# What is wrong with making value judgements?



## mud (May 17, 2012)

Not that I am asking you to find something wrong with it, but people bring this up as if it was immoral. I think value judgements are necessary for appreciating classical music, particularly its aesthetics or lack thereof.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

There is nothing wrong with value judgement, as long as the one making them realize that they are his/her value judgement, not the universal truth.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Art Rock said:


> There is nothing wrong with value judgement, as long as the one making them realize that they are his/her value judgement, not the universal truth.


Exactly. Nothing wrong with "this isn't very valuable" as long as it's followed by "to me." One man's trash is another man's treasure.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

Isn't it a value judgement to presume that someone is not speaking for themselves?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

No. Wikipedia.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

Art Rock said:


> No. Wikipedia.


Yes: "In its disparaging sense the term value judgment implies a conclusion is insular, one-sided, and not objective - contrasting with judgments based upon deliberation, balance and public evidence."

Unless I say that I am _not_ speaking for myself, then presuming the opposite is disparaging.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Read further. "Most commonly the term value judgment refers to an individual's opinion. ".


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

mud said:


> Isn't it a value judgement to presume that someone is not speaking for themselves?





Art Rock said:


> No. Wikipedia.


EDIT: (Whoops! Didn't warn you in time, Art Rock. Sorry!)

@Art Rock: It's a trap! I'm guessing that what mud is getting at here is that if one presumes another to not be speaking for only himself (which we've already declared to be wrong in the context of value judgements), then one judges the other to be of lesser value.

@mud: Here's the thing, though: people _do_ make absolute value judgements, even about music and other media, whether it's considered correct to do so or not. It's therefore not unreasonable to assume someone is making such an absolute value judgement if that person leaves out a first person pronoun to indicate that they're only making a personal value judgement.

Tricky little... deflecting and twisting our arguments so they lose their original meaning. (And yes, I suppose that could be a value judgement.)


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2012)

mud said:


> but people bring this up as if it was immoral


Would you like to offer a specific example ?


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2012)

OP question: What is wrong with making value judgements?

Answer: Nothing.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Would you like to offer a specific example ?


No, it was an afterthought based on value judgements coming up in other topics, but I am not sure where.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

As a professional manager in classical music of some 30+ years I have to make value judgements all the time. Long ago I managed to separate my 'favourites', 'popular' and 'worthy of merit'. While, of course, my opinion and judgement will never attain the status of irrevocable fact, I do feel that my knowledge, expertise and (hopefully) impartiality allows me to make informed, intelligent and accurate value judgements on music, composers and performing artists. 

There is music that is, in qualitative terms, 'bad' music that I enjoy (quite a few 'guilty pleasures' stashed away in my closet!). Conversely, there is plenty of 'good' (even 'great') music I don't care for. Recognising the differences is important when you're programming events and booking artists. Also, 'popular' does not always equate to a composer's best work. In fact some composers are known best through works which definitely do NOT show then at their best.

There's nothing wrong with value judgements as long as one always remembers that there will always be people who hold different views to you, will have different agenda to fulfill and who have different audiences to please.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Obviously, we all make private value judgments.

When we go public with them, our goals make a difference.

If we want to convert someone else to our opinion, we need to give sound reasons for our opinion and we probably need to express those opinions in a palatable way (i.e., not comparing a composer's work to "poo" as has been done in the past here).

If we want to be liked, it's probably best not to go public with our value judgments at all, or, if we can't resist it, using clear delimiters like "IMO" or "for me".

If we just want to declaim and don't care what anybody else thinks, I guess we can just knock ourselves out. Unfortunately, it takes all kinds to make a forum.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

Vesteralen said:


> Obviously, we all make private value judgments.
> 
> When we go public with them, our goals make a difference.
> 
> ...


The politics of value judgements.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2012)

mud said:


> No, it was an afterthought based on value judgements coming up in other topics, but I am not sure where.


So, with no specific example on offer, it rather reduces your claim (that "people bring this up as if it was immoral") to a wholly unsupported generalisation, rendering the premise of the thread (that people think it is wrong to make value judgements) somewhat defective.

In the interests of sustaining the discussion, I'm happy to give an example (though not one where anyone suggested that making value judgements are immoral). In our recent exchange in this thread

http://www.talkclassical.com/22157-thread-people-who-think-7.html#post377754

I pointed out what I took to be your 'value judgement', but I did not say that you shouldn't make it, just that you shouldn't expect everyone else to agree with it.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

Well, you just made a value judgement by taking my topic personally, and presuming that it was unfounded. If I weren't being honest I would not have responded to your question.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2012)

mud said:


> Well, you just made a value judgement by taking my topic personally, and presuming that it was unfounded. If I weren't being honest I would not have responded to your question.


I don't follow. Where was the value judgement I made?


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> I don't follow. Where was the value judgement I made?


In your previous response. How did you not follow that?


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2012)

mud said:


> In your previous response. How did you not follow that?


OK. _What _was the value judgement I made? I don't understand how "taking your topic personally" is a value judgement.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

mud said:


> The politics of value judgements.


No. Just reality.

We can do what we want. We just have to be prepared to take the consequences.

If we choose to express our opinions in certain ways, we can expect certain reactions. No use whining about it.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> OK. _What _was the value judgement I made? I don't understand how "taking your topic personally" is a value judgement.


Because I said it was an afterthought, and you presumed that you were its subject. Google returns four pages on value judgements appearing in forum discussions here... and yes many relate to morality.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

Vesteralen said:


> No. Just reality.
> 
> We can do what we want. We just have to be prepared to take the consequences.
> 
> If we choose to express our opinions in certain ways, we can expect certain reactions. No use whining about it.


Correctly identifying that as politics is not whining.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2012)

mud said:


> Because I said it was an afterthought, and you presumed that you were its subject. Google returns four pages on value judgements appearing in forum discussions... and yes many relate to morality.


Then I think that your idea of 'value judgement' does not tally with mine. I'm going by this definition...



> an assessment of something as good or bad in terms of one's standards or priorities


http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/value%2Bjudgement?q=value+judgement


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Once you start worrying about value judgments everything begins to look like a value judgment, perhaps that's what's wrong with them.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Then I think that your idea of 'value judgement' does not tally with mine. I'm going by this definition...


We had previously discussed the encyclopedic article that conforms to your value judgement.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

Value judgements are harmless unless they lead to unfair discrimination. 

So, I guess it depends on how much actual power the person making the value judgement has.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2012)

mud said:


> We had previously discussed the encyclopedic article that conforms to your value judgement.


Now I'm completely lost! Can anyone else enlighten me?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

I judge the value of this thread to be: $0.12


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

mud said:


> Correctly identifying that as politics is not whining.


I didn't mean to imply that it was. And, I wasn't referring to anything specific that you said as whining.

Let me try again -

Your original post asked, in essence, is there anything immoral in making value judgments? The answer is "No".

But, it was suggested by others that it might be good to state such judgments in terms of "for me".

You seemed to indicate that you thought that was unnecessary.

My point was, if you choose to make those value judgments without the delimiter of "for me", or "IMO", you need to be prepared for the fact that some people will call you on that, because when we choose to make a statement of opinion as if it were a statement of fact, those who feel differently won't take that lying down.

If you choose not to "play politics" (which others may instead define as simply being "_polite_") you have no basis for whining that you are being misunderstood.

In other words, you can choose to play by your own rules, but you can't force others to play by them.

And this is probably way more explanation than the topic really calls for.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

Nothing wrong with value judgements, but if you judge music that others like, they will also judge your favorite music the same...so very long and boring discussions will occur, and people will be busy with these, instead of listening to the music they like.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Opinions that are backed up by experience and analysis are usually very valuable.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

bigshot said:


> Opinions that are backed up by experience and analysis are usually very valuable.


This is true - if you trust the competence of the opinionator. How you arrive at that trust is problematical.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Experience and careful analysis are what bring about competence. The thing about a *reasoned* opinion (as opposed to one that is simply *felt*) is that you can consider the context of the argument and even learn from opinions that differ from your own. Perhaps your criteria for judging are different, but a different set of criteria can illuminate a different angle on the subject.

Not considering reasoned opinions that are different than your own and dismissing them out of hand is a great way to remain in the dark. We see that too often in politics.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Vesteralen said:


> Obviously, we all make private value judgments.
> 
> When we go public with them, our goals make a difference.
> 
> ...


If I was a psychologist I would find all sorts of things in this post.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

moody said:


> If I was a psychologist I would find all sorts of things in this post.


Yep. I'm just a walking mass of hang-ups.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Well, Vestie, whatever your hangups are I must have at least the same ones (maybe a few others) because I agree with you! 

And also with Art Rock who, in the second post, gave the unsurpassable response. IMO and that is a value judgement. 

But for fun I'll add my own $.02, bringing the value of the thread to $.14. 

I believe in the fact/value distinction. I just can't make sense of values as objective facts. But then I also believe that there are different kinds of values: ethical and aesthetic values. The main difference between them is that I feel like you ought to basically agree with me about my ethical values, and if you don't then I will have some kind of problem with you when a practical situation arises that is relevant to our disagreement. But aesthetic values can vary freely: one of my best friends loves the Beatles but doesn't have time for Shostakovich or Miles Davis. So when we recommend music to each other, we don't just run out and spend money - we get second opinions. But in the important ways, there is no one I trust more.

Edit: Sorry, I didn't wrap that up. I think we have to keep in mind that our aesthetic preferences / opinions are not only values, but values of the kind that don't diminish as people relative to each other. That isn't to say that experience and knowledge don't matter - they do, and very much, but they matter with respect to facts. We can do great analysis of Celine Dion's My Heart Will Go On, Charlie Parker's Ko Ko, to Kamal's Whale Dreaming, to Shostakovich's 8th String Quartet. We could find kajillions of indisputably true facts describing those works of music. And at the end of it, we'll pretty much still be at "I like this, she likes that, you like the other," which is about where we are before the music theory and audio engineering classes.... Sorry, still not done but the wife is home.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

science said:


> Well, Vestie, whatever your hangups are I must have at least the same ones (maybe a few others) because I agree with you!
> 
> And also with Art Rock who, in the second post, gave the unsurpassable response. IMO and that is a value judgement.
> 
> ...


What do you agree with exactly,that it's important to be liked?
I remember standing up for you not long ago and saying that you should stand by your opinion and not to let others sway you.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

moody said:


> What do you agree with exactly,that it's important to be liked?
> I remember standing up for you not long ago and saying that you should stand by your opinion and not to let others sway you.


I don't understand what the one has to do with the other. I can stand by my opinion without belittling other people. Or at least I ordinarily can, as long as they're reasonable. If their opinion of themselves is that their opinion ought to overrule mine because of their innate superiority of taste, then I might have to diminish them a little just in order to make room for myself. But ordinarily, there should be no problem.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

moody said:


> What do you agree with exactly,that it's important to be liked?
> I remember standing up for you not long ago and saying that you should stand by your opinion and not to let others sway you.


Just to briefly clarify, I didn't say it's *important* to be liked. I said '*If* we want to be liked'.

The idea is that we might each possibly have a different agenda, or even each have conflicting agendas, when we come here to post. But, if we want to achieve a certain result by our posting, there are most likely better and worse ways to try to achieve it.

To illustrate - if one of our goals is not to make waves, or not to risk getting into an argument, it would probably behoove us to stay out of threads like this one.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

moody said:


> What do you agree with exactly,that it's important to be liked?
> I remember standing up for you not long ago and saying that you should stand by your opinion and not to let others sway you.


 (moody speaking to _science_)

I think it would be good practice for people to remember _or otherwise retain_ the process by which those opinions have been formed. It is not unusual to have need for an opinion (to guide an undelayable action), and so to form one despite a shaky foundation. Once stashed in the cache of opinions, the weakness may easily be forgotten. Maybe there is, or can be, another cache - to be re-examined at leisure, much as a ruminant 'contemplates' a cud.

Hence the ancient saying: "Opinions are made to be chewed on."


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

science said:


> I don't understand what the one has to do with the other. I can stand by my opinion without belittling other people. Or at least I ordinarily can, as long as they're reasonable. If their opinion of themselves is that their opinion ought to overrule mine because of their innate superiority of taste, then I might have to diminish them a little just in order to make room for myself. But ordinarily, there should be no problem.


When I read "If you want to be liked it's probably best not to go public with our value judgements at all..." I could only gasp with amazement. I suppose if you really want to be liked you should just agree with everyone.
Anyway you signified that you agreed with these sentiments and I don't understand how you could as the whole idea behind TC is to put forward ideas and opinions.
By the way, who cares about being liked being respected for your opinions is far more important.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Bangs head against wall..........


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Vesteralen said:


> Bangs head against wall..........


Careful now---it hurts.
It was really all just a joke!


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

science said:


> But then I also believe that there are different kinds of values: ethical and aesthetic values.


This distinction is crucial. Good one.

In the end, if someone doesn't just like Haydn (tragic though that would be) then it doesn't bother me overly much. Nothing much more to be said. Most of the heated discussions that happen are over ethical or pseudo-ethical issues - e.g. the whole modern music thing.

In fact, the matter superiority of taste is effectively an ethical issue, or perhaps both together.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I actually think that aesthetic values are more important than most people think. Our society has pretty much eliminated the arts from the public schools. It started when I was in school. The focus is on math and science and grammar. Drawing and drama are electives if they're offered at all. We risk creating a generation of aesthetic illiterates.

If someone doesn't like Haydn because they've never been introduced to Haydn properly, to me, that IS a tragedy. Someone who rejects Haydn and has been given the opportunity is just stupid. Just as they would be stupid to reject multiplication of conjugation of verbs.

I think we need to demand more of ourselves. We need to have a cultural heritage that isn't pickled in formaldehyde on a dusty historian's shelf. Everyone needs to know where we came from. That is vital to knowing who we are and what we're capable of.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Modern people are very uncomfortable with any absolute judgment being forced upon them because it violates the democratic assumptions they are used to. The common man today is taught that everyone is the same; we were all "created equal", whatever that means. 

In reference to aesthetic judgments, Kant said that simply because we cannot fathom the ultimate criterion of what is aesthetically good, we cannot state that no such criterion exists, or will never be discovered, or that it has not been discovered. 

Ruskin, who was probably the most influential art critic of the 19th Century said that indeed there is one ultimate standard of aesthetic excellence, but that the perversions of men's educations prevent them from recognizing it.

The modern insistence on preface everything with an admission that what is being said is pure opinion, is, to go into a bit more detail, also the result of the fracturing of communities into so many different ethnic and social categories, which makes impossible for any "universal" social will to come into existence. That is what Hegel said. When one is accustomed to everything important (religion especially) existing as private and individual (as is the case in today's democracies), the notion that anything could become universal (that is, social) is highly threatening. The misinterpretation of Jesus's words on judging others, also reinforce the modern antipathy towards authority and value judgments. A more well rounded interpretation of this passage shows that he was merely opposed to hypocritical judgments not judgments in general.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

You're over thinking it. I have found things that are *good*. I think so, my friends think so, even moms think so! The good stuff exists. But you'll never find it if you're too chicken to go out on a limb and say, "HEY! HERE'S THE GOOD STUFF!"

Carpe diem, doggonit!


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

I've never understood this primal reaction of disgust towards self-righteousness that modern people have. It's all the stranger since real, passionately self-righteous people are extremely rare today. I suppose they're disgusted even at the prospect that such a person could exist, regardless of his actual existence. If they detect even the slightest hint of it in someone else, they must tear him limb from limb, be his qualifications as an authority never so high. I wish I could find out the root of it.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Logos said:


> It's all the stranger since real, passionately self-righteous people are extremely rare today.


I'm gonna guess you aren't on Facebook!


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2012)

On the other hand,

"...there is not a single production of the human mind, not one, you understand, that can command--I will not say the approval of all humanity, but even that of the infinitesimal fraction of humanity to which it is addressed. How many people does our largest theater seat today? Barely two thousand, and most theaters far fewer. Very well. Now, given an excellent performance, has it ever happened that even five hundred persons... have agreed about the merits of Shakespeare, Molière, Mozart, Beethoven, Gluck, or Weber?
...
I have never yet attended a first night at the Opera without finding among the judges in the lobby a large majority hostile to the new work, however beautiful and great it may have been.
...
Take four listeners occupying the same box at the same performance; the first is bored, the second entertained, the third is indignant, and the fourth enthusiastic.
...
On one side of the Channel, Shakespeare was a beast and a barbarian; on the other, a god.
...
The question of what is beautiful would therefore seem to be a question of time and place. A sad conclusion, but true. For unless absolute beauty is that which at all times, in all places, and by all men must be acknowledged as beautiful, I cannot imagine what it means or where it might reside. And that kind of beauty I am sure does not exist."

--Hector Berlioz, 1852


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Berlioz was a wild man, wasn't he?


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Interesting quotes, and most of them indisputable. But does a multitude of opinions necessarily indicate an absence of any absolute truth? To peremptorily deny the possibility of such a truth and it's discovery seems to me to have no basis. It is the same in empirical science--no matter how many identical phenomenae are observed, one can never be sure that it will happen again in exactly the same way. Likewise, no matter how many times a theory of aesthetics (or anything really) is confounded, the possibility of a true one should be acknowledged.

In the first place, the assumption of at least the possibility of an underlying ultimate truth (no matter if we are partially or even entirely ignorant of it) has to be the foundation of any substantive critical discussion. There has to exist the mere possibility of a reconciliation of differing viewpoints or else there is no point in any kind of judging at all, since every view would be equally true (or false, if you prefer) from the start. Why not then remain in critical stasis and not discuss anything, there being no possibility of either an approach or a moving away from the same equally valid viewpoint?


----------



## palJacky (Nov 27, 2010)

<<<To peremptorily deny the possibility of such a truth and it's discovery seems to me to have no basis.>>>
it is not pragmatic for me to assume this sort of absolute truth exists until shown otherwise.
I don't have the "FAITH" needed to make the jump from 'possibility' to 'reality' on this subject.
perhaps more evidence will be uncovered and I will change my opinion.

I'm not preparing for the zombie apocalypse slated for next month either.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

You say you accept the possibility, which is all I advocated in the first place and then proceed as if you had contradicted something. No one has claimed to have made the jump from possibility to reality, but the pragmatic change which results from acknowledging the possibility of arriving at absolute truth is quite clear since it means that we might, through critical discourse achieve the only reasonable goal which critical discourse could possibly have--the reconciliation of differing viewpoints into a single absolute one. If there is no possibility, any talk of critical judgment is meaningless.


----------



## palJacky (Nov 27, 2010)

<<<If there is no possibility, any talk of critical judgment is meaningless. >>>
I agree, but I don't look at this as a negative.

my tastes and opinions are mine. I don't need to put them on an absolute objective scale with anyone else's in order to discuss them.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

moody said:


> When I read "If you want to be liked it's probably best not to go public with our value judgements at all..." I could only gasp with amazement. I suppose if you really want to be liked you should just agree with everyone.
> Anyway you signified that you agreed with these sentiments and I don't understand how you could as the whole idea behind TC is to put forward ideas and opinions.
> 
> By the way, *who cares about being liked being respected for your opinions is far more important*.


That's not obvious to me!

But like I said, it seems to me that it's perfectly possible with most people - or at least the kind of people I'd want to know - to be honest about your opinions and also to be liked.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

bigshot said:


> I'm gonna guess you aren't on Facebook!


That about sums it up. Facebook, twitter, tumblr, etc.--this generation is perfect for people more interested in projecting the image of being good people than actually acting the part.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

palJacky said:


> <<<If there is no possibility, any talk of critical judgment is meaningless. >>>
> I agree, but I don't look at this as a negative.
> 
> my tastes and opinions are mine. I don't need to put them on an absolute objective scale with anyone else's in order to discuss them.


To have a _critical_ discussion of which the only possible purpose is a striving towards ultimate reconciliation, indeed one does need to. Now, to simply _declare_ one's opinions to another declaring mass of people, nothing more is required than a loud voice, but the purpose of such an action eludes me.


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2012)

Logos said:


> but the purpose of such an action eludes me.


Social intercourse. It's what happens when two or more people get together who think they might be of similar minds and so check each other out. They don't leap into Hegel and Kant (unless the subject is their favourite philosopher of course).


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

You're right, but on the other hand most social intercourse is as edifying as two dogs sniffing each other's nether regions, and for the same reasons.


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Opinions that are backed up by experience and analysis are usually very valuable.


They may be more valuable than mere statements of opinion, certainly, but not "usually". They can still offer well-reasoned insights that are wrong.

I can't help feeling that the discussion has veered away from 'value judgement' to mere opinion, and from thence to 'absolute judgement', though I can see how easy it is to move from one kind of statement to another in an internet forum where, as someone else said recently, the instant feedback and the context of the discussion make it easier to flow. On the internet, the stilted exchanges can't help but lead to the ceaseless fractious debates about some types of music, because of the laziness of the poster and of the reader (the need to write in 'shorthand' at times) and the fact that the non-virtual life has a habit of intervening. It's just so much easier and more likely for someone to take offence at bald type than a naturally inflected human voice, face and hands with a beer/glass of wine to make the intercourse so much more comfortable.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

Logos said:


> I've never understood this primal reaction of disgust towards self-righteousness that modern people have. It's all the stranger since real, passionately self-righteous people are extremely rare today. I suppose they're disgusted even at the prospect that such a person could exist, regardless of his actual existence. If they detect even the slightest hint of it in someone else, they must tear him limb from limb, be his qualifications as an authority never so high. I wish I could find out the root of it.


I think it relates to us being in a patronizing society, in all senses of the word.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Logos said:


> I've never understood this primal reaction of disgust towards self-righteousness that modern people have.


I have no problem with *righteousness*.

*Self-righteousness* is, however, disgusting, and not just to modern people. (Matthew 23)


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

moody said:


> being respected for your opinions is far more important.


I've never respected anyone for their opinions.

I might respect them for the way they express those opinions.

Respect has to be earned, it can't be demanded.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Seeing this thread was posted in "Classical Music Discussion", I assumed that it was a discussion of value judgments in *music*, not value judgments in general. There are some areas of discussion where I would find value judgments quite valid.
But, as I've said before, unless music encourages destructive and harmful behavior, I think it's, on the one hand, too *personal* a subject for value judgments to have any meaning, and too *unimportant* (in the larger scheme of things) a subject to warrant the debate.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

Vesteralen said:


> Seeing this thread was posted in "Classical Music Discussion", I assumed that it was a discussion of value judgments in *music*, not value judgments in general. There are some areas of discussion where I would find value judgments quite valid.
> But, as I've said before, unless music encourages destructive and harmful behavior, I think it's, on the one hand, too *personal* a subject for value judgments to have any meaning, and too *unimportant* (in the larger scheme of things) a subject to warrant the debate.


It is about value judgements in music, as I prefaced it in the opening post:


mud said:


> I think value judgements are necessary for appreciating classical music, particularly its aesthetics or lack thereof.


Not that most of the discussion was about music, but hey, I put it out there (not my fault).


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Vesteralen said:


> Seeing this thread was posted in "Classical Music Discussion", I assumed that it was a discussion of value judgments in *music*, not value judgments in general. There are some areas of discussion where I would find value judgments quite valid.
> But, as I've said before, unless music encourages destructive and harmful behavior, I think it's, on the one hand, too *personal* a subject for value judgments to have any meaning, and too *unimportant* (in the larger scheme of things) a subject to warrant the debate.


We should not be surprised that 'value judgements' are related to 'personal values', which in turn are related to 'core values'. When a debate like this one goes on long enough, and drifts not very far at all, participants may get the feeling that core values are a subject, and even that their own core values are being 'called out'.

I suspect that many of the 'closed' threads in TC achieve that state due to the consequences of Perceived Penetration.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

I judge the value of music to be greater than this thread, so I'm gonna post some :3


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

Bjork has a really nice voice, too bad the instrumentals are so simple.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Logos said:


> I've never understood this primal reaction of disgust towards self-righteousness that modern people have. It's all the stranger since real, passionately self-righteous people are extremely rare today. I suppose they're disgusted even at the prospect that such a person could exist, regardless of his actual existence. If they detect even the slightest hint of it in someone else, they must tear him limb from limb, be his qualifications as an authority never so high. I wish I could find out the root of it.


You're not kidding and I'm really self-righteous but I am a dinosaur


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Vesteralen said:


> I've never respected anyone for their opinions.
> 
> I might respect them for the way they express those opinions.
> 
> Respect has to be earned, it can't be demanded.


Well that is a strange answer.Naturally I would only expect such respect if people gave it having heard my opinion for heaven's sake.But they couldn't give it if they hadn't heard it now could they.
Who,by the way, said anything about demanding?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> Bjork has a really nice voice, too bad the instrumentals are so simple.


Nothing wrong with simple  Mozart's music is simple too.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Vesteralen said:


> I have no problem with *righteousness*.
> 
> *Self-righteousness* is, however, disgusting, and not just to modern people. (Matthew 23)


I usually find that the self-righteous quote the bible--could we keep it out of it?


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Self-righteousness is a very bad thing. Still, I can't help but feel that sometimes the hatred for it extends to righteousness just as much as the self part; indeed, frequently there is a sort of self-righteousness to the same people who attempt to topple the self-righteous. It is equally possible to be proud of hating snobbery and pride as it is of anything else, except that it has the added touch of hypocrisy.

Self-righteousness is, after all, a special talent of mine


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

regressivetransphobe said:


> That about sums it up. Facebook, twitter, tumblr, etc.--this generation is perfect for people more interested in projecting the image of being good people than actually acting the part.


Ding! Ding! Ding! Give this man a cee-gar!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> They may be more valuable than mere statements of opinion, certainly, but not "usually". They can still offer well-reasoned insights that are wrong.


I've mentioned this a couple of times... Even if you disagree with an opinion, you can learn from it, if it is reasoned and has supporting arguments. If there is anything even remotely resembling objective truth in the world then the only way to fully recognize it is to look at a subject from several different viewpoints. It's like the blind men describing the elephant. If you simply consider your own opinion, then an elephant is a snake or a tree trunk or a wall. If you consider various conflicting opinions, you begin to see the big picture. That's why I welcome disagreement and debate. If everyone was nice-nice and never disagreed, we'd all be soaking in our own ignorance.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Vesteralen said:


> But, as I've said before, unless music encourages destructive and harmful behavior, I think it's, on the one hand, too *personal* a subject for value judgments to have any meaning, and too *unimportant* (in the larger scheme of things) a subject to warrant the debate.


I think that as soon as you cover the necessities of life... food, shelter, warmth... there is nothing more important than expressing yourself creatively. Art is what makes us human. It's the reminder of where we came from and the inspiration for what we might become. Without that, we're just subsisting. I don't think there's anything more important to the health of a society and the psychology of an individual than art.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Renaissance said:


> Bjork has a really nice voice, too bad the instrumentals are so simple.


Her voice is huge for such a small girl. She isn't at all like the image she projects. She is very sweet and quiet when she isn't performing. (I produced a rock video for her.)


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

bigshot said:


> I think that as soon as you cover the necessities of life... food, shelter, warmth... there is nothing more important than expressing yourself creatively. Art is what makes us human.


Actually humans are the only animals that cook. So art isn't the only thing which makes us human.



bigshot said:


> It's the reminder of where we came from and the inspiration for what we might become.


Huh? Where did we come from?



bigshot said:


> Without that, we're just subsisting. I don't think there's anything more important to the health of a society and the psychology of an individual than art.


Well art, entertainment, sport, humour, love and companionship too.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> Huh? Where did we come from?


It's easy to look at history blankly as just something that happened. Distances in time can make it tough to know what it actually felt like to live in Medieval times or in the Age of Enlightenment. Historical accounts are great for facts and figures, but art expresses feeling the best.

Likewise, we can project ourselves into the future by simply looking at technology and where it might take us. But how we adapt as humans to that world, and the aspirations of what we dream of accomplishing with technology is the realm of art.

Hard to boil down to a single sentence. Is that clearer?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

THE OP's track record (re 'atonal' etc.) is a perfect demo: all those posts are from the OP's personal set of aesthetics, and are not even in general agreement with a set of parameters as agreed upon by others prior a debate / discussion of the issue.

Clearly, the OP's mind is made up, and in all those posts it is also quite evident they are not really interested in any argument which counters their opinion, but that they only seek and expect agreement. 

It is the OP's value judgment -- and some, but not nearly all, will agree with the OP -- that 'atonal' music is without value. (Most who agree with the OP about atonality are not professional musicians, but the general audience consumer. I.e. somehow, the OP's value judgment does not agree with oceans of composers, professional musicians, or people 'within the trade.')

the OP is entirely welcome to their tastes and opinions, I have no qualms with that at all.

When the OP keeps insistently hammering away at 'their issue' to lobby for an apart category for 'atonal' vs. 'tonal,' they are then asking numbers of people much more experienced and informed than the OP, including soliciting the owners / founders / monitors of this forum -- and its participants -- to capitulate to something merely because the OP is not comfortable with it. 

The fact the OP is repeatedly at it, imo, borders on something personal, psychological and obsessive. As an expectation / near demand, the request / expectation that all be re-arranged to merely fit the OP's comfort zone(s) and / or idea of things is pretty well monstrous and tyrannical

This is somewhat like the casual listener thinking if they decide a movie score like LOTR 'is classical.' it will -- as if by magic -- all of a sudden become 'classical,' and that professional musicians, musicologists and all professionals within the craft will suddenly change; textbooks written by experts the worldwide will become instantly revised; the bar will be lowered to agree with the casual listener's opinion.

When discussing the arts, a phone-in vote from 'just anybody' -- as American Idol and other popular venue entertainments are run, is 'just not gonna happen.'

If a dynamic of influence like that were true, we would have professional league sports players recruited and hired by the fans. That is 'just not gonna happen' either 

This is a general forum for discussion. I think some participants feel (perhaps due to exposure to the likes of American Idol, and internet blogging and zines?) that participation of same can change the tide of 'what is' so that more will agree with their personal tastes and comfort zones.

Classical music exists from the early Medieval up to the present day. 

There is no apart category on this forum separating discussions of Baroque era music and later Romantic era music, though the leap in harmonic language is just as extreme between those two as it is from the late romantic era to the modern era, perhaps that leap even more so than from late romantic to atonal....

I find the OP's lack of acceptance (different from 'liking or embracing') infantile, and the more they post about this very same tonal / atonal issue, it makes me wonder not what their musical problem is, but what their personal psychological problem is.

Look at this thread and all the OP's supposed retorts, nothing to resolve, everything to keep the ball in the air and the attention on the OP.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I find that your lack of acceptance (different from 'liking or embracing') pretty infantile, and the more you post about this very same tonal / atonal issue, I wonder not what your musical problem is, but what your personal psychological problem is.


I would make a gentle suggestion... There are too many "you"s there. Focus on the subject, not personal issues. I'm not entirely sure who "you" is because your post is without context, but it really doesn't matter.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

bigshot said:


> It's easy to look at history blankly as just something that happened. Distances in time can make it tough to know what it actually felt like to live in Medieval times or in the Age of Enlightenment. Historical accounts are great for facts and figures, but art expresses feeling the best.
> 
> Likewise, we can project ourselves into the future by simply looking at technology and where it might take us. But how we adapt as humans to that world, and the aspirations of what we dream of accomplishing with technology is the realm of art.
> 
> Hard to boil down to a single sentence. Is that clearer?


Well, in all honesty I can't say I understand what you mean. I think writers may be able to convey to us a little of what it actually felt like to be from a previous epoch. As for the future...science fiction?
Music, which is so abstract, I don't think can do this.

I must say though that the film Tout Les Matins Du Monde was a movie (about composer Marin Marais) which did achieve for me an insight into how quiet life was back then and what an overwhelming experience it must have been to hear 20 people all blowing and scraping their instruments all at once, as in a scene where some Lully is being performed. Music on that scale must have had an enormous impact on people who might otherwise have only heard the sound of singing or a lute or a hurdy gurdy or something. It does make me wonder whether the advent of recording has really desensitised us to the impact a large ensemble could make.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

bigshot said:


> I would make a gentle suggestion... There are too many "you"s there. Focus on the subject, not personal issues. I'm not entirely sure who "you" is because your post is without context, but it really doesn't matter.


Was it addressed to the OP?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Petwhac said:


> Was it addressed to the OP?


Aha! If it was, then your post makes sense as a response. Apparently _bigshot_ and I both suspected that it was directed to _him_. Mr. _bigshot _ is not prone to evincing any lack of confidence in his opinions, but he stops short of assumed omniscience. Well, a little bit?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

mud said:


> The politics of value judgements.


No, just generally known and acknowledged actual social patterns, i.e. how people react when you act one way or t'other.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

quack said:


> Once you start worrying about value judgments everything begins to look like a value judgment, perhaps that's what's wrong with them.


Quack, I think this one is just manipulating things to get LOTS OF PERSONAL ATTENTION. Look at the various responses / comebacks. Nothing toward understanding or resolve, just enough to keep the ball in the air and keep all the attention flowing toward the OP. Desperately hungry, that one.

I'm quite done with it.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Was it addressed to the OP?


Post #81 is now revised, as per bigshot's good and gentle suggest, to read as directly addressed to the OP / about the OP.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

moody said:


> Well that is a strange answer.Naturally I would only expect such respect if people gave it having heard my opinion for heaven's sake.But they couldn't give it if they hadn't heard it now could they.
> Who,by the way, said anything about demanding?


Just do me a favor. If you're going to quote me, try reading what I wrote carefully before you respond to it.

I said I might respect them for the *WAY* they express those opinions, but not for the opinions themselves. If you express an opinion I don't agree with, I'm not going to respect your for the opinion itself. But, if you express your opinion reasonably and with consideration for the feelings of others, even if I don't agree, I might respect YOU for the way you expressed yourself.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

moody said:


> I usually find that the self-righteous quote the bible--could we keep it out of it?


First you claim that you yourself are self-righteous as if that's a good thing. Then you imply that I'm self-righteous as if it's a bad thing.

I did not quote the Bible, I cited it. And, the only reason I did so was that the person I was responding to said that hatred of self-righteousness is a modern phenomenon. I cited the most ancient text I happened to know that could show that it is not a modern phenomenon.

If you weren't so determined to jump down my throat at every opportunity, you might be able to understand that.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

PetrB said:


> THE OP's track record (re 'atonal' etc.) is a perfect demo: all those posts are from the OP's personal set of aesthetics, and are not even in general agreement with a set of parameters as agreed upon by others prior a debate / discussion of the issue.
> 
> Clearly, the OP's mind is made up, and in all those posts it is also quite evident they are not really interested in any argument which counters their opinion, but that they only seek and expect agreement.
> 
> ...


My track record? You are keeping score of an imaginary contest here. I think the game is one of missing my point though. So you win the obfuscation contest.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> I judge the value of this thread to be: $0.12


Oh, far less than that, I think. It has me rating it in the negative numbers, creating a debit, not credit.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Mr. _bigshot _ is not prone to evincing any lack of confidence in his opinions, but he stops short of assumed omniscience. Well, a little bit?


I keep that a secret so I don't embarrass mere mortals!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> Well, in all honesty I can't say I understand what you mean. I think writers may be able to convey to us a little of what it actually felt like to be from a previous epoch. As for the future...science fiction?
> Music, which is so abstract, I don't think can do this.


I really didn't intend it all that literally. I get a lot of feeling for different eras by their music and art. It's less about who they were I guess than who they saw themselves as being and what they aspired to be. As for the future, I know I'm a product of the books I've read, the films I've seen and the artwork and music I've enjoyed. It doesn't have to be science fiction to inspire me to live a new kind of life based on what I've experienced. I am a product of my culture and I have a vision for where I want my culture to go.

I know this is all verbal blather about non-denominational quasi-religious stuff that is felt more than it's spoken about. I apologize for the vagueness. I guess I don't know how to state it more clearly.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

bigshot said:


> I really didn't intend it all that literally. I get a lot of feeling for different eras by their music and art. It's less about who they were I guess than who they saw themselves as being and what they aspired to be. As for the future, I know I'm a product of the books I've read, the films I've seen and the artwork and music I've enjoyed. It doesn't have to be science fiction to inspire me to live a new kind of life based on what I've experienced. I am a product of my culture and I have a vision for where I want my culture to go.
> 
> I know this is all verbal blather about non-denominational quasi-religious stuff that is felt more than it's spoken about. I apologize for the vagueness. I guess I don't know how to state it more clearly.


Fair enough.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Oh, far less than that, I think. It has me rating it in the negative numbers, creating a debit, not credit.


At least you admit to keeping score...


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Her voice is huge for such a small girl. She isn't at all like the image she projects. She is very sweet and quiet when she isn't performing. (I produced a rock video for her.)


Was it the one with her breasts exposed? :tiphat:


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Yes, and after they cleared the set I was one of the four people left on the soundstage when we shot that scene!


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> Well, in all honesty I can't say I understand what you mean. I think writers may be able to convey to us a little of what it actually felt like to be from a previous epoch. As for the future...science fiction?
> Music, which is so abstract, I don't think can do this.
> 
> I must say though that the film Tout Les Matins Du Monde was a movie (about composer Marin Marais) which did achieve for me an insight into how quiet life was back then and what an overwhelming experience it must have been to hear 20 people all blowing and scraping their instruments all at once, as in a scene where some Lully is being performed. Music on that scale must have had an enormous impact on people who might otherwise have only heard the sound of singing or a lute or a hurdy gurdy or something. It does make me wonder whether the advent of recording has really desensitised us to the impact a large ensemble could make.


Your impact point is absolutely spot on,I know that many people on TC have not been to a symphony concert .The first time you go you are amazed by the impact of a crescendo and also the scale of loudness as compared with a recording where the differentials have been somewhat ironed out.
The other thing that still does not come out properly on recordings is the wonderful sound of the strings.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2012)

bigshot said:


> That's why I welcome disagreement and debate. If everyone was nice-nice and never disagreed, we'd all be soaking in our own ignorance.


I agree. That's why I read a newspaper who's politics I disagree with.

But mine was a specific point about the possibility of a well-argued judgement being "wrong", not merely one with which I disagreed. By "well-argued" I don't mean "flawlessly argued." Historians are famous for putting well-argued cases that subsequently turn out to be wrong (Hugh Trevor Roper and Hitler's Diaries, for example).


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> I agree. That's why I read a newspaper who's politics I disagree with.
> 
> But mine was a specific point about the possibility of a well-argued judgement being "wrong", not merely one with which I disagreed. By "well-argued" I don't mean "flawlessly argued." Historians are famous for putting well-argued cases that subsequently turn out to be wrong (Hugh Trevor Roper and Hitler's Diaries, for example).


That was my point too (though I may not has expressed it at all). The Sophists specialized in 'well-argued judgements' that were fallacies. Reading/hearing the arguments that support an opinion - and paying close attention - is the better way to evaluate it; better than simply determining that the subject opinion contradicts a previously accepted opinion.

There are umpteen communication problems in debate via internet, but there _is_ the benison of having time for reflection.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

So yeah, this forum has proven that it cannot handle value judgements, by closing my topic: Who thinks contemporary classical discussions suck?

People here would rather respond with argumenta ad hominem than accept that I make value judgements on the topic of music.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

"My name is Mud": _to be unappreciated or disrespected based on ones actions or attitudes._ And this is my last post. :tiphat:


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2012)

Thank you.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Renaissance said:


> Bjork has a really nice voice, too bad the instrumentals are so simple.


Simple, yes, but purposefully simple, unlike 99% of female fronted pop music. There's some serious ebb & flow and trippiness among all that simplicity.


----------

