# "It's all a matter of personal taste".



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

We find this remarkable statement in post #62 of this thread: "It's all a matter of personal taste".

Let us explore why this statement is incorrect.

It is clear that the notion of 'personal taste' contains the notion of 'a person'. For each 'person' it seems the question 'Who am I?' is fundamental. Many would state in response to the question 'Who am I?': "I am my body." It seems to me it is from this incorrect identification of Self with Body that one would make the statement "It's all a matter of personal taste".

The incorrect argument would proceed somewhat like this:

0. Self-inquiry is fundamental to learning and happiness.
1. Music (and the other arts) are a part of self-inquiry.
2. I observe that some music seems more honest and deep.
3. Who am I?
4. I am my body.
5. My body contains my brain. 
6. Music is interpreted in the brain. 
7. My body is only one of many.
8. Thus, "it's all a matter of personal taste."

Suppose we begin with statement 0,1,2,3 and remove the incorrect statement 4, then it seems we proceed somewhat like this:

0. Self-inquiry is fundamental to learning and happiness.
1. Music (and the other arts) are a part of self-inquiry.
2. I observe that some music seems more honest and deep.
3. Who am I?
4. I observe that some music seems more honest and deep.
5. Who am I?
6. I observe that some music seems more honest and deep.
7. Who am I?
...

The notion of 'person' seems ultimately impossible to grasp, and the notion of 'person' seems so closely related to the notion of Art; thus we need to abandon the idea that artistic judgments are ultimately subjective (ie located within the person).

Now I can sketch a resulting theory of artistic judgment: we must observe more closely ourselves and the arts may aid in this inquiry. Though we must allow to others the freedom to explore for themselves in pursuit of their own honesty we cannot house the pursuit of honesty within the body and the brain. To preserve the fundamental status of the question 'Who am I?' in educational pursuits this pursuit of honesty, which provides the meaning of the being of the world, must be seen as non-subjective .


----------



## fliege (Nov 7, 2017)

I don't follow you at all. Maybe you are saying something very simple in a very complicated way.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

I, too, am lost.


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

fliege said:


> I don't follow you at all. Maybe you are saying something very simple in a very complicated way.


In the process of self-inquiry the composer writes music.
In the process of self-inquiry the performer plays music.
In the process of self-inquiry the listener hears music.

We cannot ascribe any notions of self to the 'writer', 'player', 'hearer' unless we hold that self-inquiry occurs within the body. I disagree that self-inquiry occurs within the body. Since we cannot ascribe any notions of self to the 'writer', 'player', 'hearer' we cannot make the statement "it's all a matter of personal taste".


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Whether or not one believes this reasoning is a matter of personal taste. :devil:


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Worst post ever. Im outta here.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Beethoven14 said:


> In the process of self-inquiry the composer writes music.
> In the process of self-inquiry the performer plays music.
> In the process of self-inquiry the listener hears music.
> 
> We cannot ascribe any notions of self to the 'writer', 'player', 'hearer' unless we hold that self-inquiry occurs within the body. I disagree that self-inquiry occurs within the body. Since we cannot ascribe any notions of self to the 'writer', 'player', 'hearer' we cannot make the statement "it's all a matter of personal taste".


I'm still nonplussed Beethoven14.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

What has self-inquiry (whatever that is) got to do with our taste in music? Isn't our taste most often something unconscious? And when it isn't - when, for example, it results from trying to get to know a piece - it still seems outside of our control and not related to the question "who am I?". I suppose, though, that we might ask questions like that of ourselves (I don't but maybe some people do) _in response to _our feeling of liking or hating a piece of music. This seems obvious but maybe I also am misunderstanding the OP.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

This looks like a philosophical enquiry into aspects of consciousness and its relationship to personal tastes.

Im afraid I have nothing useful to add.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

So we are all waiting (as subjects) to receive the true self of every piece of music (objects) in order to reach te final goal namely to collectively receive the objective truth of every piece of music (artwork or any object)?

How can that happen since the position of every single subject towards any given object is different?


----------



## ECraigR (Jun 25, 2019)

Presumably the numbered statements are meant to indicate the logical steps in an argument. That’s good, but then you need to play by the rules of logic. You’ve many undefined terms, which are abhorrent in logic. Similarly, with your music on “person.” Person has been very well-defined by many philosophers and thinkers. I’d suggest doing a cursory search on JSTOR or another academic search engine and see what you find.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Does all of this have anything to do with Heidegger's 'Dasein' concept?
Because I have never understood that, either.


----------



## Minor Sixthist (Apr 21, 2017)

ECraigR said:


> Presumably the numbered statements are meant to indicate the logical steps in an argument. That's good, but then you need to play by the rules of logic. You've many undefined terms, which are abhorrent in logic. Similarly, with your music on "person." Person has been very well-defined by many philosophers and thinkers. I'd suggest doing a cursory search on JSTOR or another academic search engine and see what you find.


Found the philosophy degree holder!:tiphat:


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

When I was back there in seminary school, there was a person there who put forth the proposition that music is about self-inquiry. … Music is about self inquiry. … Music is about self-inquiry.

MUSIC IS NOT ABOUT SELF INQUIRY!

1. Who am I?
2. Someone who believes musical works are truth propositions.
3. Who am I?
4. Someone who believes music is a lens for inspecting my navel.
5. Who am I?
6. Someone with very strange ideas about logical arguments.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

This topic makes a lot of sense. 
when we read and study our Nietzsche, Jung, Plato, history, lots of history, like how the church and her authorities have waged war on the so called heretics during the years 900-1700, fascinating,,I have like 30 books on the subjectmost not read yet, so as we read our books, and years roll on, we have these experiences, such as Katrina filling our homes with 12 feet of flood waters, as winds whip 100++ around our home for 24 hrs , nonstop, , then some years later we go through the BP Horizon oil disaster and we go to grand isle where Obama's helicopter will not make a pass over my head as I wait patiently 30,40 minutes for his heli to return from his survey going westward along the coast,,,,,,he sees me looking up, in grave consternation, eyes with condemnation, and the copter stops, and lands off at the coast guard base near by,,,and many other experiences we go through,,all of us have these types of experiences. 
We are somehow altered inside.
It stands to reason, as these experiences change our outlook, our musical taste also alters. 
Nothing new under the sun.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Beethoven14 said:


> In the process of self-inquiry the composer writes music.
> In the process of self-inquiry the performer plays music.
> In the process of self-inquiry the listener hears music.


The making and enjoyment of music have nothing to do with self-inquiry. Music is the nicest vacation from self-inquiry I can think of. Food and sex are good too, but more dangerous.


----------



## Littlephrase (Nov 28, 2018)

1. I am 
2. Am what? 
3. I am I 
4. What is the I? 
5. The I is I
6. What makes the I I? 
7. I 
8. ? 
9. ??
10. Ergo, it’s not a matter of personal taste


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Minor Sixthist said:


> Found the philosophy degree holder!:tiphat:


I have more than one and taught it for 9 years.

Not getting involved.


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

Observe that in any sequence of thoughts that arise, including tastes, the first thought is always the 'I' thought.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Beethoven14 said:


> The assumption is that of any sequence of thoughts that arise in the mind, including tastes, the first thought is always the 'I' thought.


Maybe for you, but I doubt it will be this way for most people. I can enjoy art, music, food, wine, forum-unmentionable activities, and many other things without ever questioning who I am. Fortunately.


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

Beethoven14 said:


> Observe that in any sequence of thoughts that arise, including tastes, the first thought is always the 'I' thought.


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> The making and enjoyment of music have nothing to do with self-inquiry.


I reject my earlier statements in this thread.

I direct those interested in the relationship of Mind and Aesthetics to the writings of the 20th century philosopher *Susanne Langer*.

This quote from RW Emerson will clarify my general position regarding Art and Self: *Shakespeare is the only biographer of Shakespeare; and even he can tell nothing [about himself], except to the Shakespeare in us, that is, to our most apprehensive and sympathetic hour. *


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Your initial statement, Beethoven14, reminds me of a statement by a former philosophy professor that philosophy is the art of making the simple appear complicated. Just say it's a matter of personal taste. Everyone knows what we mean


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Just say it's a matter of personal taste. Everyone knows what we mean


I thought he was saying the opposite, actually


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I thought he was saying the opposite, actually


Reminds me of a cartoon I saw years ago. A man sits on a couch and says to another: "Of course that contradicts what I said a minute ago. Emerson said that a petty consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

It’s all about the personal taste of the composer; yours is secondary.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

A story I read: Saint-Saens and a student were arguing about a piece of music. Finally the student, frustrated, said, "Well, after all it's just a matter of taste."

Saint-Saens replied, Yes. Good or bad."


----------



## Agamenon (Apr 22, 2019)

It´s all a matter of personal taste?.

Well, let´s go!: Bach is the worst composer ever, he didn´t know how to build perfect counterpoints, Schubert didn´t create a real melody (pure nonsense) , Shakespeare is crap.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I disagree with the postulation in the original post, that 'incorrect identification of Self with Body that one would make the statement "It's all a matter of personal taste"'. Just throwing out ideas and illustrations. It's a matter of personal taste without identification of self with body, but more with perspective. Art is all about perspective. Appreciation of music needs a certain acceptance of the constructs. For example, I used to think atonal music is insincere gimmickery. But realized I was manipulated by the similar gimmickery with tonal music. Those manipulated by the gimmickery of Mozart are no better off than those by Ariana Grande. Who says drone music and repetition is "bad"? Those who think art can offer something more, which I personally subscribe to. The idea that Mozart's music involves more craft is not subjective. But I can still prefer Ariana Grande, as a matter of personal taste. I could like the microtonal inflections in her voice over the "calculatedness" of Eine Kleine Nachtmusik.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

The purpose of art is to awaken what already exists inside you. If it didn’t, we might all be bankers and politicians. It might seem like it’s all a matter of personal taste, but fortunately not all taste is equal.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I imagine the disagreement over "It´s all a matter of personal taste" must be the concept of taste.

To some people taste is opinion. I doubt anyone thinking that would argue with the theory.

To others taste is more a concept of learned inquiry. In other words to have it you must know something about the subject at hand, perhaps even studied it thoroughly, maybe even to point of becoming a connoiseur.

Seems to me most people think taste is opinion or choice or selection or something like it. 

Merriam-Webster online lists this definition of taste, "...to have perception, experience, or enjoyment : partake —often used with of."

And this one: "individual preference : inclination; critical judgment, discernment, or appreciation; manner or aesthetic quality indicative of such discernment or appreciation."

Apparently it can be argued either way.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

What if my personal taste is to say that your personal taste is totally wrong and stupid? Which would be right?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I'm confused by this thread and all the posts in it, including this one.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Larkenfield said:


> The purpose of art is to awaken what already exists inside you. If it didn't, we might all be bankers and politicians. It might seem like it's all a matter of personal taste, but fortunately not all taste is equal.


I have to uphold the notion that it is indeed a matter of personal taste. You and I both appreciate _cante flamenco_, yet I think we both agree that there are 100 (at least) people who cannot/would not/will not listen to _cante_ without saying "Shut that off, now!, for every single person saying that they love it and want to hear more. Jazz (certain kinds), "exotic" folk or World musics, Chinese opera, you name it, will have both adherents and detractors. There is no overarching "theory of aesthetics" that will satisfactorily embrace/rationalize/explain what people like, ought to like, or why they do like what they do. But there is "voting", polls, lists, other measures of popularity within this audience or demographic, or that one. Best we can do.


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2019)

Beethoven14 said:


> We find this remarkable statement in post #62 of this thread: "It's all a matter of personal taste".
> 
> Let us explore why this statement is incorrect.


I don't think I have ever read such a weird thread as this one.

1. The comment quoted above "_It's all a matter of personal taste"_ is a statement I made in another thread regarding how one's opinion can diminish over time for a composer and the general style of music with which he was associated. That, after all, was the purpose of the thread. My comment was no different in substance from similar comments made by one or two others.

2. I do not understand why the OP didn't express his disagreement with the statement that he quotes in the thread in which it was made. That would have been the obvious thing to do, and I guess that 99% of people who wanted to comment on that post would have chosen that option.

3. Rather than doing that, and having chosen to raise the quoted text here in a separate thread, he might at least have made an attempt to clarify the context in which the comment he has quoted was made. But no, there is absolutely nothing by way of clarification.

4. As far as I can I can see the rest of post# 1 in this thread is devoid of any meaning. It is merely a list of disconnected and repeated sentences that have no logical flow to them. Subsequent posts by the OP trying to clarify his initial post do not make any sense to me either, or to other people so it would seem. It is little wonder therefore that the OP admitted in his post #22 said _"I reject my earlier statements in this thread."_.

5. On the matter of what I actually said, I have not observed that anyone else has bothered to go back to the original thread from which the quote was taken to find out to try to find about how it came about.

6. My comment was intended to be an uncontroversial statement. I certainly did not expect anything like this to follow. This is because the expression _"personal taste_" that I used in that particular context was clearly intended to be synonymous with "personal opinion" or "personal preference". Such expressions or very similar are used very commonly on this Forum when discussing matters that involving matters of choice and recommendation.

7. I would be very surprised indeed if no one else hasn't used expressions like "_In my opinion .._" or "_My preference is ..._", "_I generally prefer ..."._ It is common parlance, and I have found several examples by other people very quickly in other recent threads.

8. I have also found it disappointing to find several members who I hitherto generally considered made sensible comments on issues relating to music have mainly added to the general confusion of this thread by posting almost meaningless contributions. I can only say that I have taken note of their comments, and will be following their comments in other threads with a more critical eye in future.


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2019)

Agamenon said:


> It´s all a matter of personal taste?.
> 
> Well, let´s go!: Bach is the worst composer ever, he didn´t know how to build perfect counterpoints, Schubert didn´t create a real melody (pure nonsense) , Shakespeare is crap.


Are you trying to say that all personal opinion or taste is bound to be wrong, or only some of it? If only some of it, how do you decide which is valid opinion and which is invalid opinion? Do you decide this matter for yourself based on your opinion, perchance? If so, what would be your reply to anyone who told that you that your opinion is invalid?

I'm also curious about what you meant in a recent thread elsewhere:

"_Excellent! Shostakovich´s string quartets are recognized as supreme works of art. However,sometimes these string quartets are underrrated."_​
Whose opinion are you referring to about the status of these string quartets?
Have you carried out a study of how underrated these strings quartets are? Recognised by whom? What other SQs were you comparing them against that you think are overrated by comparison with those by Shostakovich?
.

The reason I ask is that whilst I like Shostakovich's SQs I don't think they're underrated. But that's my opinion. Do you think I'm entitled to express such an opinion?


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2019)

larold said:


> I imagine the disagreement over "It´s all a matter of personal taste" must be the concept of taste.
> 
> To some people taste is opinion. I doubt anyone thinking that would argue with the theory.
> 
> ...


That's all very hair-splitting isn't it?

I would have thought that most people use "personal taste", personal opinion", "personal preference" and "personal favourite" to mean the same thing, or as near as makes no significant difference.

In any case, the context of whatever expression is used is relevant, which nobody seems to have bothered looking at in the present case before firing off their own their two-penneth.


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2019)

Oldhoosierdude said:


> What if my personal taste is to say that your personal taste is totally wrong and stupid? Which would be right?


It depends on what you mean by "right". On matters of "taste" there is no right or wrong.

"De gustibus non est disputandum"​


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Ok. I've struggled through each of the postings here, whether they be simplistic or complex, the simplistic _made_ complex, or the complex made simple … (or the complex made _extra_ complex or the simple made extra simple, or ….) in any case, I finally get it.

"It's all a matter of personal taste".

Or it isn't.

[Now, what could be simpler than that? Thanks all, for helping me to understand.]


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> I have to uphold the notion that it is indeed a matter of personal taste. You and I both appreciate _cante flamenco_, yet I think we both agree that there are 100 (at least) people who cannot/would not/will not listen to _cante_ without saying "Shut that off, now!, for every single person saying that they love it and want to hear more. Jazz (certain kinds), "exotic" folk or World musics, Chinese opera, you name it, will have both adherents and detractors. There is no overarching "theory of aesthetics" that will satisfactorily embrace/rationalize/explain what people like, ought to like, or why they do like what they do. But there is "voting", polls, lists, other measures of popularity within this audience or demographic, or that one. Best we can do.


Well expressed. I have no qualms with any of that.

As if any further proof was required that personal tastes vary among people who enjoy classical music in general, one has only to take a glance at the virtual non-stop voting that takes place every day on this Forum in the various polls whereby works by different composers across varied genres are moved up and down all over the place according to each individual's tastes and preferences. It's a fact of life that personal tastes vary across individuals in many different areas, otherwise we'd be pretty boring as a species.


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

Partita said:


> I don't think I have ever read such a weird thread as this one.


My OP is improvisatory and not intended to be rigorous. I have attempted to question a common assumption about subjective judgment by questioning what is subjectivity itself. Your quote seemed appropriate to begin this questioning. The thread is strange because the topic is slippery. The thread is not a reply to your previous post and is not related to the context of your previous post.



Partita said:


> 4. As far as I can I can see the rest of post# 1 in this thread is devoid of any meaning. It is merely a list of disconnected and repeated sentences that have no logical flow to them. Subsequent posts by the OP trying to clarify his initial post do not make any sense to me either, or to other people so it would seem. It is little wonder therefore that the OP admitted in his post #22 said _"I reject my earlier statements in this thread."_.


I sought to explore in this thread the relationship of inquiry about consciousness to inquiry about aesthetics. This is a difficult topic and I have failed to make any satisfactory progress. But I am glad to have attempted and I hope some may have found something useful in my statements. Upon reading the replies I realized many were sensing I had made an error in trying to use the phrase 'self-inquiry' to encompass both inquiry about consciousness and inquiry about aesthetics. I am realizing it is only appropriate to use 'self-inquiry' when speaking of inquiry about consciousness.



Partita said:


> 5. On the matter of what I actually said, I have not observed that anyone else has bothered to go back to the original thread from which the quote was taken to find out to try to find about how it came about.


Since the position expressed in the quote is so commonly seen in artistic forums I do not think anyone has associated the quote specifically with you and made any judgments about you. It seems to me clear we are discussing an idea here and not any one person.



Partita said:


> 8. I have also found it disappointing to find several members who I hitherto generally considered made sensible comments on issues relating to music have mainly added to the general confusion of this thread by posting almost meaningless contributions. I can only say that I have taken note of their comments, and will be following their comments in other threads with a more critical eye in future.


I believe we are here to improve at writing and understanding. I have created the thread since I felt some would benefit by pondering the question in further detail. Some have felt a need to write here to further their own thoughts and in generosity to help clarify my own thoughts. I do not think anyone felt they could make a meaningful final contribution to this topic. It is important to be appropriately critical of others, but I do not see how responses to a thread about the nature of 'personal taste' itself could give you any information to judge the responders. Discussion of 'personal taste' seems to have as little to do as possible with one's actual 'personal taste'.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

What ever happened to “It’s got a nice beat, and you can dance to it”


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

Agamenon said:


> It´s all a matter of personal taste?.
> 
> Well, let´s go!: Bach is the worst composer ever, he didn´t know how to build perfect counterpoints, Schubert didn´t create a real melody (pure nonsense) , Shakespeare is crap.





Partita said:


> Are you trying to say that all personal opinion or taste is bound to be wrong, or only some of it? If only some of it, *how do you decide which is valid opinion and which is invalid opinion?*


"How do you decide which is valid opinion and which is invalid opinion?"

This seem to me the key question. The answer seems to me 'correct intuition'. What is 'correct intuition'? At the least 'correct intuition' is a postulated possibility requisite for any inquiry. Slightly stronger is that 'correct intuition' is what stands the test of experience (for science this is the test of reality, for art this is the test of validity of representation in many ages and cultures over time). Beyond this I think are theological definitions.


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

Triplets said:


> What ever happened to "It's got a nice beat, and you can dance to it"


This, from _The Republic of Plato_, Book II; 376d-377a.

SOCRATES.
Come, then, like men telling tales in a tale and at their leisure, let's educate the men in speech.

ADEIMANTUS.
We must.

SOCRATES.
What is the education? Isn't it difficult to find a better one than that discovered over a great expanse of time? It is, of course, gymnastic for bodies and music for the soul.

ADEIMANTUS
Yes, it is.

SOCRATES
Won't we begin educating in music before gymnastic?

ADEIMANTUS
Of course.

SOCRATES
You include speeches in music, don't you?

ADEIMANTUS
I do.

SOCRATES
Do speeches have a double form, the one true, the other false?

ADEIMANTUS
Yes.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

paulbest said:


> This topic makes a lot of sense.
> when we read and study our Nietzsche, Jung, Plato, history, lots of history, like how the church and her authorities have waged war on the so called heretics during the years 900-1700, fascinating,,I have like 30 books on the subjectmost not read yet, so as we read our books, and years roll on, we have these experiences, such as Katrina filling our homes with 12 feet of flood waters, as winds whip 100++ around our home for 24 hrs , nonstop, , then some years later we go through the BP Horizon oil disaster and we go to grand isle where Obama's helicopter will not make a pass over my head as I wait patiently 30,40 minutes for his heli to return from his survey going westward along the coast,,,,,,he sees me looking up, in grave consternation, eyes with condemnation, and the copter stops, and lands off at the coast guard base near by,,,and many other experiences we go through,,all of us have these types of experiences.
> We are somehow altered inside.
> It stands to reason, as these experiences change our outlook, our musical taste also alters.
> Nothing new under the sun.


Don't worry, paul. In near-term geologic time, New Orleans is doomed amyway -- as the Atchafalaya will capture and re-root the Lower Mississippi well away from its current course soon enough.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Partita said:


> 8. I have also found it disappointing to find several members who I hitherto generally considered made sensible comments on issues relating to music have mainly added to the general confusion of this thread by posting almost meaningless contributions. I can only say that I have taken note of their comments, and will be following their comments in other threads with a more critical eye in future.


True wisdom knows
it must comprise
some nonsense
as a compromise,
lest fools should fail
to find it wise.

(Piet Hein)


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2019)

Beethoven14 said:


> My OP is improvisatory and not intended to be rigorous. I have attempted to question a common assumption about subjective judgment by questioning what is subjectivity itself. Your quote seemed appropriate to begin this questioning. The thread is strange because the topic is slippery. The thread is not a reply to your previous post and is not related to the context of your previous post.


You could have made that a lot clearer. All you had to do was to say that you wanted to discuss the general matter of whether taste and preference is a valid concept to apply in the arts.



Beethoven14 said:


> I believe we are here to improve at writing and understanding. I have created the thread since I felt some would benefit by pondering the question in further detail. Some have felt a need to write here to further their own thoughts and in generosity to help clarify my own thoughts. I do not think anyone felt they could make a meaningful final contribution to this topic. It is important to be appropriately critical of others, but I do not see how responses to a thread about the nature of 'personal taste' itself could give you any information to judge the responders. Discussion of 'personal taste' seems to have as little to do as possible with one's actual 'personal taste.


You have completely misunderstood the meaning of my last comment, to which the above is a response. I took your post #1 to be a criticism of what I wrote in post #62 in the other thread. I delayed entering this thread in the hope that I would see some defence of what I wrote by others, who I thought shared the same opinion as me that personal taste is of key importance in deciding what music to listen to, rather than feeling duty bound to pay respect to composers or styles because they are famous or generally considered worth listening to.

After a number of posts I saw no such defence, just a load of questioning and minor comment that made the confused initial start of the thread even more fraught. In one case I was very surprised to see what looked like agreement that what I had written in the other thread was dubious, when in fact the same person had made exactly the the same point as me just beforehand. I did not much care for that comment. One or two others struck me as being ambivalent, if not downright two-faced in comparison with what I have seen them write in many other threads, by way of expressing preferences and tastes for certain styles etc. I trust that my comment to which you have drawn attention now makes more sense, and you will see the irrelevance of your reply above.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Partita said:


> I don't think I have ever read such a weird thread as this one.
> 
> ...
> 8. I have also found it disappointing to find several members who I hitherto generally considered made sensible comments on issues relating to music have mainly added to the general confusion of this thread by posting almost meaningless contributions. I can only say that I have taken note of their comments, and will be following their comments in other threads with a more critical eye in future.





premont said:


> True wisdom knows
> it must comprise
> some nonsense
> as a compromise,
> ...


Which explains, again, why I absolutely _refuse_ to read the posts in this Forum, or to ever leave any comments of my own.


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

Beethoven14 said:


> I disagree that self-inquiry occurs within the body.


I'm surprised no one had a stab at this yet. I'd have a go, but I'm not quite sure what it means. Are you saying, Beethoven14, that mental activity does not occur within the brain?


----------



## Euler (Dec 3, 2017)

AeolianStrains said:


> Are you saying, Beethoven14, that mental activity does not occur within the brain?


Seems to be true for the majority of TC members


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

Beethoven14 said:


> I disagree that self-inquiry occurs within the body.





AeolianStrains said:


> Are you saying, Beethoven14, that mental activity does not occur within the brain?


I agree that mental activity occurs within the brain. My position in that post #4 of this thread was rooted in the idea that the question 'Who am I?' seems so divine that it may be worthwhile to study whether this specific question must have an existence independent of the brain. I agree that anything which can be called a 'mental activity' does occur in the brain, I was questioning whether 'Who am I?' deserves special status to be considered something different than a 'mental activity'. I am not decided one way or another on this point yet.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

SONNET CLV said:


> Which explains, again, why I absolutely _refuse_ to read the posts in this Forum,* or to ever leave any comments of my own.*


You too eh - don't incriminate yourself.


----------



## Bigbang (Jun 2, 2019)

This seems a matter of taking a phrase (a matter of personal taste) and being too literal in interpreting it as is. Sure one can use philosophy in all different ways but sounds like a little old school Buddhism to me.

That said, given bias in everything I have no doubt music is a very personal thing and ignorance plays a part as I cannot account for what I have no knowledge of and therefore can only get what little bit I can hear. In other words, I am a idiot when it comes to music and listen just to see what I like and go from there.


----------



## Guest (Jul 21, 2019)

Bigbang said:


> This seems a matter of taking a phrase (a matter of personal taste) and *being too literal in interpreting it* as is. Sure one can use philosophy in all different ways but sounds like a little old school Buddhism to me.
> 
> That said, given bias in everything I have no doubt music is a very personal thing and ignorance plays a part as I cannot account for what I have no knowledge of and therefore can only get what little bit I can hear. In other words, I am a idiot when it comes to music and listen just to see what I like and go from there.


What do you mean by "being too literal in interpreting it"?

"A matter of personal taste" or synonymous expressions are expressions that are often used on music boards to refer to one's likes and dislikes. This Forum is littered with them. The idea of this expression being used too literally, as you put it, is irrelevant. It's an accurate description of how many people feel about their attitude towards certain composers, works, genres, eras, artists of various kinds.

If people were not making comments according to their "personal taste" this Forum would grind to a virtual halt very quickly, as the amount of comment which is not based on personal taste but purely objective in character is much less extensive and far less interesting. It is divergences of "taste" in regard to different aspects of music that generates most of the discussion here.

What's fundamentally wrong with this thread is that was very badly conceived in the first place. The initial hypothesis was gobbledegook. A lot of the subsequent discussion has not taken the matter to any worthwhile conclusions. Many of the people who frequently make comments and judgements on aspects of music based on their own "personal taste", often explicitly so, have conveniently not bothered to show up. Some of the few who have done so appear to have had a problem distancing themselves from what they have said in the recent past about their own decisions to modify their listening patterns in response to changed tastes and priorities.


----------



## Bigbang (Jun 2, 2019)

Partita said:


> What do you mean by "being too literal in interpreting it"?
> 
> "A matter of personal taste" or synonymous expressions are expressions that are often used on music boards to refer to one's likes and dislikes. This Forum is littered with them. The idea of this expression being used too literally, as you put it, is irrelevant. It's an accurate description of how many people feel about their attitude towards certain composers, works, genres, eras, artists of various kinds.
> 
> ...


I am referring to the original post and making the point of distinguishing everyday phrases/expressions and then dissecting it beyond the scope what most people mean in context. I think you misread my point as I can see that your points are valid and agree it is a matter of personal taste.


----------



## Guest (Jul 21, 2019)

Bigbang said:


> I am referring to the original post and making the point of distinguishing everyday phrases/expressions and then dissecting it beyond the scope what most people mean in context. I think you misread my point as I can see that your points are valid and agree it is a matter of personal taste.


Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments. I was not so much questioning your motives but using your comment as a device to hang my further observations on the general stupidity of this entire thread.

Sometimes interesting threads can emerge, prompted by discussion of a specific issue raised elsewhere. On this occasion, the thread that has been created has, at best, only the slightest chance of raising anything of much value.

That's mainly because the topic itself is such that there can't be much doubt that most listeners' choices for music must be based to a large extent of their personal taste, unless they're undergoing some kind of formal training to gain wider knowledge. In addition, if for any reason this basic assumption and plain fact of life is to be questioned it should have been based on a far better alternative theory and evidence than what we were actually presented with in the OP. To me, and I guess to various others too, it made no sense at all, and still doesn't, despite several attempts at clarification.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Our experience is for all practical purposes metaphysical in nature. Art is a way of conveying experience in "currency" which is recognized and has agreed-upon resonances of meaning.

Therefore, our own personal experience is crucial to engaging with art & music. This also greatly reduces the veracity of any notion of "objective" value in art which exists in the absence of our experience of it.

It may be that certain art has sustained and universal meaning (Michaelangelo's Pieta), but this has as much to do with the sustained, universal qualities of human existence and experience as it does with any fixed qualities of the art itself, which is essentially only a medium of exchange.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> Our experience is for all practical purposes metaphysical in nature. Art is a way of conveying experience in "currency" which is recognized and has agreed-upon resonances of meaning.
> 
> Therefore, our own personal experience is crucial to engaging with art & music. This also greatly reduces the veracity of any notion of "objective" value in art which exists in the absence of our experience of it.
> 
> It may be that certain art has sustained and universal meaning (Michaelangelo's Pieta), but this has as much to do with the sustained, universal qualities of human existence and experience as it does with any fixed qualities of the art itself, which is essentially only a medium of exchange.


Yes I would agree
Jung mentions , well he actually quotes the great gnostics past 3000 yrs, from Heraclitus, Plato, the great Gerhard Dorn one of the finest minds among all the alchemists, next to and perhaps superior to Paracelsus in terms of conveying the great mysteries of the transformation of psyche.

Lets not forget Nietzsche's revelations of the importance of mind in this life, valuations, art appreciations.

Take the desert , while driving ina ac car, sure its all so wonderful and beautiful,,,but try camping in those hills for a week or 2.

To experience new art, once has to live in that medium of exchange.

Not onlt this, the performers themselves can awaken this art to us.
take my new arrived cd, Schnittke's string trio, and his string quintet with piano, from the Canadian group, Molinari .

I have several others records, and seems their approach is a bit different. 
Schnittke is a paradox of extremes. German community living inside Russia, so has roots in east germany, yet speaks/writes superior in Russian, 
hasa jewish father/catholic mother. 
He says *I look more the jew*, and he does, yet he shuns his jewish, and converts to Catholicism, not even to russsian orthodoxy, although he wrote masterpieces in the Russian orthodox tradition format, yet modernized.

The Molinari seems to take a more human, feeling approach , although these 2 works are describing communist Russia/commie east germany as he and friends experienced their days under The Iron Fist. 
The Russian records take a approach that speaks more extroverted, as if the outer surroundings take precedence over the inner dimensions ,,whereas the Molinari allows the score to speak what the soul is actually feeling inside this prison of government dominance.

At least that's how I recall my hearing of the Russian records I have of both works..

Both have their place as excellent renditions of the 2 scores,. But I will say, I am very glad to have discovered this Molinari perf. 
I connect more with Molinari's approach than the more harsher/colder, distant style of the russsian groups. 
But then could it be any other way?
The Canadian group has a life/experiences
quite different from the Russian artists.

Thus we all here on TC have quite different life experiences , and is via these channels of hearing/listening which color, grant meaning /scales of meaning/levels of dislike (some may even say hate) to all the music which passes through the ear lobes, and into the mysterious centers of our being. 
Now it is at this juncture
where I will kindly pass the baton to our principle lecturer in the ~esoteric meanings~ of this great art.
Millionrainborws, 
please continue...……….


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

SONNET CLV said:


> Which explains, again, why I absolutely _refuse_ to read the posts in this Forum, or to ever leave any comments of my own.


Have you found out yet how those 2 quotes ended up in your post?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Our experience is for all practical purposes metaphysical in nature.


What does this mean? Metaphysics does not deal with practical purposes. It's theoretical; it identifies fundamental principles of existence as such. Our experience is _for all practical purposes_ existential and specific. It has metaphysical significance for us only if we interpret it with reference to such principles.



> Art is a way of conveying experience in "currency" which is recognized and has agreed-upon resonances of meaning.
> 
> *Therefore*, our own personal experience is crucial to engaging with art & music.


There is no "therefore" connecting these two sentences. "Our own personal experience" need have no relation to "agreed-upon resonances of meaning." It does, in fact, often reveal the limits, and even the absence, of such "agreed-upon resonances."



> *This* also greatly reduces the veracity of any notion of "objective" value in art which exists in the absence of our experience of it.


What is the referent of "this"? One of the above two conflicting statements? And how does either statement speak to the "objectivity" of artistic value - to whether art has value in the absence of anyone to experience it?



> It may be that certain art has sustained and universal meaning (Michaelangelo's Pieta), but this has as much to do with the sustained, universal qualities of human existence and experience as it does with any fixed qualities of the art itself, which is essentially only a medium of exchange.


Art can be a medium of communication, but what it communicates, and how the communication is valued, depends very much on who is receiving the message. A "medium of exchange," by contrast, is precisely a device for making value objective. Something definite is passed from one person to another. A dollar is worth a dollar, and it's useful as a medium of exchange only because we can agree on what it's worth. Art is not such a medium; the transaction between the artist and his audience is bounded, but it's open-ended: a work of art can't convey just anything, and yet what it conveys to each person is, however slightly, peculiar to that person.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

I think a lot of human experience is metaphysical in the sense that a lot (and I would say the most) of concepts we use in language are actually in a way metaphysical concepts, agreed upon concepts of which we don't even sense the metaphysical as metaphysical anymore. But because they're metaphysical, they're an easy victim of misunderstanding and that's why T.C. members keep putting effort in trying to explain these concepts each for their own. 

In that sense I follow millionrainbows that art needs "agreed upon" resonances of meaning so that we at least can agree for example that Beethoven is a genius!!


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

the general public is allowed to become fixated on the genius of Beethoven, 
I have no issues there, But had Henze become enthralled and overwhelmed with the music of Beethoven, we not not have the same works from Henze today. 
Henze acknowledged Beethoven along with others, but it was mostly Bach and moreso Mozart which he found fascinating. Stravinsky also was of great interest. 
Many such influences surrounded his works. 
Genius in the eyes of the public may not be the same as how composers hear the music of the past. 

I moved past Beethoven in my 2 nd year of listening to CM, back in cerca 1984. 
I feel no loss whatsoever.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

I was just using Beethoven as an example who coincidentally is an "agreed upon" genius I happen to admire a lot. Bach for example is an "agreed upon" genius I don't admire (anymore) and whom I past over a very long time ago. Liszt is a "partly-agreed-upon" genius I admire a lot.

Wow!!! It seems that my self acclaimed subjectivity is totally independent of agreed upon resonances of meaning. Maybe there IS something like objective resonance of meaning!! :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

_Originally Posted by __*millionrainbows:*__
Our experience is for all practical purposes metaphysical in nature.

_


> What does this mean? Metaphysics does not deal with practical purposes. It's theoretical; it identifies fundamental principles of existence as such. Our experience is





> for all practical purposes existential and specific. It has metaphysical significance for us only if we interpret it with reference to such principles.


_
_I didn't say it WAS metaphysical; I said that "for all practical purposes" it might as well be metaphysical, since it is subjective, not objective.
_Originally Posted by __*millionrainbows: *__Art is a way of conveying experience in "currency" which is recognized and has agreed-upon resonances of meaning.

*Therefore*, our own personal experience is crucial to engaging with art & music.

_


> There is no "therefore" connecting these two sentences. "Our own personal experience" need have no relation to "agreed-upon resonances of meaning." It does, in fact, often reveal the limits, and even the absence, of such "agreed-upon resonances."


Yes, but I'm pointing out the shared aspects of experience, not their absence, because unlike yourself, I believe that art can "work" as the artist intends it to work. Many of these "agreements" are not explicitly stated, and have to do with the fact that we are all human, and there are tacit agreements at work: we all have emotion, we all walk, we all think...

Of course, art can choose to leave this intentionality behind, but in principle it can still work as a medium in the absence of intent, as in Cage's 4'33". Still, for this to work, it all depends on our own subjective participation, and our willingness to engage. For those who do not, music must be "spoon-fed" in familiar tastes and textures.

_Originally Posted by __*millionrainbows: *__*This* also greatly reduces the veracity of any notion of "objective" value in art which exists in the absence of our experience of it.

_


> What is the referent of "this"? One of the above two conflicting statements? And how does either statement speak to the "objectivity" of artistic value - to whether art has value in the absence of anyone to experience it?


It means you can't just say "that music is bad" as if this were an objective fact, or existed in the music itself. That's a misnomer anyway, since music is a "medium," like a code or language, not an object.

Experience is an essential factor in art. The artist "maps" his experience into the work, and this enables us to "map" our experience on to his. This is empathy. But there is essentially no "objective" way to measure the effectiveness of art, since it is based on our experience of it.

_Originally Posted by __*millionrainbows: *__It may be that certain art has sustained and universal meaning (Michaelangelo's Pieta), but this has as much to do with the sustained, universal qualities of human existence and experience as it does with any fixed qualities of the art itself, which is essentially only a medium of exchange.

_


> Art can be a medium of communication, but what it communicates, and how the communication is valued, depends very much on who is receiving the message.


Exactly, it is subjective. That's what I mean by saying art is not objective. It also answers your question:"...how does either statement speak to the "objectivity" of artistic value - to whether art has value in the absence of anyone to experience it?"



> A "medium of exchange," by contrast, is precisely a device for making value objective.


No, "objectivity" has little to do with it, since art is an exchange of subjective experience. You've gone off into some other area that I'm not talking about.



> Something definite is passed from one person to another. A dollar is worth a dollar, and it's useful as a medium of exchange only because we can agree on what it's worth.


Yes, if we translate this into terms of experience, which is subjective. Are you following some sort of proscribed logic?



> Art is not such a medium; the transaction between the artist and his audience is bounded, but it's open-ended: a work of art can't convey just anything, and yet what it conveys to each person is, however slightly, peculiar to that person.


I never tried to strictly define what art can convey. What it conveys to each person is a matter of "hit-and miss" in many cases, but not all. Music is sound, and we all can hear. Except deaf people.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

paulbest said:


> Yes I would agree
> Jung mentions , well he actually quotes the great gnostics past 3000 yrs, from Heraclitus, Plato, the great Gerhard Dorn one of the finest minds among all the alchemists, next to and perhaps superior to Paracelsus in terms of conveying the great mysteries of the transformation of psyche....Lets not forget Nietzsche's revelations of the importance of mind in this life, valuations, art appreciations....To experience new art, once has to live in that medium of exchange....Not only this, the performers themselves can awaken this art to us.
> 
> Thus we all here on TC have quite different life experiences , and is via these channels of hearing/listening which color, grant meaning /scales of meaning/levels of dislike (some may even say hate) to all the music which passes through the ear lobes, and into the mysterious centers of our being....Now it is at this juncture where I will kindly pass the baton to our principle lecturer in the ~esoteric meanings~ of this great art...Millionrainbows, please continue...……….


Do people really need to be told to "wake up to the present moment?" Apparently so. But you, Paul Best, are very awake, and part of your times. The difference between you & me is that I can look at Beethoven objectively, as a curiosity, as a scientist studies samples. Yes, I have emotions & empathy, and I can be moved by music of the past, but I realize what I'm doing, and keep my perspective. If we deny our times, we deny our experience.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Razumovskymas said:


> Wow!!! It seems that my self acclaimed subjectivity is totally independent of agreed upon resonances of meaning. Maybe there IS something like objective resonance of meaning!! :lol:


I wouldn't go that far. You are human, you walk and talk, you exist on this planet, you've experienced night, day, loss, love, beauty, fear, things bigger than you which make large sounds, things smaller than you which chirp, sunsets, sunrises...



> Maybe there IS something like objective resonance of meaning!!


Maybe in theory, as an abstract concept...but not without your experience of it. "Objectivity" is just pie in the sky, a fabrication.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

paulbest said:


> the general public is allowed to become fixated on the genius of Beethoven,
> I have no issues there, But had Henze become enthralled and overwhelmed with the music of Beethoven, we not not have the same works from Henze today.
> Henze acknowledged Beethoven along with others, but it was mostly Bach and moreso Mozart which he found fascinating. Stravinsky also was of great interest.
> Many such influences surrounded his works.
> ...


So you're familiar with the sonatas and quartets and symphonies of Beethoven in their developmental order with an understanding of their developmental innovations? Within 2 years? I doubt that.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

paulbest said:


> the general public is allowed to become fixated on the genius of Beethoven,
> I have no issues there, But had Henze become enthralled and overwhelmed with the music of Beethoven, we not not have the same works from Henze today.
> I moved past Beethoven in my 2 nd year of listening to CM, back in cerca 1984.
> I feel no loss whatsoever.


There is no "past Beethoven." Composers exist side by side, not "past" each other. We are not superior to Beethoven or to the people who love and admire his work, and expressions of condescension such as "I've moved past that now" are unwarranted.

Composers are all at some point enthralled and overwhelmed by the music of their predecessors. If they are destined to compose music of consequence, that will not hinder them but nourish them.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> There is no "past Beethoven." Composers exist side by side, not "past" each other. We are not superior to Beethoven or to the people who love and admire his work, and expressions of condescension such as "I've moved past that now" are unwarranted.


Yes, saying "I've moved past Beethoven" is much like saying "I've moved past relativity and quantum theory." One is naturally anxious to know what replaced them in the member's esteem.

Of course if the answer is "Henze," then one can only roll one's eyes and wonder why he or she has wasted time on this.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2019)

KenOC said:


> Yes, saying "I've moved past Beethoven" is much like saying "I've moved past relativity and quantum theory." One is naturally anxious to know what replaced them in the member's esteem.
> 
> Of course if the answer is "Henze," then one can only roll one's eyes and wonder why he or she has wasted time on this.


May I ask which composers other than Beethoven you greatly admire. Do you have any kind of personal ranking?

For my part, although I still rate Beethoven very highly, I can see why some members may have relegated him to a lower position than they once had.

It's almost inevitable that many people will start with top names like Beethoven and Mozart etc, but after a longish period of several years I can see why some might tire of it in favour of other composers.

Their behaviour is no more strange than, for example, someone who constantly bangs on about a single composer in thread after thread.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> Do people really need to be told to "wake up to the present moment?" Apparently so. But you, Paul Best, are very awake, and part of your times. The difference between you & me is that I can look at Beethoven objectively, as a curiosity, as a scientist studies samples. Yes, I have emotions & empathy, and I can be moved by music of the past, but I realize what I'm doing, and keep my perspective. If we deny our times, we deny our experience.


Yes, so true
Now I can hear the great romantic passages in Brahms, especially his VC.
Bruckner, , mhaler not so much, his music I find *unusual* , Tchai seems outdated, nothing much going in 2019,,He was great up til we had access to Schnittke and pettersson, Carter.
These romantic works seems to reach back intoa distant past. Which can become *good feelings*. 
But as I say, for me the past is mostly only for others to build upon,. Besides that world of their day, as reflected in their individualized music. , has no meaning for me in 2019. 
I simply refuse it, I reject it. Instinctively knew this was for another mind set.
I could be moved by the Brahms VC, Bruckner sym, but after several hearings,,I already know what to expect. 
How does the song go
*The feelings gone*,,BB King.

It is for this eason the producer decided not to use romantic music for this late 19th C film,,but actually *futureistic* music of Henze, as the appropriate music for the present /future world. 
Look at the churches, emptying out, the concert halls may witness a similar fate if changes are not ushered in.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Partita said:


> May I ask which composers other than Beethoven you greatly admire. Do you have any kind of personal ranking?
> 
> For my part, although I still rate Beethoven very highly, I can see why some members may have relegated him to a lower position than they once had.
> 
> ...


Yes, what matters to me for ranking is how composers developed music further and further in their own time, starting from their early influences. For me this set of rankings never gets old because it's actually an interesting view and reflection of the development of Western music.

When I was young I did this with pop groups. For years I had notebooks full of the top 40 lists - that would come out every week on the radio countdowns. It continually surprised me that I agreed with how the pop hits were selling! How does that happen? I thought about it ...and then I thought about it some more. How could little ol' me, at my young age, be a reliable connoisseur of all the new offerings?

I concluded that there must be a marked difference between the hits that would reach the top 10 and those that predictively wouldn't. With all the money in the industry didn't the controlling promoters know more than I did? Anyway, I went on to try to figure out the salient ingredients for a top 10 hit.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> There is no "past Beethoven." Composers exist side by side, not "past" each other. We are not superior to Beethoven or to the people who love and admire his work, and expressions of condescension such as "I've moved past that now" are unwarranted.
> 
> Composers are all at some point enthralled and overwhelmed by the music of their predecessors. If they are destined to compose music of consequence, that will not hinder them but nourish them.


Yes I agree, Henze in his auto, mentions how enthralled he was over Stravinsky,,a composer I ma glad Henze did not follow too closely, as I never *got* Stravinsky.
Henze was fascinated with many composers, he mentions his most influences are Stravinsky, Mozart, and Bach./
He goes on to say, before he begins his work, he plays Bach to clear his mind.

I am quite sure Beethoven was also one of his studies, , Pettersson, Schnittke, carter would all agree, they have not moved *past* any of the past greats. 
They would have no idea what I am talking about.
As these mod composers understand that w/o the masters works, they might not get as far in their works.

I just see things as built up as a structure. 
This is more a closer image than my use of *getting over the past*.

The past is represented in the later composers, whether we know it or not, its there in some hidden form. 
Great mod music, just does not drop out of thin air, you know.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Partita said:


> May I ask which composers other than Beethoven you greatly admire. Do you have any kind of personal ranking?
> 
> For my part, although I still rate Beethoven very highly, I can see why some members may have relegated him to a lower position than they once had.
> 
> ...


Well had you guys a bit more patience, I would have explained in clearer deatil
as I just did, in the post above,,we can all get to the bottom of things with patience and open discussion. 
I ain't around to make enemies.


----------

