chef Rick Stein explored the link between food and opera. The Italians he spoke to said that they such a link as obvious, the best explanation being that both opera and love of good food were luxuries contrary to a strictly Catholic culture.



> 3. Extreme physical reactions to certain food by certain people e.g. death by peanut butter means that people are more inclined to accept obfuscating or tautological explanations i.e. "it's biological". This is the most basic non-explanation there is. If you're a materialist, intrinsic taste in anything is biological.


I don't quite understand your use of the term 'materialist' here.

Personally, there isn't really any food that I dislike. I used to not like one or two things, but just grew out of that. There are also a lot of people that have food dislikes mainly because they are just awkward and never grew out of being a fussy child. A few dislikes are 'normal', whatever that means, but I can't abide fussy eaters.

My tastes in music are similar. I am willing to try just about anything and tend to see merit in anything. I have preferences, of course, but very few (if any) strong dislikes.



> There's no satisfactory answer as to why human beings like music at all from an evolutionary/biological standpoint. There are speculations but they are all bad/contradictory.


Surely there are several obvious functions that music fulfills, both from an evolutionary and social standpoint?



> 5. Within the same social circles different taste in music signifies different values and aesthetic judgments are inextricably tied with value judgments.


Also true with taste in food, as I mention above. 



> 6. Food isn't transcendental. (Then again, materialist means that nothing is transcendental but see 3d.)


How do you mean transcendental? Food can be ritualistic. Food (and drink) can be more than its substance alone. With music, you can listen or hear. With food, you can eat or taste.


> 7. People aren't comfortable with art = subjective taste because that downgrades art into the same category of *food - a hollow, meaningless biological function*. The origins of "taste in music", etc must stem from be derivative of taste in food, and not the other way around.


You obviously don't cook! :O



> 8. People with good taste in art are generally higher up in the universally agreed upon dimensions of well being.


Oh my, not even going to touch this one. 


> 9. Suppose a superior entity from a galaxy far far away appears and has a set categories that grades music by various marks of merit (make up whatever: beauty of melody, sublimity of melody, perfection of sonata form, timbre, color, historical influence, etc, etc, all the possible criteria for evaluation of music), of which adds up to a score out of 10,000,000. He grades all the important pieces of music throughout history. He proves his knowledge of the objective value of those pieces by composing the greatest pieces heretofore known in all these categories, art _*and pop*_: opera, music drama, concerto, all the major solo instruments, lieder, and rock, post rock, blue grass, jazz, dubstep, chillwave, metal,_ etc etc etc,_ and manages to seduce the various communities that dwells with those categoreis of music, all of whom proclaim him the greatest composer ever. He then leaves and takes all of his scores and erases the memory of those performances from our mind, but not the memory of our reactions to the music. What is remembered is that this entity visited earth, graded the music there, has unshakable authority, and that the scores remain. He doesn't tell us the criterion of good music since that would be the secret to musical composition, into which only the greatest musical geniuses are allowed incomplete glimpses. only the scores, sum and along various dimensions.
> 
> What would that change? Would taste no longer be subjective, or is it just that entity's taste?


This presupposes that there is an objective viewpoint that is set in stone for all time. There is, IMO, no 'universal rule', nor can there ever be. Subjectivity, I think, only means 'subject to context'.



> 9a. TIME MACHINE and a group of rogue musicologists brings Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner, Brahms, Schubert, Liszt, etc. They confer among themselves. They make a list similar to the one proposed above. Would their list have any merit?


This is a thought experiment with WAAAY too many assumptions, but also illustrates what I say about context and subjectivity. The later composers would have the benefit of hindsight, the earlier ones probably not fully able to comprehend or approve of later innovations. Each composer probably praised some of their peers, refuted the innovations of their successors, and did things in their own style because that is the way they saw as being best. If you then say that we should give them extensive knowledge of the musical developments of later years, you are then inventing personalities with knowledge that are entirely fictitious, thus rendering the experiment useless.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> ...
> 8. People with good taste in art are generally higher up in the universally agreed upon dimensions of well being.
> 
> ...


You've simply got to be kidding there. I mean some of the worst genocidal maniacs had "good taste" in music and other things. But I would not even call them human, they have no right to be called that. So called "good taste" is not better, its simply a thing of and in itself. Its just "good taste," full stop.

Actually, some of the people on this forum who I consider bullies have very "good taste." But if they use it for control or to belittle others, what's good in that?

But this is just as absurd as that guy's 'rant' on the youtube clip. I've come to the conclusion that so much writing on music and the other arts is just self serving and narcissistic gobledigook. Just as stupid as mentioning bacon and Evelyn Waugh in the same sentence. An acquaintance of mine who worked in the arts industry says most things written about art is is "bullsh**." I would not go that far but I think its largely true, sadly.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Sid James said:


> You've simply got to be kidding there. I mean some of the worst genocidal maniacs had "good taste" in music and other things. But I would not even call them human, they have no right to be called that. So called "good taste" is not better, its simply a thing of and in itself. Its just "good taste," full stop.
> 
> Actually, some of the people on this forum who I consider bullies have very "good taste." But if they use it for control or to belittle others, what's good in that?
> 
> But this is just as absurd as that guy's 'rant' on the youtube clip. I've come to the conclusion that so much writing on music and the other arts is just self serving and narcissistic gobledigook. Just as stupid as mentioning bacon and Evelyn Waugh in the same sentence. An acquaintance of mine who worked in the arts industry says most things written about art is is "bullsh**." I would not go that far but I think its largely true, sadly.


Generally, my friend, generally.

Take a random sample of Mozartians and the median and mean person is almost certainly a well educated, well spoken, civil and decent upper middle class gentleman.

Take a random sample of Mozart haters and and median and mean person is in all likelihood a criminal.  Note that "random sample" means random sample of a cross section of society and not an internet forum.

There's a reason even people who hate classical music consider it high status. There's a reason that metalheads want to associate metal with classical music and falsely conflate the two by enumerating superficial similarities--they're really superficial contrasts that both share in relation to pop-pop music e.g. both are not played on pop stations, both never enter the top 40 charts, etc--and it's not because classical music is more beautiful or sublime.



> genocidal maniacs


Well being isn't the identical with morality. Stalin lived a luxuriant life. He was well off.



> But I would not even call them human, they have no right to be called that.


The reptile whose favorite piece of music was Mozart's 20th Piano Concerto lived one helluva life though.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> Well being isn't the identical with morality. Stalin lived a luxuriant life. He was well off.


Stalin had "good taste"? Not sure I agree with that one, given the supression of the arts under his regime.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> Generally, my friend, generally.
> 
> Take a random sample of Mozartians and the median and mean person is almost certainly a well educated, well spoken, civil and decent upper middle class gentleman.
> 
> Take a random sample of Mozart haters and and median and mean person is in all likelihood a criminal.  Note that "random sample" means random sample of a cross section of society and not an internet forum.


Yes, but its those "upper class gentlemen" (so called) who direct the thugs below them to do their dirty work. Do you know the histories of Hitler and Stalin, or others of the sort? Hitler did not physically take part in carrying out genocide, he just had his thugs do it for him. I don't think they listened to Mozart or Wagner or whatever, and he did, but the issue is that those on top made war criminals of those lower down the 'food chain.' But animals like Dr. Mengele where highly educated, and he was on the ground at Auschwitz, doing experiments and being the chief selector, sending millions to their deaths.

There is a school of thought that both Nazism and Stalinism where distortions of Enlightenment thinking. Progress through science and moving away from the 'irrational.' Well, I don't think that Stalin's purges or Hitler's Holocaust where rational events, but the total opposite. But you can rationalise or legitimise virtually anything and make it look good with dodgy philosophy and weasal words. Its the same today, unfortunately.

But the fact is that many people see classical music to be as appetising as plain boiled vegetables. Eg. good for you but not very appetising or appealing at all. That's the reason why authorities play it to discourage teenage loiterers (but here, they've played Sinatra and Manilow, but if people don't like that, they have "good taste" because that's lowbrow crooner rubbish, of course, but if they run away from Mozart, they're automatically philistines).

Having studied history, and been on the rough end of the stick of people of various types, it boils down to attitude, not "good taste." I'm beginning to be quite bitter about classical music, tbh. Its been manipulated in so many ways over the centuries, for various agendas. & often, they lead to death. The irony is that most composers are outsiders, and basically good (or at least ordinary) people.

Dunno what's the point of this rant, other than to say I'm looking with a critical eye on all this, and its not bringing me much joy. But anyway, maybe I'm thinking too much. Gotta get out and smell the roses. Its as simple as that.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Sid James said:


> ... I'm beginning to be quite bitter about classical music, tbh. Its been manipulated in so many ways over the centuries, for various agendas. & often, they lead to death. ....


But that has nothing to do with the music itself, which continues to please. Does your perception (and it is indeed perception), suggest that classical music are instruments of death?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> But that has nothing to do with the music itself, which continues to please. Does your perception (and it is indeed perception), suggest that classical music are instruments of death?


Well, fact is that if people don't know (or care) about the histories behind various pieces of music, of course it seems I'm out in the cold on this forum. I did that poll, which established that most people here take a formalist type view of music. So of course they are not interested in things like J. Strauss II's _Radetzky March _being dedicated to a genocidal maniac, who was instrumental in oppressing and bringing into line various parts of the Hapsburg Empire (notably Czech and Hungary, but the Italians saw him as a plus, probably due to the usual 'divide and conquer' tactics these murderers liked to play out in reality).

Today classical music is less an instrument of death, rather its just another tool for propaganda and the spin doctors. I remember an episode of _Yes Minister _where the minister was making an announcement and selecting background music. His advisor, the oily Sir Humphrey Appleby, told him to use modern music if it was a conservative decision he was making, or to use old style music if it was a radical or daring decision. The point of that was that you'd give a mixed message to people. The music would tone down and cancel out the thinking and agendas behind those decisions.

But of course non-classical is used as such too. Maybe knowing less is better. But the more I find out about these things, classical music especially takes on quite a sinister glow, quite the opposite of the things brainwalker was bringing up. I don't think classical music makes listeners of it into better people than listeners of other types of music. If that where true, how could such cultivated nations like Germany descend to the point they got to. Its a myth that its superior music, or will automatically have some good effect. Basically, "good" or refined taste does not necessarily lead to corresponding actions. It can lead to the opposite. So I think what's the point of all this? Is it just ear candy, nothing much else. Extreme formalist type views, separating the music from its history and context, certainly suggest that to me sometimes.

I was going to make a thread on this, 'the music of oppression,' and another member privately suggested I do this. But it has not transpired, mainly because such extreme formalists, like some guy and stlukes and rapide, these members would immediately jump on such a thread and pull me down with their online version of Stalinism. Thanks but no thanks to that. Can't even speak what's on my mind here. Its very sad.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

crmoorhead said:


> Stalin had "good taste"? Not sure I agree with that one, given the supression of the arts under his regime.


Whether Stalin has "good taste" or not depends entirely on your views of what he suppressed and did not suppress. Myself, I suspect he did Shostakovich a favor...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

KenOC said:


> Whether Stalin has "good taste" or not depends entirely on your views of what he suppressed and did not suppress. Myself, I suspect he did Shostakovich a favor...


My point is that "good taste" does not save someone from being a Stalin or a Hitler. So its like a red herring, its meaningless in terms of many things in 'real life.' But who cares? Nobody cares about these issues any more. Nobody even cares about more recents things like this, like the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Its all ancient history. Let's go back to just playing with our iphones. That's so much more fun and cool.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Sid James said:


> My point is that "good taste" does not save someone from being a Stalin or a Hitler. So its like a red herring, its meaningless in terms of many things in 'real life.' But who cares? Nobody cares about these issues any more. Nobody even cares about more recents things like this, like the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Its all ancient history. Let's go back to just playing with our iphones. That's so much more fun and cool.


I think that's abslutely correct. "Good taste" has little to do with morality, just as "charisma" or "leadership" have nothing to do with wise policies. As for the rest, yes...sad but evidently true.

But history is mostly a chronicle of injustices. How far back should we go in deciding what to feel lousy about every day?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm considering a theory that personality almost determines both political views and musical taste. I suppose that there is something we could call a fascistic personality - very highly conscientious, very low tolerance for ambiguity or novelty, very low agreeableness. I suppose that certain music is well suited to the fascistic personality: highly traditional, rhythmically predictable, affirming (or at least not questioning or mocking) values like loyalty, tradition, obedience, belongingness. (There might be better terms. "Fascistic" unfortunately and probably inevitably implies something really evil. Would "authoritarian" be better? Or perhaps just "ultra-conservative?" Anyway, I don't know how we can entirely avoid uncomfortable terminology in this case and I'll defer to the OP's term.) 

There must be a near opposite - an anarchist personality: not conscientious, enthusiastic about ambiguity and novelty, and also very low agreeableness. Music suited to this personality would be radically creative, surprising in as many ways as possible, and implicitly or or explicitly the values of cherished by the fascistic personality would be derided, while values like individuality and nonconformity would be exalted. 

I'd guess that only a tiny minority of people (here or anywhere) fit comfortably into those two stereotypes, but the extremes are easier to describe. And if we put a little thought into it we could probably describe a lot of other personality types and their music. 

Now If the theory is right... we all recognize this pattern: perhaps semi- or even completely subconsciously, but on some level we all know this, and we like music that reflects our personalities, and we publicly endorse music that reflects the personality we want to project to each other. 

I personally lean more toward the anarchist: I love novelty and ambiguity, I'm much less conscientious than the average person (at least in many ways), but I'm much too agreeable (and maybe just a touch too stable) to make a good anarchist. So my musical tastes are virtually boundless: I can enjoy almost anything, up to and including absolutely the craziest stuff I've ever heard, and the music that I enjoy most tends toward the "strange," but provided that there is at least a bit of complexity or virtuosity I can happily enjoy music that is not (or no longer) radical at all. I think I would like any music that could be called "intelligent," almost no matter what else it could be called. 

Analyzing that, you could conclude that I choose my music in order to (try to) project intelligence, openness, and agreeableness. I of course am not conscious of having decided to enjoy Bartók or Crumb or Dufay or Enescu for those reasons - but they may be my actual reasons all the same. 

The real content of my post is over, but I want to emphasize that the political descriptions are in this context not meant to endorse or deride any political world view, or to prompt any discussions about politics. Of course "fascist" and "anarchist" are provocative terms, but they are also actual world views embraced by real people and useful labels for at least some of those people and perhaps some others who do not embrace the terms. If we were to consider the merits of those views, I'd actually argue that the key to a healthy society is having a good balance of novelty-seekers and of tradition-preservers: one tendency helps us work out beneficial trade agreements and discover better ways of doing things, the other ensures our society's continued existence not only by preserving our traditions but by being alert to threats and vigilant in our defense. The key is to have the right sorts of people responsible for the right sorts of things. So in discussing at this level of abstraction the personalities and traits behind such views, I do not intend to provoke any discussion of the relative merits of the views themselves, and even less of the relative merits of such views in any particular policy issue. The intended focus of my post has been to describe hypothetical personality types, and to propose a possible relationship between those personality types and taste in music. If not for the OP I might have opted to avoid the extreme labels anyway. And with this I hope I have persuaded everyone it may concern that the content this post is politically vacuous, innocuous, and very safely within the limits of the site's terms of service. Of course I believe it is, but I need everyone else to agree with me about that! If something in it is actually offensive, that was not my intent, and I welcome any editing that might be necessary, even to the point of deleting the whole post, only in any case whatsoever please consider that my intent has been to enjoy and promote the discussion with some harmless speculation, not to provoke or troll or anything like that.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

science said:


> I'm considering a theory that personality almost determines both political views and musical taste. I suppose that there is something we could call a fascistic personality - very highly conscientious, very low tolerance for ambiguity or novelty, very low agreeableness. I suppose that certain music is well suited to the fascistic personality: highly traditional, rhythmically predictable, affirming (or at least not questioning or mocking) values like loyalty, tradition, obedience, belongingness. (There might be better terms. "Fascistic" unfortunately and probably inevitably implies something really evil. Would "authoritarian" be better? Or perhaps just "ultra-conservative?" Anyway, I don't know how we can entirely avoid uncomfortable terminology in this case and I'll defer to the OP's term.)
> 
> There must be a near opposite - an anarchist personality: not conscientious, enthusiastic about ambiguity and novelty, and also very low agreeableness. Music suited to this personality would be radically creative, surprising in as many ways as possible, and implicitly or or explicitly the values of cherished by the fascistic personality would be derided, while values like individuality and nonconformity would be exalted.
> 
> ...


I stopped reading after the first three paragraphs. Can you kindly provide examples by way of real members here at TC who might fit your pyschological analysis from paragraphs one and two?


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

I counter the OP with this video:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I stopped reading after the first three paragraphs. Can you kindly provide examples by way of real members here at TC who might fit your pyschological analysis from paragraphs one and two?


No, I think some people would take offense to that because the terms are too "loaded" right now. Even if it'd be ok with the members themselves, I don't want to risk getting in trouble.

And anyway, even if the terms were more value-neutral, people often object to being described as types. So I would probably avoid "naming names" even then.

So I used myself as an example of an anarchist-ish personality.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

Then make separate poles, or find any that have been done that fit your hypothesis, and try to apply the results.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

crmoorhead said:


> Of course, I am luckily enough to have extremely good taste in music, food and wine....


I can vouch for the quality of your taste to the degree that I share it.

Ah, ah, I do like the air up here.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Chrythes said:


> Then make separate poles, or find any that have been done that fit your hypothesis, and try to apply the results.


I'm sorry, is this a response to me? It sort of appears to be, but I don't understand what you mean.


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2012)

science said:


> I'm *considering *a theory


 (my bold)

Well that's a mistake for a start!  Surely you know that musings are to be taken as fully fledged arguments. Even in the opera v orchestral thread, anyone suggesting a _preference _runs the risk that they will be wilfully misinterpreted as asserting the superiority of one over the other, when what, in fact, may be the case, is that a poster is merely thinking aloud.

I like the theory. But I'm not convinced it holds water, if only because there are people I know who share my musical taste, but not my values or habits. Such typing runs the risk of over-simplifying who people are, what they stand for, and why they like the music they do. What is it about Satie that appeals? His oddity? His novelty? His reaction against Romanticism? Or is it that his pieces are short and easily digestible, appealing to those with limited staying power or intellect?

You might need a slightly more sophisticated theory, which allows both conservatives and radicals to like the same music but for different reasons.

There...a few inchoate thoughts, not a complete hypothesis!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

science said:


> No, I think some people would take offense to that because the terms are too "loaded" right now. Even if it'd be ok with the members themselves, I don't want to risk getting in trouble.
> 
> And anyway, even if the terms were more value-neutral, people often object to being described as types. So I would probably avoid "naming names" even then.
> 
> So I used myself as an example of an anarchist-ish personality.


So what use is the "theory" you are proposing if you cannot even validate with "empricial evidence" by way of referring to real life examples you and I can discuss (i.e. by referring to TC members)? Either that or you could base your "evidence" using other people, say conudctors, musicians the like we recognise. How about that?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I stopped reading after the first three paragraphs. Can you kindly provide examples by way of real members here at TC who might fit your pyschological analysis from paragraphs one and two?


I've already provided examples of what science is talking about, three members I named on this thread in an earlier post. Fact is that these people use the same tactics as the worst regimes. Call it Nazism, or Stalinism, or minority (white) rule in Apartheid South AFrica over the majority blacks. I've studied these histories, and also known people who survived them. I know the tactics inside out.

Quite frankly, this minority on this forum has won. They have censored by stealth discusssions I was meaning to put up but chose not to because of their dictatorial ways. I am disgusted by their behaviour, and there have been numerous occassions where they clearly stepped over the line in their replies to me, and many other members. But usually, they get carte blanche. Something is fishy here. ARe they big donors, maybe, to this forum? I haven't even bothered to report their behaviour in most cases, cos the mods do NOTHING.

So it continues. But as I said, these bullies, they've won. They have censored my thoughts like in Orwell's 1984 (which you are by the way paraphrasing in your footer). All people are equal but some are more equal than others. Sums up how this forum is run. Its just not good enough, but nobody gives a damn. & what do I get for putting my backside on the line and speaking openly about this? More enemies. So my participation on this forum is like now largely over. Its not a joy anymore. It makes me angry and bitter.



Sid James said:


> ...
> 
> I was going to make a thread on this, 'the music of oppression,' and another member privately suggested I do this. But it has not transpired, mainly because such extreme formalists, like *some guy and stlukes and rapide,* these members would immediately jump on such a thread and pull me down with *their online version of Stalinism.* Thanks but no thanks to that. Can't even speak what's on my mind here. Its very sad.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

It is spring season here in Sydney. Tomorrow's forecast is a very warm 31 degrees Celsius. Go outside and smell the spring blossom. Take a deep breath. Hyde Park is looking very fine this time of the year.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> But that has nothing to do with the music itself, which continues to please. Does your perception (and it is indeed perception), suggest that classical music are instruments of death?


Some of it could be from my experience of hearing certain composers. At least I felt like jumping off the bridge afterward.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Sid James said:


> I've already provided examples of what science is talking about, three members I named on this thread in an earlier post. Fact is that these people use the same tactics as the worst regimes. Call it Nazism, or Stalinism, or minority (white) rule in Apartheid South AFrica over the majority blacks. I've studied these histories, and also known people who survived them. I know the tactics inside out.
> 
> Quite frankly, this minority on this forum has won. They have censored by stealth discusssions I was meaning to put up but chose not to because of their dictatorial ways. I am disgusted by their behaviour, and there have been numerous occassions where they clearly stepped over the line in their replies to me, and many other members. But usually, they get carte blanche. Something is fishy here. ARe they big donors, maybe, to this forum? I haven't even bothered to report their behaviour in most cases, cos the mods do NOTHING.
> 
> So it continues. But as I said, these bullies, they've won. They have censored my thoughts like in Orwell's 1984 (which you are by the way paraphrasing in your footer). All people are equal but some are more equal than others. Sums up how this forum is run. Its just not good enough, but nobody gives a damn. & what do I get for putting my backside on the line and speaking openly about this? More enemies. So my participation on this forum is like now largely over. Its not a joy anymore. It makes me angry and bitter.


Take it easy Sid for heavens sake!!


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

@science - I would quote your post but it is a bit long

I have been thinking along similar lines that music is a reflection of personality, although I haven't got as far as you have in thinking it through.

Being of a somewhat authoritarian personality I would tend towards your 'fascist' description. On the other hand, I tend to rebel against the societies I find myself actually in so it isn't quite such a simple equation. The establishment is a concept I like, but most establishments in my society I don't support.

I don't know that my political views explain my taste, except to support that I like Classical music in general, personality being too complex to be able to read easily and then say "I like Haydn and Beethoven" without obviously picking certain traits which are in line with my tastes.

However, there are one or two things which do strike me. I am a very negative person, and this seems to me to support why I like Haydn and Beethoven - because the optimism and strength of the music of these composers holds a positivity which I would like to have.

Anyway, I think it is too hard to analyze well - what's more personality isn't fixed anyway.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

crmoorhead said:


> Really? You're _obviously_ not a foodie! Also, there is a world of difference between the perception of someone who shops in Marks and Spencers and someone who will eat budget tier baked beans from Lidl. What about the humble hamburger? There are lots of social assumptions concerning food. Lets not even start discussing taste in wine and spirits.....
> 
> Of course, I am luckily enough to have extremely good taste in music, food and wine....


The quantity and magnitude of the _*social *_status hierarchies revolving around music dwarfs that around food a million to one. Hierarchies of food consumption are almost directly proportional to economic class inasmuch as food is more scarce and quality food cannot be mass produced like quality music.

Supermodels don't marry top chefs, they marry rock stars.



crmoorhead said:


> Not to be contrary, but food is a very communal thing. Even from the PoV of human evolution, we were not lone hunters. Mealtime is family time, bonding time. The work canteen is where people get together. There is food at family/social gatherings of all kinds. Christmas parties, weddings, even funerals. We even have specific food for specific times of year so, in that regard, the behaviour of society an culture is even shaped by tastes in food. Food being an overlapping experience is even more entrenched in Mediterranean cultures. I remember watching a documentary not long ago where the chef Rick Stein explored the link between food and opera. The Italians he spoke to said that they such a link as obvious, the best explanation being that both opera and love of good food were luxuries contrary to a strictly Catholic culture.


Food is non-overlapping most of the time because although it is scarce, consumption is personal i.e. at a restaurant if I order X it does not infringe on your ability to order and consume Y. Consumption of music is overlapping; there are a finite number of works that can be performed at a given menu, and it cannot be personalized on an individual level.



> I don't quite understand your use of the term 'materialist' here.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
http://www.talkclassical.com/18097-possiblity-neuroscientific-universal-music.html



> Surely there are several obvious functions that music fulfills, both from an evolutionary and social standpoint?


Of course, anything could conceivably have an evolutionary function, but whether that explanation is satisfactory or even plausibly valid is another thing. See:

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/09/17/120917crbo_books_gottlieb
http://www.thenation.com/article/adaptation-literary-darwinism
http://www.bryanappleyard.com/wagner-madness/
http://www.talkclassical.com/18097-possiblity-neuroscientific-universal-music.html



> Also true with taste in food, as I mention above.


The ratio of the magnitudes is somewhere around a million to one.



> How do you mean transcendental? Food can be ritualistic. Food (and drink) can be more than its substance alone. With music, you can listen or hear. With food, you can eat or taste.


Transcendental in the loftiest sense of the term.

http://mahler.universaledition.com/lorin-maazel-on-mahler/



> Maybe the Mahler renaissance has to do with the way he expresses the feelings of modern human beings?
> 
> Maazel: Well maybe, and also the musical language that he found is, in a sense, timeless - I hate to use that word, I swore I would never use it, but there it is - very much like Beethoven or Bach, and to a lesser degree Mozart. Mozart is always incredible, fantastic, genius, but you can still see the wig, the clothes, the livery and buckles, and so on and so forth, whereas these spaces in Bach preludes are just cosmic. They just go on and on as if they're not connected with any culture. And also Beethoven, especially in his last string quartets, is also cosmic, and a lot of Mahler's music is of that nature. When talking about cosmic music, one should also not forget Anton Bruckner, who is not always referred to as a visionary. I consider him a visionary, because of these spaces. If you listen to his music as I do when I'm conducting - I rehearsed his Symphony No. 3 again today - it's astonishing. You hear wonderful, cosmic sounds; very modern, very far ahead of his time. I think he's very underestimated by folks who, because of the power and originality of Mahler, and his modern feel, tend to categorise Anton Bruckner as being post-romantic, maybe visionary, and certainly Mahler liked it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._9_(Mahler)#Views_on_and_quotes_about_the_Symphony



> You obviously don't cook! :O


Even the most ardent foodie will not argue that at the *very bottom* of food consumption there is something of world historical significance or that food is essentially something different, something more than a biological function. Decent music has a spiritual dimension lacking even in the greatest cuisine.

Mozart makes you believe in God because it cannot be by chance that such a phenomenon arrives into this world and leaves such an unbounded number of unparalleled masterpieces. - Solti. 

No one has ever made or will ever make such a statement about a chef.



> HERE and there in this book, alluding to James Huneker's droll warning to "small-souled men" quoted in Chapter 1, I have somewhat light-heartedly referred to the number of "hunekers" comprising various human souls, but I have never been specific about the kinds of traits a highhuneker or low-huneker soul would tend to exhibit. Indeed, any hint at such a distinction risks becoming inflammatory, because in our culture there is a dogma that states, roughly, that all human lives are worth exactly the same amount. And yet we violate that dogma routinely. The most obvious case is that of a declared war, where as a society we officially slip into an alternate collective mode in which the value of the lives of a huge subset of humanity is suddenly reduced to zero. I needn't spell this out because it is so blatant. Another clear violation of our dogma is capital punishment, where society collectively chooses to terminate a human life. Basically, society has judged that a certain soul merits no respect at all. Short of capital punishment, there is incarceration, where society treats people with many different levels of dignity or lack thereof, implicitly showing different levels of respect for different-sized souls. Consider also the phenomenal differences in the measures taken by physicians in attempting to save lives. A head of state (or the head of any large corporation) who has a heart attack will receive far better care than a random citizen, not to mention an illegal alien. Why do I see such unequal treatments by society as tacit distinctions between the values of souls? Because I think that wittingly or unwittingly, we all equate the size of a living being's soul with the "objective" value of that being's life, which is to say, the degree of respect that we outsiders pay to that being's interiority. And we certainly do not place equal values on all beings' lives! We don't hesitate for a moment to draw a huge distinction between the values of a human life and an animal life, and between the values of the lives of different "levels" of animals. Thus most humans willingly participate, directly or
> 
> indirectly, in the killing of animals of many different species and the eating of their flesh (sometimes even mixing together fragments of the bodies of pigs, cows, and lambs in a single dish). We also nonchalantly feed our pets with pieces of the bodies of animals we have killed. Such actions establish in our minds, obviously, a hierarchy within the realm of animal souls (unless someone were to argue in good old black-and-white style that the word "soul" does not even apply to animals, but such absolutism seems to me more like received dogma than like considered reflection). Most people I know would rate (either explicitly, in words, or implicitly, through choices made) cat souls as higher than cow souls, cow souls higher than rat souls, rat souls higher than snail souls, snail souls higher than flea souls, and so forth. And so I ask myself, if soul-size distinctions between species are such a commonplace and non-threatening notion, why should we not also be willing to consider some kind of explicit (not just tacit) spectrum of soul-sizes within a single species, and in particular within our own?
> 
> ...


Douglas R. Hofstadter (2011-02-21 00:00:00-08:00). I Am a Strange Loop (Kindle Locations 7138-7142). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.

If any man denies that he at least shares the sentiment in bold to some degree, however infinitesimally small, he is a liar or someone who is completely unmusical e.g. Nabokov and uses some other form as art as his yardstick. Few use food as his yardstick and no one as his *primary *one.

A telling fact is that there is no word for the musical equivalent of a glutton.



crmoorhead said:


> Stalin had "good taste"? Not sure I agree with that one, given the supression of the arts under his regime.


Those were for political and not aesthetic reasons.



Sid James said:


> Yes, but its those "upper class gentlemen" (so called) who direct the thugs below them to do their dirty work. Do you know the histories of Hitler and Stalin, or others of the sort? Hitler did not physically take part in carrying out genocide, he just had his thugs do it for him. I don't think they listened to Mozart or Wagner or whatever, and he did, but the issue is that those on top made war criminals of those lower down the 'food chain.' But animals like Dr. Mengele where highly educated, and he was on the ground at Auschwitz, doing experiments and being the chief selector, sending millions to their deaths.
> 
> There is a school of thought that both Nazism and Stalinism where distortions of Enlightenment thinking. Progress through science and moving away from the 'irrational.' Well, I don't think that Stalin's purges or Hitler's Holocaust where rational events, but the total opposite. But you can rationalise or legitimise virtually anything and make it look good with dodgy philosophy and weasal words. Its the same today, unfortunately.


Generally. Median. Mean. Not all.



> But the fact is that many people see classical music to be as appetising as plain boiled vegetables. Eg. good for you but not very appetising or appealing at all. That's the reason why authorities play it to discourage teenage loiterers (but here, they've played Sinatra and Manilow, but if people don't like that, they have "good taste" because that's lowbrow crooner rubbish, of course, but if they run away from Mozart, they're automatically philistines).
> 
> Having studied history, and been on the rough end of the stick of people of various types, it boils down to attitude, not "good taste." I'm beginning to be quite bitter about classical music, tbh. Its been manipulated in so many ways over the centuries, for various agendas. & often, they lead to death. The irony is that most composers are outsiders, and basically good (or at least ordinary) people.
> 
> Dunno what's the point of this rant, other than to say I'm looking with a critical eye on all this, and its not bringing me much joy. But anyway, maybe I'm thinking too much. Gotta get out and smell the roses. Its as simple as that.


Things of importance tend to be manipulated. What is held to be true has been manipulated, it does not follow that we ought to defenestrate the notion of truth because it was used for inhumane purposes by the Bolsheviks.



science said:


> I'm considering a theory that personality almost determines both political views and musical taste. I suppose that there is something we could call a fascistic personality - very highly conscientious, very low tolerance for ambiguity or novelty, very low agreeableness. I suppose that certain music is well suited to the fascistic personality: highly traditional, rhythmically predictable, affirming (or at least not questioning or mocking) values like loyalty, tradition, obedience, belongingness. (There might be better terms. "Fascistic" unfortunately and probably inevitably implies something really evil. Would "authoritarian" be better? Or perhaps just "ultra-conservative?" Anyway, I don't know how we can entirely avoid uncomfortable terminology in this case and I'll defer to the OP's term.)
> 
> There must be a near opposite - an anarchist personality: not conscientious, enthusiastic about ambiguity and novelty, and also very low agreeableness. Music suited to this personality would be radically creative, surprising in as many ways as possible, and implicitly or or explicitly the values of cherished by the fascistic personality would be derided, while values like individuality and nonconformity would be exalted.
> 
> ...


"Anarchism" is nothing but the dictatorship of the mob. "Anarchists" rarely if ever yearn for genuine chaos.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ramako said:


> @science - I would quote your post but it is a bit long
> 
> I have been thinking along similar lines that music is a reflection of personality, although I haven't got as far as you have in thinking it through.
> 
> ...


Actually you raise a lot of issues I wasn't thinking of at all. If you're really interested in this line of thought you might want to look up a study by Peter Rentfrow and Samuel Gosling. I don't know anything at all about it....


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Sid James- I was going to make a thread on this, 'the music of oppression,' and another member privately suggested I do this. But it has not transpired, mainly because such extreme formalists, like some guy and stlukes and rapide, these members would immediately jump on such a thread and pull me down with their online version of Stalinism. Thanks but no thanks to that. Can't even speak what's on my mind here. Its very sad.

HarpsichordConcerto- I stopped reading after the first three paragraphs. Can you kindly provide examples by way of real members here at TC who might fit your pyschological analysis from paragraphs one and two?

Sid James-I've already provided examples of what science is talking about, three members I named on this thread in an earlier post. Fact is that these people use the same tactics as the worst regimes. Call it Nazism, or Stalinism, or minority (white) rule in Apartheid South AFrica over the majority blacks. I've studied these histories, and also known people who survived them. I know the tactics inside out.

Quite frankly, this minority on this forum has won. They have censored by stealth discusssions I was meaning to put up but chose not to because of their dictatorial ways. I am disgusted by their behaviour, and there have been numerous occassions where they clearly stepped over the line in their replies to me, and many other members. But usually, they get carte blanche. Something is fishy here. ARe they big donors, maybe, to this forum? 

Carte Blanche??!! Give me a break. I was banned for two weeks for referring to another member's inference that my dislike of certain composer was due to "sexism" as "stupid." Yet here... Sid has free reign to again single out some guy and myself for his insulting personal comments for at least the third time in as many days. I guess that as we have had some disagreements concerning certain composers or aspects of music/art... essentially as he has not been able to control or dictate how others respond to music... or to a given post on the internet... well then it is all well and fine for him to go about comparing those who disagree with him to Hitler, Stalin, and Apartheid. Am I the only one who senses a degree of irony here?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> So what use is the "theory" you are proposing if you cannot even validate with "empricial evidence" by way of referring to real life examples you and I can discuss (i.e. by referring to TC members)? Either that or you could base your "evidence" using other people, say conudctors, musicians the like we recognise. How about that?


It's of no use! I'm just having fun, enjoying thinking about the world. Professional psychologists actually are studying this stuff, and I look forward to learning about their findings, but I'm an amateur having fun, like those guys who look at the planets through high-powered binoculars not because they hope to discover something but because it's fun to encounter the mysteries of existence. Like why some people like music that other people can't stand.

I put myself out as an empirical example because I don't personally mind it, but I won't do that to anyone else. They can if they want to!


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)




----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

science said:


> And if we put a little thought into it we could probably describe a lot of other personality types and their music.


I want to play with this a little more. For those interested but unaware of the background to my post, I was using the "five-factor" theory of personality. I don't endorse that theory necessarily, but I was just using it to help me organize my intuitions.

What I want to do is describe some other other personality types and speculate about their music. The fascist and anarchist had practically been done for me by the OP and Geoffrey Miller, who also used the term "fascist" to describe a personality type, and may have influenced the rant in the OP.

So here's a different one: let's take high conscientiousness, agreeableness, and extroversion; and neutral on openness and stability. Likes things to be done right and is happy to meet you. Probably has a lot of parties at which the drinks match the hors d'oeuvre (which at his party do not take a final -s) and it all matches the music which matches the theme of the nearest significant holiday, and everyone has a good time because the host knows that's the only correct way for a party to go. Perhaps this type of person would be likely to enjoy cheerful, complex, highly-detailed music that is danceable - depending on his background and experiences, it could be Baroque trio sonatas and concerti grossi, or fusion techno (Buddha Bar), or the lighter sort of hip hop, or maybe minimalism, or Strauss family waltzes.

This person would probably not like brooding, loosely structured music. Not a fan of Joni Mitchell or Leonard Cohen or the soundtrack from _The Omen_. If he liked classical music, he'd probably not be a huge fan of romantic tone poems.

Hopefully an example without overt political analogues helps... at least helps to keep me out of the heated end of this thread!


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

@brianwalker. You really need to explain yourself more efficiently. I assume that the reason you post is to make a point. It would be better for everyone if you actually used your own words to explain your opinions rather than reply by posting a dozen links and numbered points. Then the point might actually be made.



brianwalker said:


> The quantity and magnitude of the _*social *_status hierarchies revolving around music dwarfs that around food a million to one. Hierarchies of food consumption are almost directly proportional to economic class inasmuch as food is more scarce and quality food cannot be mass produced like quality music.


Really? That seems like nonsense. For one, not everyone likes music. Music doesn't have a significant bearing on the lives of billions of people. It exists in the background for most people. On the other hand, everyone eats. As I mentioned above, food is also associated with almost every social gathering. Could you perhaps give a few examples of where you think that social status is evidenced by taste in music more that it is evidenced by the food consumed by the same social group?



> Supermodels don't marry top chefs, they marry rock stars.


I'll not assert that they marry top chefs, but they certainly don't marry rock stars. Browsing wikipedia I have seen supermodels that married (or dated) photographers, politicians, sportsmen, property developers, dancers and actors. one of them did date a rock star, to be fair. Asides from being a completely false assertion, its also a completely random piece of 'evidence'. What kind of person marries (or dates) a classical composer? And have you never heard the saying 'the way to a man's heart is through his stomach'?



> Food is non-overlapping most of the time because although it is scarce, consumption is personal i.e. at a restaurant if I order X it does not infringe on your ability to order and consume Y. Consumption of music is overlapping; there are a finite number of works that can be performed at a given menu, and it cannot be personalized on an individual level.


Don't you see here that you are taking one very specific situation i.e. a restaurant and comparing it with another very specific situation i.e. a concert program? Most people don't eat in restaurants all the time, hence they have to share the menu. Unless they always eat alone. This also ignores my entire point about the meaning of food in culture and society. Most people experience music by themselves, not at a concert. Hence, in the majority of cases, your example is wrong.



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
> http://www.talkclassical.com/18097-possiblity-neuroscientific-universal-music.html


Really? Linking to wiki and another looong post instead of having a succinct discussion relevant to the question?

My problem here is that you seem to be having a bias towards one way of seeing things for reasons I can't understand and you don't explain. You are asserting that the experience of eating is materialistic and that music is not, it is transcendental. You are asserting that there is no evolutionary reason (that you accept) for why we like music and yet say that food dislikes are entirely explained. The articles you link to refute the idea that any explanation, including food dislikes, is truly provable. As for food being transcendental, I have certainly had experiences with food and fine whiskeys that go beyond the simple need for sustenence. There is something quite inexplicable about having a certain type of food at a certain time. It is inexplicable in a different way than music is, but still inexplicable.



> Of course, anything could conceivably have an evolutionary function, but whether that explanation is satisfactory or even plausibly valid is another thing.


But why do YOU see it as implausible? The explanations for why we like music seem sensible enough to me.



> The ratio of the magnitudes is somewhere around a million to one.


Hyperbole without substantiation?



> Even the most ardent foodie will not argue that at the *very bottom* of food consumption there is something of world historical significance or that food is essentially something different, something more than a biological function. Decent music has a spiritual dimension lacking even in the greatest cuisine.


OK.... when you visit another country, do you sample the food or the music? Chinese cuisine has crossed the globe, chinese music has not. That example doesn't even have to be China. Food exists at the very centre of culture and society. The spice trade is a lot more historically significant when compared to the relatively recent value attached to music. One can live without music, spiritual or not, but one cannot live without food. It is for precisely this reason that food is so entrenched in our culture. Because it is something we must do to survive, it has inevitably become a way for us to express ourselves, assert our identity and attach cultural meaning to. Baking a cake (or whatever) is an act of creation, not simply a passive biological need. We could get by without actually cooking anything. We could get by on nuts and berries and raw animal flesh. But we don't!

But you are saying that this is, for some reason, irrelevant. You say that good music is spiritual and therefore different. How much music, in percentage terms, do you consider as being good/spiritual?



> Mozart makes you believe in God because it cannot be by chance that such a phenomenon arrives into this world and leaves such an unbounded number of unparalleled masterpieces. - Solti.
> 
> No one has ever made or will ever make such a statement about a chef.


Not by chance, by extremely hard work an immense talent. God has nothing to do with it. And, once again, your point is very elusive here. You are probably NOT (at least I hope not) saying that evidence of spectacular things are surely evidence of God. I guess what you are trying to say is that, because one person makes an over-the-top statement concerning a certain composer as being evidence of God, this is irrefutable evidence that it is obviously something transcendent about it. I say that is not the case. Mozart (or Bach) was a man, was he not? Therefore his compositions weren't mystical divinations, but composed according to rules and processes he understood and used to create his works. They are not mysteries, they are man-made. This is much the same as something created by any other craftsman or artist including, I might say, a michelin starred chef. I'm sure that many people have said amazing things about a specific chef, but there is also a difference between a composer (who produced works that are to be reproduced) and a chef who creations are transient. It is also equally valid to say that no one would ever make such a statement about a singer or musician.

Now, if you want to go down the route of religion, what about transubstantiation? Are you saying that this is a biological imperitive devoid of spirituality? Are you saying that food can't be about more than simply sustenence?



> A telling fact is that there is no word for the musical equivalent of a glutton.


If language has evolved to have terms regarding food that do not exist in music, then perhaps food is the one that means more from a cultural perspective? There are also no side effects to consuming too much music.  This makes sense, yes?



> Those were for political and not aesthetic reasons.


So Stalin had good taste in music because you say he did?  The way I see it is that he disagreed with the aesthetics and saw anything opposing his tastes as potentially upsetting the status quo. Aesthetics are at the heart of the politics.

EDIT: The reply function edited out your entire Hofstadter quote. I'll address it here:



> *I have to admit that I have always intuitively felt there was another and quite different yardstick for measuring consciousness, although a most blurry and controversial one: musical taste. *





> If any man denies that he at least shares the sentiment in bold to some degree, however infinitesimally small, he is a liar or someone who is completely unmusical e.g. Nabokov and uses some other form as art as his yardstick. Few use food as his yardstick and no one as his *primary *one.


The author himself admits that such a notion is 'most blurry' and 'contraversial', so why do you attach such importance to it? The very notion of a yardstick for the soul or consciousness also borders on the ridiculous. I'll only note that it is obvious that this is only one part of a very long discussion in Hofstadter's book. If there is an actual discussion in the book about justifying this notion, then perhaps it might be worth posting. Otherwise it just seems that you are using Hofstadter's 'most blurry' idea to semi-support yours without having to explain it.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> 
> Carte Blanche??!! Give me a break. I was banned for two weeks for referring to another member's inference that my dislike of certain composer was due to "sexism" as "stupid." Yet here... Sid has free reign to again single out some guy and myself for his insulting personal comments for at least the third time in as many days. I guess that as we have had some disagreements concerning certain composers or aspects of music/art... essentially as he has not been able to control or dictate how others respond to music... or to a given post on the internet... well then it is all well and fine for him to go about comparing those who disagree with him to Hitler, Stalin, and Apartheid. Am I the only one who senses a degree of irony here?


Yeah well its like the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?

Look at what you and the other persons I mentioned are doing here:

http://www.talkclassical.com/21938-hypotheses-why-certain-people.html

Same old story, same old tactics. I'll leave this quote in italics below, what was said by an Auschwitz survivor, as my epitapth. I'm leaving for a while now, I'm fed up with all this. HC is right, I gotta do other things, things which are better for me. I like controversial issues in music, but when it reminds me of these things, forget it. People can call us pretentious or ignorant or whatever, but when we fight back, we get beaten down. Any sense of solidarity disappears. That's the way it is with minority rule. If I stayed here, I'd be banned too. I can no longer restrain myself.

People can stand up to the bullies of this forum. But I'm tired of doing it alone. I'm tired of pointing out the "irony" of all these bullsh*t ideologies. Someone else can do it if they want to. I've been the 'fall guy' too many times. & it doesn't bring any rewards, quite the opposite.

So you can all be herded like sheep.

_We had to stand absolutely still and they would count us. If someone collapsed it was forbidden to help them. The SS women walked among us with dogs and whips...If anyone moved or spoke, they immediately used the whip. The whole idea was to stamp out any remnants of human dignity...that grin on their face when they hit us was indescribable..._


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

For the discontented among you, I'd like to ask for your help.

If you feel bullied, or intimidated, or whatever, help the moderators to help you by reporting the post. We don't have the time to read everything - speaking personally I have two kids, an old-fashioned husband, a demanding job and a pile of unwatched opera DVDs.

But I think I'm speaking for the moderation team when I say that we are committed to making this place a pleasant forum for the discussion of classical music. That's what we want, but we need help from the members to achieve this. Complaining on the open forum will not get us anywhere; reporting offending posts will.

I also need to remind you that you will not know what happens when you report a post, because that is private between the poster and us. But I can assure you that each reported post is taken seriously, discussed and any appropriate action taken. No-one gets carte blanche if it is against the terms of service and most importantly, IF WE KNOW ABOUT THE BEHAVIOUR.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Look at what you and the other persons I mentioned are doing here:

What exactly am I doing? Disagreeing with another member? That's not allowed? Or did I first need your permission?

Same old story, same old tactics. I'll leave this quote in italics below, what was said by an Auschwitz survivor, as my epitapth.

Oh please!

I'm leaving for a while now, I'm fed up with all this. HC is right, I gotta do other things, things which are better for me. I like controversial issues in music, but when it reminds me of these things, forget it. People can call us pretentious or ignorant or whatever, but when we fight back, we get beaten down.

We? Who is we? Who is being beaten down?

Any sense of solidarity disappears. That's the way it is with minority rule. If I stayed here, I'd be banned too. I can no longer restrain myself.

This is an internet forum devoted to the discussion of classical music (or so I've been told). Most of the members here are passionate about said music... and as such there are disagreements. Undoubtedly some members are better than others at arguing their point of view... sometimes as a result of their knowledge... sometimes as a result of the simple fact that they are more adept at the use of language and the art of debate. I have had my disagreements with almost everyone on the site... as is expected... but I have never taken these discussions and disputes so seriously that I would be unable to control myself and start comparing others to Nazis or Stalin.

People can stand up to the bullies of this forum. But I'm tired of doing it alone.

Again you seem quick to denigrate anyone you have had any disagreements with. I like Wagner and Richard Strauss and as such have argued against those who have dismissed their music (yourself included)... and thus I'm a "bully" and a "Nazi"?

I'm tired of pointing out the "irony" of all these bullsh*t ideologies.

What are these "ideologies" you keep bringing up? You seem to assume that anyone who disagrees with you must be some moron brainwashed by some dogma carved in stone. The music I like is that which has given me pleasure. That which I dislike is that which has failed to do so. Simple as that. No credo or ideological system.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> 3d. Most materialists don't think through the ultimate consequences of materialism.
> 
> 3e. There's no satisfactory answer as to why human beings like music at all from an evolutionary/biological standpoint. There are speculations but they are all bad/contradictory.


Sorry Brian - I'm not sure where this attack on 'materialism' suddenly springs from. You pick up on the everyday analogy of music and food and turn it into something seriously philosophical. I don't think it bears this much weight.



brianwalker said:


> 9. Suppose a superior entity from a galaxy far far away appears and has a set categories that grades music by various marks of merit (make up whatever: beauty of melody, sublimity of melody, perfection of sonata form, timbre, color, historical influence, etc, etc, all the possible criteria for evaluation of music), of which adds up to a score out of 10,000,000. He grades all the important pieces of music throughout history. He proves his knowledge of the objective value of those pieces by composing the greatest pieces heretofore known in all these categories, art _*and pop*_: opera, music drama, concerto, all the major solo instruments, lieder, and rock, post rock, blue grass, jazz, dubstep, chillwave, metal,_ etc etc etc,_ and manages to seduce the various communities that dwells with those categoreis of music, all of whom proclaim him the greatest composer ever. He then leaves and takes all of his scores and erases the memory of those performances from our mind, but not the memory of our reactions to the music. What is remembered is that this entity visited earth, graded the music there, has unshakable authority, and that the scores remain. He doesn't tell us the criterion of good music since that would be the secret to musical composition, into which only the greatest musical geniuses are allowed incomplete glimpses. only the scores, sum and along various dimensions.
> 
> What would that change? Would taste no longer be subjective, or is it just that entity's taste?
> 
> 9a. TIME MACHINE and a group of rogue musicologists brings Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner, Brahms, Schubert, Liszt, etc. They confer among themselves. They make a list similar to the one proposed above. Would their list have any merit?


To the alien story, I'd say...I don't get the point (sorry). To the last, I'd say their list would have some merit - worth considering before you go to the shops, like checking out Amazon reviews...but I wouldn't regard their list as definitive. They were just composers after all.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Lenfer said:


> I don't think bacon as such was banned just meat from the piggies which includes bacon.  Side note I read somewhere it's possible piggy flesh was banned because pig meat is supposed to taste the most like human.
> 
> I don't like bacon, I like rhubarb and enjoy *Evelyn Waugh*. :tiphat:​


Hmmm... From the Judean perspective, I'd say it has to do with health issues. And I say that because their word for pure/clean/fair, _tahowr_ (הטהורה), was a fairly broad word that most essentially meant "in it's proper place/state". The experts get more specific and associate that with health concerns because of how many health concerns that word addressed. We do know that pork would have been the most dangerous protein source available to them if not properly cooked, what with the diseases pork carries. Such quotes as this help us in associating that word with issues of contamination:

Leviticus 7:19



> And the flesh that toucheth any unclean [thing] shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire: and as for the flesh, all that be clean/הטהורה shall eat thereof.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

mamascarlatti said:


> ... No-one gets carte blanche if it is against the terms of service and most importantly, IF WE KNOW ABOUT THE BEHAVIOUR.


Well its good to hear. I think I went too far with saying people get carte blanche. But I'm sick of treading on eggshells with some people here. I should not have played the Nazi/Stalin card but that's how I feel sometimes. If people want to disagree, that's fine. Disagreement is good - but I think ultimately its the way you put it in word is important. I'm not talking semantic games I'm just talking plain old respect. If people give it to me, I tend to give it back. Its something to aim for all round. Maybe more a 'gentleman's agreement' rather than black letter rules of the TOS, but I think there's unsaid norms in society which we abide by, so why not apply them here?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Sid James said:


> Well its good to hear. I think I went too far with saying people get carte blanche. But I'm sick of treading on eggshells with some people here. I should not have played the Nazi/Stalin card but that's how I feel sometimes. If people want to disagree, that's fine. Disagreement is good - but I think ultimately its the way you put it in word is important. I'm not talking semantic games I'm just talking plain old respect. If people give it to me, I tend to give it back. Its something to aim for all round. Maybe more a 'gentleman's agreement' rather than black letter rules of the TOS, but I think there's unsaid norms in society which we abide by, so why not apply them here?


Friend, I think you've overreacted a bit this time.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> Friend, I think you've overreacted a bit this time.


Yep. . . . .


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

Both Hume and Kant touch upon this subject extensively, and I think have a lot of insight on this opinion; it is a great philosophical question in Aesthetics. I have been taking a class in Aesthetics and have been learning a lot about the subject of taste. I've posted the two links to both Hume's 'Standard of Taste' and Kant's 'Critique of Judgement' if anyone is interested. The Kant is a bit technical but the Hume should be quite accessible.

Hume's Standard of Taste

Kant's Critique of Aesthetic Judgement


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Well, fact is that if people don't know (or care) about the histories behind various pieces of music, of course it seems I'm out in the cold on this forum. I did that poll, which established that most people here take a formalist type view of music. So of course they are not interested in things like J. Strauss II's _Radetzky March _being dedicated to a genocidal maniac, who was instrumental in oppressing and bringing into line various parts of the Hapsburg Empire (notably Czech and Hungary, but the Italians saw him as a plus, probably due to the usual 'divide and conquer' tactics these murderers liked to play out in reality).
> 
> Today classical music is less an instrument of death, rather its just another tool for propaganda and the spin doctors. I remember an episode of _Yes Minister _where the minister was making an announcement and selecting background music. His advisor, the oily Sir Humphrey Appleby, told him to use modern music if it was a conservative decision he was making, or to use old style music if it was a radical or daring decision. The point of that was that you'd give a mixed message to people. The music would tone down and cancel out the thinking and agendas behind those decisions.
> 
> ...


This is a very thoughtful post, Sid, and I think it aligns very well with a lot of the worries that postmodernists are having - that the old modern style way of thinking, "truth", "justice", "beauty", are just power structures meant to bring disenfranchised people down. However, I don't agree with this sentiment; Walter Benjamin said that "in the highest civilization, there is an element of barbarism". Kant said that man was mostly animal and very a small part was rational. I think both of these sides are a bit too extreme. I don't have an answer to how someone could love and play Schubert and run concentration camps, as George Steiner admitted. I certainly haven't found an answer to it. It's one of those great human mysteries, but it doesn't mean the people who made it, Schubert and Beethoven and Bach and the like, didn't have love for humanity and greatness in their hearts; their music says completely otherwise. As George Steiner says, "Since we know that people like Schubert existed, maybe that provides an excuse for the rest of us". I definitely couldn't live in a world without this stuff, and I know I'd be a much worse person without; despite all your self-doubt, I think you think that it has enriched your life too. Thank you for the post, Sid. Got me thinking.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

SottoVoce said:


> This is a very thoughtful post, Sid, and I think it aligns very well with a lot of the worries that postmodernists are having - that the old modern style way of thinking, "truth", "justice", "beauty", are just power structures meant to bring disenfranchised people down. However, I don't agree with this sentiment; Walter Benjamin said that "in the highest civilization, there is an element of barbarism". Kant said that man was mostly animal and very a small part was rational. I think both of these sides are a bit too extreme. I don't have an answer to how someone could love and play Schubert and run concentration camps, as George Steiner admitted. I certainly haven't found an answer to it. It's one of those great human mysteries, but it doesn't mean the people who made it, Schubert and Beethoven and Bach and the like, didn't have love for humanity and greatness in their hearts; their music says completely otherwise. As George Steiner says, "Since we know that people like Schubert existed, maybe that provides an excuse for the rest of us". I definitely couldn't live in a world without this stuff, and I know I'd be a much worse person without; despite all your self-doubt, I think you think that it has enriched your life too. Thank you for the post, Sid. Got me thinking.


Well thank you Sotto for the compliment. At least my 'rant' was of use to someone here. I would just say that its enough to be aware of issues I talked about and you responded to. To be sensitive to how some people that lived through these events, and also their relatives or descendants, they can have views on music and art that are not positive. Eg. couched in negative memories. I mean not only those who lived through the Holocaust (eg. classical music was literally played on speakers in the death camps as the people came off the trains - similar to today, it was a tool to kind of move people on, and maybe calm them too, to send a mixed message as I was saying).

But I have come across one person here who went through another dictatorship, and this person hated marching music, military type music. Even classical pieces like symphonies with that type of rhythm in them. To us, its maybe irrational, but to them its real. It brings back experiences they'd rather forget.

So I'm asking people don't dismiss it and judge it but accept it as a valid response as any. Maybe even a cautionary tale for us to avoid using music in similar manipulative ways.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

crmoorhead said:


> @brianwalker. You really need to explain yourself more efficiently. I assume that the reason you post is to make a point. It would be better for everyone if you actually used your own words to explain your opinions rather than reply by posting a dozen links and numbered points. Then the point might actually be made.


I'll try my best.



> Really? That seems like nonsense. For one, not everyone likes music. Music doesn't have a significant bearing on the lives of billions of people. It exists in the background for most people. On the other hand, everyone eats. As I mentioned above, food is also associated with almost every social gathering. Could you perhaps give a few examples of where you think that social status is evidenced by taste in music more that it is evidenced by the food consumed by the same social group?


But most people care about music more; concerts are more memorable than restaurants. Music is associated with man's deepest sentiments while food is essentially a biological function. Satiation for food is finite, the same is not true for music. Yes, everyone eats food, but people care about music more. Music is a deep part of culture, more than food. When people point to cultural rise or decline they point to the rise or fall of the quality of the music. Moreover, my emphasis is on taste in music as a means of differentiating people on the order of rank; everyone does this. When Rebecca Black became famous she was almost universally maligned for being a poor musician--you never see an equivalent against similarly poor standards in food e.g. McDonalds. No bad chef will ever receive a thousandth of the scorn she received. Music is associated with the soul and human values in a way that food does not, even if food is a social event and a cultural activity, music is just far up on the scale of transcendental activities.



> I'll not assert that they marry top chefs, but they certainly don't marry rock stars. Browsing wikipedia I have seen supermodels that married (or dated) photographers, politicians, sportsmen, property developers, dancers and actors. one of them did date a rock star, to be fair. Asides from being a completely false assertion, its also a completely random piece of 'evidence'. What kind of person marries (or dates) a classical composer? And have you never heard the saying 'the way to a man's heart is through his stomach'?


That's because classical musicians are now out of fashion. Ladies went wild for Liszt and Paganini. Wagner's last wife he stole from his friend. Leopold Stokowski dated Greta Garbo and married a young heiress in his old age; back in the day before rock music took over the famous conductors and soloists were the equivalent of today's rock stars and pop stars.



> Don't you see here that you are taking one very specific situation i.e. a restaurant and comparing it with another very specific situation i.e. a concert program? Most people don't eat in restaurants all the time, hence they have to share the menu. Unless they always eat alone. This also ignores my entire point about the meaning of food in culture and society. Most people experience music by themselves, not at a concert. Hence, in the majority of cases, your example is wrong.


People are far more willing to compromise on food than on music.



> Really? Linking to wiki and another looong post instead of having a succinct discussion relevant to the question?


Materialism = the meaning of music is ultimately rooted in evolutionary biology.



> My problem here is that you seem to be having a bias towards one way of seeing things for reasons I can't understand and you don't explain. You are asserting that the experience of eating is materialistic and that music is not, it is transcendental. You are asserting that there is no evolutionary reason (that you accept) for why we like music and yet say that food dislikes are entirely explained. The articles you link to refute the idea that any explanation, including food dislikes, is truly provable. As for food being transcendental, I have certainly had experiences with food and fine whiskeys that go beyond the simple need for sustenence. There is something quite inexplicable about having a certain type of food at a certain time. It is inexplicable in a different way than music is, but still inexplicable.


The explanations for taste in food is incomplete but substantive. There is no adequate, substantive explanation for why the greatest works in the history of music sound so glorious to us. The explanations hitherto offered are patently absurd. Here is one example.

http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2011/11/14/chickens-and-music-redux/



> But why do YOU see it as implausible? The explanations for why we like music seem sensible enough to me.


I already made those reasons clear in the thread I linked where I debate Polednice about the scientific study of the meaning of music.



> Hyperbole without substantiation?


Read this thread where I substantiate those claims.

http://www.talkclassical.com/18097-possiblity-neuroscientific-universal-music.html
http://www.talkclassical.com/19357-hostility-towards-science-arts.html#post303901



> OK.... when you visit another country, do you sample the food or the music? Chinese cuisine has crossed the globe, chinese music has not. That example doesn't even have to be China. Food exists at the very centre of culture and society. The spice trade is a lot more historically significant when compared to the relatively recent value attached to music. One can live without music, spiritual or not, but one cannot live without food. It is for precisely this reason that food is so entrenched in our culture. Because it is something we must do to survive, it has inevitably become a way for us to express ourselves, assert our identity and attach cultural meaning to. Baking a cake (or whatever) is an act of creation, not simply a passive biological need. We could get by without actually cooking anything. We could get by on nuts and berries and raw animal flesh. But we don't!


The so called Chinese cuisine, the food eaten by Westerners and labelled Chinese, are not a part of Chinese culture. Panda Express is not a part of Chinese culture. The food of a country is as essential to the tourist and the internationalist cosmopolitan as the origins of his shoes or gloves or iPod. The iPod came from American, but it is not an essential part of American culture. Similarly, Beethoven is essential to German culture in a way that Volkswagen never will be.



> But you are saying that this is, for some reason, irrelevant. You say that good music is spiritual and therefore different. How much music, in percentage terms, do you consider as being good/spiritual?


There is no index of the aggregate of all human music so I can't give you a percentage.



> Not by chance, by extremely hard work an immense talent. God has nothing to do with it.


Unsubstantiated materialist dogma.



> And, once again, your point is very elusive here. You are probably NOT (at least I hope not) saying that evidence of spectacular things are surely evidence of God.


I am, but that's not important.



> I guess what you are trying to say is that, because one person makes an over-the-top statement concerning a certain composer as being evidence of God, this is irrefutable evidence that it is obviously something transcendent about it.


I say that people most people will find that statement intelligible and understandable while if a similar statement was said about food most people would find it ridiculous, which proves that music has a spiritual, transcendental dimension that food doesn't.



> I say that is not the case. Mozart (or Bach) was a man, was he not? Therefore his compositions weren't mystical divinations, but composed according to rules and processes he understood and used to create his works.


You realize what a muse is right? No one said that music dropped out of the sky, but that the music is divinely inspired. The mechanics of the gun cannot explain its firing. Something had to fire the gun. A parallel relationship holds true with composer; they are the divinely inspired instruments of something beyond this world.



> They are not mysteries, they are man-made. This is much the same as something created by any other craftsman or artist including, I might say, a michelin starred chef. I'm sure that many people have said amazing things about a specific chef, but there is also a difference between a composer (who produced works that are to be reproduced) and a chef who creations are transient. It is also equally valid to say that no one would ever make such a statement about a singer or musician.


They are mysterious; if music was't mysterious we'd all be great composers. The iPod isn't mysterious since we understand the principles and foundation of its design and can modulate it accordingly to our wishes to make ever more efficient iPods that carry more data, works faster, has longer battery life, etc; but we can't make such demands on music or the other transcendental arts. You can't "order" sublime music on the go or work towards it in a scientific manner through gradual experimentation and modulation like you would a piece of electronics.



> Now, if you want to go down the route of religion, what about transubstantiation? Are you saying that this is a biological imperitive devoid of spirituality? Are you saying that food can't be about more than simply sustenence?


That is a procession and has nothing to do with the taste of the food, _the food itself;_ the transcendental element is not an intrinsic factor of the food.



> If language has evolved to have terms regarding food that do not exist in music, then perhaps food is the one that means more from a cultural perspective? There are also no side effects to consuming too much music.  This makes sense, yes?


No, it's evidence that food is finite and essentially a biological process, that there is such a thing as too much food, even good food, but no one ever complains about the overconsumption of too much good music.



> So Stalin had good taste in music because you say he did?  The way I see it is that he disagreed with the aesthetics and saw anything opposing his tastes as potentially upsetting the status quo. Aesthetics are at the heart of the politics.


What aesthetics did he disagree with?



> The author himself admits that such a notion is 'most blurry' and 'contraversial', so why do you attach such importance to it? The very notion of a yardstick for the soul or consciousness also borders on the ridiculous. I'll only note that it is obvious that this is only one part of a very long discussion in Hofstadter's book. If there is an actual discussion in the book about justifying this notion, then perhaps it might be worth posting. Otherwise it just seems that you are using Hofstadter's 'most blurry' idea to semi-support yours without having to explain it.


Because his ideas are at odd with his feelings, that despite all "reasoning" he still believes such a thing as do most people. It shows that the transcendental element in music is an inextricable sentiment in man. Just because we can't justify something right now doesn't mean it's not true. You can't justify that the external world exists or that other minds exist, you can't prove that.


----------

