# Greatness: Simple query or nuisance?



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I noticed on another thread somebody suggesting that John Williams wrote greater music than (say) Barber, Ives, Adams, etc. Why? Because it is more popular.

If it _is _more popular (and I think it is) that suggests that it is certainly "greater" than the music we mostly talk about around here in the views of a lot of people, who possibly wouldn't even recognize the other names. Does that imply that we use different and superior criteria in judging music? Or that our musical tastes are "better"? Or, perhaps, that we are simply not looking at things the right way?

Your comments are welcome in this thread, which I hope will be civil and governed by principles of sweet reason. Added: It will be helpful if comments are about the music, not other posters. Holding my breath...


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2015)

I would rather not make MORE threads validating this sickening trend by discussing it in the first place, regardless of what side you're on, but I digress.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

It is too early to tell whether Williams is the equal of, or greater than, the other composers mentioned. We'll have to speak again in a century.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I tend to hold the opinion that popularity is not an indicator of greatness. But what, then, is greatness? :lol: I think there must be some academic or musical standard by which a piece can be 'measured' in terms of value to music, originality, artistic merit, 'furtherance' of music, etc. I like to tickle myself into thinking that I can hear it  but it would take someone with formal training to define it.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Hey that was me!

Well to explain my rationale: I think great, greater, greatest, greatness are rather meaningless placeholder words. They allow for endless debate because they are unquantified. People seem to want great to mean something definite so that they can measure one against another but at the same time ineffable so they are in not burdened by specific. I have no real idea what people mean when they say "Ives is greater than Wiliams", they seem to mean "better, so says the judgement of history" and therefore it is self evident enough to not need proving. If you say instead "Ives is better than Wiliams" people will probably ask out of instinct "better how?"

It is not that popularity is proof of greatness, but that greatness only makes sense in how big they are, nothing to do with musical quality. Ives or Williams' art shouldn't be described in terms as weak as "great", that's a word for advertisers and marketing managers.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

"Greatness" is only a term to cause conflict. Believe that.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Oh Ken, Oh Ken! May a merciful lord forfend;
That intelligent people like us should be asked to judge
If the songs of the Gods must perchance be preferred in the end
To the klepto-plagiary of a space opera drudge.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> Oh Ken, Oh Ken! May a merciful lord forfend;
> That intelligent people like us should be asked to judge
> If the songs of the Gods must perchance be preferred in the end
> To the klepto-plagiary of a space opera drudge.


_That_ is greatness! :tiphat:


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

Saying that popular=good is like saying that the the world was flat in ancient times.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

I think that there are lots of reasons why a piece of music night be popular or unpopular, many of which have little to do with what it sounds like.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> _That_ is greatness! :tiphat:


Aw shucks!

You know, I really don't feel negatively about Williams at all, but a man's gotta rhyme.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I noticed on another thread somebody suggesting that John Williams wrote greater music than (say) Barber, Ives, Adams, etc. Why? Because it is more popular.
> 
> If it _is _more popular (and I think it is) that suggests that it is certainly "greater" than the music we mostly talk about around here in the views of a lot of people, who possibly wouldn't even recognize the other names. Does that imply that we use different and superior criteria in judging music? Or that our musical tastes are "better"? Or, perhaps, that we are simply not looking at things the right way?
> 
> Your comments are welcome in this thread, which I hope will be civil and governed by principles of sweet reason. Added: It will be helpful if comments are about the music, not other posters. Holding my breath...


Agree entirely. Popularity is a signal or an essential feature but *not* the definitive requirement of greatness. Pure and simple. If one composer is great, then he is certainly going to be popular, no doubt about that at all, history proves that clearly. The converse is not necessarily true. This explains why I very carefully correlate popularity with greatness. I think John Williams is a very good composer at the very least. He is certainly one of the most popular 20th century composers, whose name will likely be remembered than many, many of his contemporaries.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> You know, I really don't feel negatively about Williams at all, but a man's gotta rhyme.


Podner, you rhyme real good! Man's gotta rhyme when he's got the time, I always say.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I prefer terms like "popular" or "influential" because they seem more specific, meaningful. But in the past year or so I've slipped back into using "great" as shorthand for "I like it so much" and no one has "called me on it."


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> Pure and simple. If one composer is great, then he is certainly going to be popular, no doubt about that at all, history proves that clearly.


I don't see that at all.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> If one composer is great, then he is certainly going to be popular, no doubt about that at all, history proves that clearly.


False. Pure And Simple (TM). Good Night.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

science said:


> I prefer terms like "popular" or "influential" because they seem more specific, meaningful. But in the past year or so I've slipped back into using "great" as shorthand for "I like it so much" and no one has "called me on it."


I'm calling you on it now. Shame!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

*Greatmess: B.) Nuisance*

Greatmess: B.) Nuisance [to both the Q and Q as OP.]

Since about 40,000 b.c.e. the Shamans have known their paintings on the cave walls were far stronger magic than that drawing made by dragging his finger in the earth as made by Yargh's two year-old kid, regardless of how loud or how often Yargh proclaimed it to be otherwise.

The only thing that has changed since then? Yargh has access to the zInternets, his opinion is but a little louder, like a larger fly buzzing about the room, and Yargh now has some notion that by posting his opinion on all sorts of places on zInternets that those actions act as a real vote or somehow influences the Shamans. None of this is ever going to alter the criteria of the Shamans, nor how they 'vote.' but it does have Yargh thinking he is making a far greater dent than he had been in 40,000 b.c.e.

The Shamans, natch, are aware of Yargh's hyperactive posting on zinternets, smile to themselves, knowing this is working exactly like ye ole Roman Bread and Circus scheme; Yargh is _very busy_ posting his opinions many places on zInternets, believing that counts as both a real vote and is a powerful influence.

Yargh is so diverted by all that that he does not notice there has been no change at all due to his spreading his opinion like he used to spread dung in the earth to get a better crop, and he feels as well like he has a sort of extended day in the sun -- while the Shamans go about their usual business as before -- with Yargh no more influential than he was in 40,000 b.c.e.

That great response Yargh gets is from ~ all the other Yarghs on zInternets ~ and none of the Shamans.

Meanwhile, Yargh is happier with all the attention and support from the other Yarghs -- even though for delusional reasons as per his intent and the effect he believes his zInternets activity has -- and the Shamans are happier. That buzzing sound might be louder (is it the clicking of many computer keyboards?) but Yargh no longer comes to them, dragging them by the hand to look at the finger-drawing made in the earth by his two year-old kid, and then take another twenty minutes of the Shamans' time pointing at that drawing while repeatedly grunting at the Shamans, ad infinitum, "This is _real_ art."

So... It is a kind of win-win for everybody.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

To me, great 'craftsmanship' is certainly something to be in awe of-- and I can think of a few twentieth century composers in particular who preeminently live up to a great technical standard in composition.

However, 'greatness' is something that is qualitatively distinct from 'craftsmanship.'

Greatness to me is not mere craftsmanship but rather craftsmanship that rises above an appallingly narrow range of feelings, and says something that is profoundly human, beautiful, or sublime.

Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner, Berlioz, Mahler, and Rachmaninov are some of the supreme artists that come to mind when I think of this.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Greatness to me is not mere craftsmanship but rather craftsmanship that rises above an appallingly narrow range of feelings, and says something that is profoundly human, beautiful, or sublime.


At last, a welcome attempt to define terms! But there seems to be still a bit of wiggle room here.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

KenOC said:


> At last, a welcome attempt to define terms! But there seems to be still a bit of wiggle room here.


Well, it's rather difficult to say what makes some music aesthetically pleasing and other music less so, as it turns out.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

KenOC said:


> At last, a welcome attempt to define terms! But there seems to be still a bit of wiggle room here.


The terms are admittedly subjective-- sure, as _de gustibus non est disputandum_.

But this is basically how I separate the wheat from the chaff.

A hoary answer (no, Ken, not that kind), I know.

But for old objections, old answers are good enough._ ;D_


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I have never seen a satisfactory definition for the terms great, greater, greatest, greatness. I do not expect to see them in this thread either.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Art Rock said:


> I have never seen a satisfactory definition for the terms great, greater, greatest, greatness. I do not expect to see them in this thread either.


Well of course you're never going to get a definition with a sort of 'scientific precision,' because fundamentally, all aesthetic appraisals are value judgements, and all value judgements are inherently subjective.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ahammel said:


> Well, it's rather difficult to say what makes some music aesthetically pleasing and other music less so, as it turns out.


bbbbbut ain't profoundly human, beautiful, or sublime, like, ya know, specific enough? Oh, is your glass empty? Can't have that now can we? Ha ha ha ha ha. Want ice in it this time or will you just take it neat? _Chin-chin kiss-kiss._


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> bbbbbut ain't profoundly human, beautiful, or sublime, like, ya know, specific enough? Oh, is your glass empty? Can't have that now can we? Ha ha ha ha ha. Want ice in it this time or will you just take it neat? _Chin-chin kiss-kiss._


"When you can measure what you are speaking about and can express it in numbers, you know something about it; and when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind." --Lord Kelvin

(corrected quote)


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

KenOC said:


> "If your knowledge cannot be expressed in numbers, it is of a meager and unsatisfactory sort." --Lord Kelvin


Then consciousness itself is a meager thing since it can't be quantified.

-- How profound is_ that_?

For human insight, Shakespeare beats Skinner any day.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

The last 10 posts or so have reminded me that I need coffee.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Then consciousness itself is a meager thing since it can't be quantified.


Our understanding of consciousness is certainly meager and unsatisfactory. See the first hundred pages or so of the book _The Origin of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_ to see just how true this is. Basically, we don't have a clue. (Added in edit: And neither does Jaynes!)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Not a simple query and not necessarily a nuisance. But more of a nuisance than a simple query.

Not entirely objective or entirely subjective. Bach really was, objectively, a great composer of fugues. But we may feel, subjectively, that a Bach fugue is a less great achievement than a Mozart symphony.

Simple query turns suddenly into nuisance.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

science said:


> The last 10 posts or so have reminded me that I need coffee.


I do tend to bring the party up to a 'respectable' level.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Our understanding of consciousness is certainly meager and unsatisfactory. See the first hundred pages or so of the book _The Origin of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_ to see just how true this is. Basically, we don't have a clue.


I agree.

(Julian Jaynes, incidentally, was a Princeton psychologist and not a cognitive neurobiologist-- so he really didn't have a solid, professional biological grasp of neuroanatomy and physiology. But 'yes,' I think he's right on the money all the same.)

Cognitive scientists like Paul and Patricia Churchland try to give consciousness a biological and quantitative substrate, but I think it's largely ineffectual; impressive as their life's work has been.

So when positivists like Lord Kelvin spout their positivist dogma, I really take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Our understanding of consciousness is certainly meager and unsatisfactory. See the first hundred pages or so of the book _The Origin of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_ to see just how true this is. Basically, we don't have a clue.


Edit: sorry, I hadn't seen MB's post, and I fear that her response plus mine might be enough to derail this thread, so I'm withdrawing mine, although to be fair it was even better - ahem, "greater" - than MB's.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> [/COLOR]
> I agree.
> 
> (Julian Jaynes, incidentally, was a Princeton psychologist and not a cognitive neurobiologist-- so he really didn't have a solid, professional biological grasp of neuroanatomy and physiology. But 'yes,' I think he's right on the money all the same.)
> ...


Consciousness, qua consciousness, is epistemologically irreducible and, apparently, metaphysically not derivable from anything else. This may be the only plausible argument for theism - though a nonspecific and insufficient one.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The point being, that Jaynes asked a lot of questions about what consciousness was and found all possible answers wanting. Has that changed? How?

Added: Except for his own, that I find unconvincing...


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> science: Edit: sorry, I hadn't seen MB's post, and I fear that her response plus mine might be enough to derail this thread, so I'm withdrawing mine, although to be fair it was even better - ahem, "greater" - than MB's.


Not greater than my 'runway' though, huh?

<Kiss.>


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I thought the Jaynes book was a










read, if a little bit wacky!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Consciousness, qua consciousness, is epistemologically irreducible and, apparently, metaphysically not derivable from anything else. This may be the only plausible argument for theism - though a nonspecific and insufficient one.


Alas, Duck and I disagree now for the <gasp!!> _second_ time (the first being on the Lara St. John cd cover _;D_ ).

But that's alright. We can still be friends.

I think that if you take away the brain, you automatically take away consciousness; and that you cannot have consciousness without a brain. . . but its late, and I have to get to bed.

Lara St. John and I just dolled-up in hot pants and are going to camp the town_ red_. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Just kidding. I have to get up at four tomorrow. Good night. _;D_


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

starthrower said:


> I thought the Jaynes book was a
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Loved the first part, and then it was like, Whaaaaa?

But that's all OT. More to the point, is "greatness" an inherent attribute of music, or is it all fashion?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Consciousness, qua consciousness, is epistemologically irreducible and, apparently, metaphysically not derivable from anything else. This may be the only plausible argument for theism - though a nonspecific and insufficient one.


Not wishing to divert this thread - it is one of many arguments for theism.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

starthrower said:


> I thought the Jaynes book was a
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Agreed: a whole lot of whacky but with some good insights.

I like how he expounds-- not that you need to really-- on how 'most' people walk around all day long in a subconscious haze. So much for the rational man.

What ever would Jefferson say?!!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Not wishing to divert this thread - it is one of many arguments for theism.


O God, got to divert again. Having come to own pets (dogs) late in life, I have become convinced that they are quite as conscious as you or me. They know right and wrong, can feel shame, even have a sense of fairness. And in some ways, by our lights they are quite superior beings. How do they fit into "theism"?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Alas, Duck and I disagree now for the <gasp!!> _second_ time (the first being on the Lara St. John cd cover _;D_ ).
> 
> But that's alright. We can still be friends.
> 
> ...


So it would appear. But how matter organized in a certain way possesses consciousness, if consciousness _at some level_ is not inherent in matter as such - well, good night to you too!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I can sense the mods getting ready to pounce, so I ask again: Is "greatness" an inherent attribute of music, or is it all fashion?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Agreed: a whole lot of whacky but with some good insights.
> 
> I like how he expounds-- not that you need to really-- on how 'most' people walk around all day long in a subconscious haze. So much for the rational man.
> 
> What ever would Jefferson say?!!


Hell, nobody really lives anymore. Just working for a living. And all of these *** kissers getting so wrapped up in this crap. But mostly, people play with their phones.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

brotagonist said:


> I tend to hold the opinion that popularity is not an indicator of greatness. But what, then, is greatness? :lol: I think there must be some academic or musical standard by which a piece can be 'measured' in terms of value to music, originality, artistic merit, 'furtherance' of music, etc. I like to tickle myself into thinking that I can hear it  *but it would take someone with formal training to define it.*


*"...but it would take someone with formal training to define it."* Lovely thought, but as many criteria as have been arrived at within that community, developed over centuries, there is no real consensus there, either. I.e., even there, the great debate rages on unabated with no hopes or likelihood of any real conclusions in sight in the near (or far) future.

^^^ that fact rather denies that science, maths, other disciplines which are not 'the arts' have anything, when applied to art, to conclusively say about the matter, and we all know how useful ideologies and philosophy are as a tool in the arts arena as well when it comes to nailing down 'what is great'... i.e. not at all


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

arcaneholocaust said:


> I would rather not make MORE threads validating this sickening trend by discussing it in the first place, regardless of what side you're on, but I digress.


Analyzing the mediocre tends to only lend an air of more legitimacy to the mediocre.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> Oh Ken, Oh Ken! May a merciful lord forfend;
> That intelligent people like us should be asked to judge
> If the songs of the Gods must perchance be preferred in the end
> To the klepto-plagiary of a space opera drudge.


*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*
_*Thread Prizewinner. Game Over and Give That Man A Cigar!*_


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Analyzing the mediocre tends to only lend an air of more legitimacy to the mediocre.


If that's true, either the analysis isn't all that great, or the mediocre isn't all that mediocre.

For me, the difference between "great art" - or, let's say, art that I am able to love deeply - and "mediocre art" is how well it stands up to informed analysis.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> If one composer is great, then he is certainly going to be popular....


"If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

PetrB said:


> "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."


I like that, and I can see why you quoted that because it goes to show that the greatness discussion here is secretly the wish of all composers, to be great. Thanks.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

It is not a 'simple' query, as *greatness* is impossible to define, and some say it is a meaningless statement to say that any composer is 'great'.

It is not a 'nuisance', because that would put it too strongly. It is mildly irritating.

I don't think there's anything wrong with saying 'Do you think that X is a great composer?' or 'Do you think that X will be ranked with Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms or whoever...?'
This makes it clear that subjective opinions are being asked for; and hopefully the poster will give some sort of artistic reason for their answer. And other posters will engage with those reasons and an enlightening discussion will take place.

The problem is when the query is put *too* 'simply' - Is X a greater composer than Y, etc.
This usually annoys people, especially the fans of Y.

However, I still think one should be allowed to ask the too-simple question, and that responses to it should be rational and good-natured.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2015)

Just for the record, since I have tried several times to have this conversation and failed, "great" is a word, so possibly the answers Ken is still asking for can be found in linguistics or in semantics, not in psychology or biology or physiology.

Great is a particular kind of word. We have had a few glimpses into its meaning in these four pages, but to get a really sharp, focussed view, I think we have to look at meaning, at how words mean.

Also logic could be employed, especially for the either/or that Ken set up. Logic can help both in evaluating whether or not the situation is indeed an either/or one and also in determining which of the (however many) possibilities is likeliest to be true.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> For human insight, Shakespeare beats Skinner any day.


For human insight, the Greek Myths, The Mahabharata, and the Old Testament also beat Skinner -- any day.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I can sense the mods getting ready to pounce, so I ask again: Is "greatness" an inherent attribute of music, or is it all fashion?


I think that some music has a property called "beauty" that is independent of anybody's personal taste or what happens to be fashionable. I do not think that determining whether music is beautiful or not, in this sense, is a thing that anybody really know how to do, although quite possibly some people can make better guesses than others.

I also find it unlikely that composers form a totally ordered set, and therefore trying to determine which is the greatest is a rather silly exercise.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ahammel said:


> I think that some music has a property called "beauty" that is independent of anybody's personal taste or what happens to be fashionable. I do not think that determining whether music is beautiful or not, in this sense, is a thing that anybody really know how to do, although quite possibly some people can make better guesses than others.
> 
> I also find it unlikely that composers form a totally ordered set, and therefore trying to determine which is the greatest is a rather silly exercise.


If you're going to suggest, on this forum, that beauty, or greatness, or any other value in music or art or the wide realm of aesthetics, has an objective basis - even if you concede that judgment of such values is not entirely objective - you may be asked to prove it, scientifically and beyond dispute, by someone who finds five minutes of something that sounds like a mixture of bacon frying, highway construction, and a woman delivering triplets without anaesthesia, as great and beautiful as the _Fantasia on a Theme of Thomas Tallis_.

Do you really want to go there?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> So it would appear. But how matter organized in a certain way possesses consciousness, if consciousness _at some level_ is not inherent in matter as such - well, good night to you too!


No grey matter, no consciousness.

Just like: no movie projector, no image projected onto the screen.

The screen image cannot exist independently and apart from the movie projector which made it possible.

The same principle goes for consciousness minus neuronal cell bodies.

No one knows how the brain works to produce the epiphenomena of consciousness, but we do know that isolated neuronal cell bodies in a petri dish will not produce a living consciousness.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> If you're going to suggest, on this forum, that beauty, or greatness, or any other value in music or art or the wide realm of aesthetics, has an objective basis - even if you concede that judgment of such values is not entirely objective - you may be asked to prove it, scientifically and beyond dispute, by someone who finds five minutes of something that sounds like a mixture of bacon frying, highway construction, and a woman delivering triplets without anaesthesia, as great and beautiful as the _Fantasia on a Theme of Thomas Tallis_.
> 
> Do you really want to go there?


Bring it on.

*cracks knuckles*


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2015)

ahammel said:


> Bring it on.
> 
> *cracks knuckles*


I find the seeming call-and-response of the bacon fat pops with the cries of the newborn to be _greatly_ affecting.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I've said this before on TC:

A "great" composer is one whose name tends to come up when people answer the question "Who are the great composers?"

If the group doing the answering is one that, as Ken said in the first post "possibly wouldn't even recognize the other names", then Williams may be "great" and Barber, Ives, and Adams not.
If the group is what we might call the cognoscenti, and is aware of a lot of music by these and many other composers, then Williams is unlikely to come up, because his music doesn't match their criteria of "greatness".

But these criteria, while the cognoscenti might agree on their general nature, can't be used as a truly objective measure, so ultimately it has to boil down to common personal preferences. In other words, popularity.
Have there ever been composers regarded by those in the know as "great" whose music is generally _disliked_ among those in the know?

Short version: greatness = popularity.

But we can't just leave it at that, because the posters on TC are too heterogeneous a group for there to be common criteria of "greatness".
So on TC "great" is a nuisance word, as are various words like "accessible", "beautiful", "crap" and so on. A group of like-minded people may instinctively share definitions of these words, but we are not like-minded on TC.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

PetrB said:


> For human insight, the Greek Myths, The Mahabharata, and the Old Testament also beat Skinner -- any day.


But then, admittedly, Skinner _is_ a low bar to clear. Ha. Ha. Ha.

_Beyond Freedom and Dignity_?

What could be more _important_, 'Burrhus'?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

*pretty is not beautiful*



Woodduck said:


> If you're going to suggest, on this forum, that beauty, or greatness, or any other value in music or art or the wide realm of aesthetics, has an objective basis - even if you concede that judgment of such values is not entirely objective - you may be asked to prove it, scientifically and beyond dispute, by someone who finds five minutes of something that sounds like a mixture of bacon frying, highway construction, and a woman delivering triplets without anaesthesia, as great and beautiful as the _Fantasia on a Theme of Thomas Tallis_.
> 
> Do you really want to go there?


I'm not the one you addressed your response to, but it is an open forum and I'm a brave enough fool "to want to go there." (Interesting you chose the Vaughan Williams as some sine qua non of beauty and then used it as gauntlet / weapon / threat.) It also can strike the reader that as you expressed it, there is one mandated absolute definition of (musical) beauty with no other equally valid, or more strongly valid, possibility in the universe. :lol:

The antique classical attribution of what is beautiful if 'profoundly beautiful,' is by its very nature _also inherently disturbing to terrifying_.

I'm _very_ old school in this regard, making my take a very opposing view as to what you have laid down as a sina qua non example of 'what is beautiful' as pending on the Vaughan Williams piece.

With the antique ideal of "real beauty as also inherently terrifying" criteria in ones tote bag, it can be thought / seen that choosing the Vaughan Williams is at least somewhat, if not entirely off the mark; as beautiful as it is thought to be, it is more than possible that piece is merely _extremely pretty_ vs. something truly beautiful. I think some general taste very soon after the late romantic latched on to that late 18th century tenet that art must be 'beautiful,' and 'noble,' while I find that more in the direction of what is found more today in new-age non-confrontational prettiness than in classical music.

Ecstasy implies anything but the rather cozy and safe armchair trip a work like the Vaughan Williams delivers, rather like sitting in that armchair with a safe, cozy warm buzz of half an alcoholic beverage downed and taking its effect, a little numbed, lifted a bit outside of one's normal state and perhaps accessing more emotions that make one feel good while a bit weepy. Yes that can all be taken as some ecstatic spiritual hit, but I still think that sort of journey is just so cozy and safe I cannot think of it as other than a sugar coated placebo taken in belief it is that other much stronger medicine of beauty.

That experience I've described in the armchair is nothing like unto staring at the face of the God Apollo (the statue standing in the museum in Olympia, Greece.) Attractive young man, radiating power, and terrifying with an imparted look of 'he who is all-seeing all-knowing' while devoid of any of those later and cozier notions of a much more caring and compassionate deity -- truly awe-inspiring, scary, and deeply disturbing. This is another definition of beauty no less valid than the sort of beauty sought and found in the Vaughan Williams, while I think that compared to that Olympian Apollo, the kind of beauty in the Vaughan Williams is insipid.

But meeting you half-way, I offer for your consideration:
Igor Stravinsky:

Apollo













John Adams ~ Dharma at Big Sur









More in line with that terrifying beauty which I find infinitely deeper and stronger than the Vaughan Williams variety...
Luciano Berio ~ Visage


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> If you're going to suggest, on this forum, that beauty, or greatness, or any other value in music or art or the wide realm of aesthetics, has an objective basis - even if you concede that judgment of such values is not entirely objective - you may be asked to prove it, scientifically and beyond dispute, by someone who finds five minutes of something that sounds like a mixture of bacon frying, highway construction, and a woman delivering triplets without anaesthesia, as great and beautiful as the _Fantasia on a Theme of Thomas Tallis_.


In the popular arena, it's taken for granted that any sound can be used in music: a cash register, a bit of laughter or crowd noise, some electronically modified bit of vocal or whatnot. The sound is neutral, although of course some sounds have more or at least different utility than others. The sounds used in something are hardly any indication of its quality. All these posts seemingly lampooning "that crazy modern music" are identical to things said about Berlioz, Wagner, and Strauss before.

"Barnyard noises"
"Hell in music"
"Aural torture"
"Cat running up and down a piano"

I want to ask how the criticism is different now as a response to music than it was then. If a criticism of music is valid as an aesthetic reaction to it, then the above criticisms have an exactly equal amount of weight to your imagined piece.

If it doesn't, and you don't justify this based on any particular reason, then this is special pleading.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

See, ahammel? Didn't I warn you?

Are you still cracking your knuckles? Or just waiting for scowling Sister Seriosa to rap them with a ruler?

:angel:


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

But I _do_ believe in objective aesthetic value, and have argued such in the past. I'm not disagreeing with Ahammel at all, just with your hypothetical piece.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I want to believe in "objective aesthetic value." There just has to be a way of determining superiority, but I have yet to see the criteria.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

brotagonist said:


> I want to believe in "objective aesthetic value." There just has to be a way of determining superiority, but I have yet to see the criteria.


You're probably kidding, but "objective aesthetic value" doesn't imply that there's a method of sorting music from best to worst. I think that's what a lot of people who object to the idea are really objecting to.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> In the popular arena, it's taken for granted that any sound can be used in music: a cash register, a bit of laughter or crowd noise, some electronically modified bit of vocal or whatnot. The sound is neutral, *although of course **some sounds have more or at least different utility than others.* *The sounds used in something are hardly any indication of its quality. All these posts seemingly lampooning "that crazy modern music" are identical to things said about Berlioz, Wagner, and Strauss before.*
> 
> "Barnyard noises"
> "Hell in music"
> ...


Different sounds sure do have "different utility." Sounds that produce regular vibrations - i.e. tones - for example, have very different utility than do the sounds of bacon frying and highway construction.

I've never been even slightly impressed by the fact that some people said similarly horrible things about Wagner and Tchaikovsky as some people say about (insert name of "crazy modern music" composer). Some people will say anything.

I'm not out to prove anything here. My example was chosen off the top of my head. I was just pointing out what a hornet's nest this is.

And Sister Seriosa isn't necessarily you, Mahlerian. I think you're nicer than she is.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Let's break this objective bit down.

Do we mean:

a) There are aesthetic values that exist independently of all human consciousness, the way that mathematical values ("1 + 1 = 2") seem to.

b) There are aesthetic values that exist universally (or nearly so) in humanity, evidently as a result of the structure of the human mind, and their universality itself proves their objective truth.

c) There are aesthetic values that certain groups of humans share, resulting from the way their minds interact with their culture and other environmental factors; the fact that some humans are able to agree about what is "good" shows that their values are objective rather than subjective.

I believe "1+1=2" (the idea itself of course, not the definitions of those symbols or the semantics of their representation) is true regardless of cultural or moral values, it is as true for bacteria and chickens and computers as it is for humans, and it would be true even if no humans or minds or universes had ever existed. Even purely empirical claims can be proven "true" with a reasonable degree of certainty: "The earth moves" may be difficult for most of us to prove, but with the proper tools it can be proven to any reasonable person. _That_ is what "objective" means. I would be very surprised prove any aesthetic value to have that kind of objective existence. So (a) would surprise me.

I am willing to grant (b) and (c) (in fact, I think they are manifestly true) although I wouldn't call either of them properly "objective."

My experience of "beauty" is not actually an experience of an objectively real thing: it is a subconscious (almost completely inaccessible to introspection) relationship between the way my mind perceives an object and other aspects of my mind. (So there are three things we want to keep distinct: an object [or group of objects or whatever, such as a set of vibrations in the air], my perception of that object [sound, perhaps "recognizable" as speech, an infant crying, glass breaking...], and the way other parts of my mind respond to that perception [or, if there is one, its apparent meaning: pleasure, surprise, fear, etc.])

Minds with other characteristics - including other human minds from different environments - will find at least some combinations of sounds more or less pleasurable than I do, because they will sometimes perceive the underlying reality differently; and because even if they perceive it precisely the same, sometimes the reactions of the other parts of their mind will differ from mine.

Cutting through all those words, this should be easy to understand: I will never hear koto music the way a Japanese woman from the 1920s would have. My subjectivity and hers will overlap to some degree, but where they differ, there is no objective judge.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

science said:


> I believe "1+1=2" (the idea itself of course, not the definitions of those symbols or the semantics of their representation) is true regardless of cultural or moral values, it is as true for bacteria and chickens and computers as it is for humans, and it would be true even if no humans or minds or universes had ever existed. Even purely empirical claims can be proven "true" with a reasonable degree of certainty: "The earth moves" may be difficult for most of us to prove, but with the proper tools it can be proven to any reasonable person. _That_ is what "objective" means. I would be very surprised prove any aesthetic value to have that kind of objective existence. So (a) would surprise me.
> 
> I am willing to grant (b) and (c) (in fact, I think they are manifestly true) although I wouldn't call either of them properly "objective."


You and I have rather different understandings of what "objective" means, then. For me it just means independent of anybody's experience in particular.

It's not possible to empirically or mathematically prove that I'm not a brain in a vat, but I think that there's still an objective answer to that question (in the sense of an answer that doesn't depend on who's asking).


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

PetrB said:


> With the antique ideal of "real beauty as also inherently terrifying" criteria in ones tote bag, it can be thought / seen that choosing the Vaughan Williams is at least somewhat, if not entirely off the mark; as beautiful as it is thought to be, it is more than possible that piece is merely _extremely pretty_ vs. something truly beautiful. I think some general taste very soon after the late romantic latched on to that late 18th century tenet that art must be 'beautiful,' and 'noble,' while I find that more in the direction of what is found more today in new-age non-confrontational prettiness than in classical music.


I enjoyed your post and the aesthetic ideal you have advocated. I am just confused as to the characterization: "antique ideal." To me the formulation sounds closer to an arch-Romantic position. One of the big German Romantic writers (Hoffmann?) said something like: "There is no true beauty without the admixture of the fearful and the strange." (I'll have to search for the exact wording.)

Anyway, it is an intriguing idea and I favor it in my sound ideal as well.

Edit: I've seen it attributed to Poe ("There is no exquisite beauty without some strangeness in the proportion" (1838)), but I think Poe borrowed the idea from a German writer.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I know perfectly well that Bach's WTC is a "great" work of art independently of our human judgments, either individually or collectively. In fact, I'm certain of it.

However, I cannot believe it.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I know perfectly well that Bach's WTC is a "great" work of art independently of our human judgments, either individually or collectively. In fact, I'm certain of it.
> 
> However, I cannot believe it.


You're going to have to expand a bit on this distinction between certainty and belief. I'm afraid it's a bit beyond me.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

ahammel said:


> You're going to have to expand a bit on this distinction between certainty and belief. I'm afraid it's a bit beyond me.


It's "obvious" to me that this is a great work. But all observations indicate that consensus views on the quality of music are variable and change over time with society's values, resembling fashions more than objectively-held opinions.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

KenOC said:


> It's "obvious" to me that this is a great work. But all observations indicate that consensus views on the quality of music are variable and change over time with society's values, resembling fashions more than objectively-held opinions.


Maybe the consensus view is simply wrong sometimes.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

ahammel said:


> Maybe the consensus view is simply wrong sometimes.


Then what's right? My view? Yours? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm... :lol:


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

....................


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

ahammel said:


> You're probably kidding, but "objective aesthetic value" doesn't imply that there's a method of sorting music from best to worst. I think that's what a lot of people who object to the idea are really objecting to.


Yes, but musicologists do it all the time! For e.g. the endless claims that Bach's music is 'far greater' than Telemann's - to me, they're composers with different styles - maybe Bach does some things 'better', Telemann others.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Then what's right? My view? Yours? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm... :lol:


I 'unno. Like I said, it's hard to determine. You might as well go with your intuition as a first approximation. What's the worst that could happen?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> It's "obvious" to me that this is a great work. But all observations indicate that consensus views on the quality of music are variable and change over time with society's values, resembling fashions more than objectively-held opinions.


The consensus that Bach's WTC is great music has held up quite well, I'd say. Any sign that its reputation is falling? No? I'd say that "resembles" objectively-held opinion more than fashion.

Is it great because there's a consensus enduring over centuries, or is there a consensus enduring over centuries because it's great - and because, somehow, without "proof," people can tell that it is ?


----------



## Giordano (Aug 10, 2014)

I think we can analyze the *information content* of music, for appreciation, not for ranking.

I don't know of anyone on the planet who can do it... but I do know that WTC has endured because its information content is effective on human consciousness, without humans knowing anything about it.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Different sounds sure do have "different utility." Sounds that produce regular vibrations - i.e. tones - for example, have very different utility than do the sounds of bacon frying and highway construction.


But the utility of a sound cannot be determined by whether or not it has a determinable pitch. I think most people would agree that the inharmonic vibrations of a snare drum certainly have utility that a pure sine wave does not. You are using sounds that are not normally considered a part of music, but that in itself is no indication that they cannot or should never be used in music in some way, possibly abstracted from their original associations (as many other instruments have been).



Woodduck said:


> I've never been even slightly impressed by the fact that some people said similarly horrible things about Wagner and Tchaikovsky as some people say about (insert name of "crazy modern music" composer). Some people will say anything.


You are claiming that perceptions of "crazy modern music" in the past are completely irrelevant to discussions of "crazy modern music" in the present (which is special pleading), or perhaps that critics and audiences were lying or misrepresenting their actual perceptions (in which case the burden of proof is on you to show this).

I believe that they are equally valid, full stop.

I think the burden of proof is on others to prove that their perception of "crazy modern music" as noise is somehow more valid than similar views in the past regarding other composers, if they intend to make any sort of aesthetic statement about what the music actually is. If they are just expressing their own personal perception, without the intent to make a statement about the work, then that is of course fine, as all perceptions are valid as perceptions.



> I'm not out to prove anything here. My example was chosen off the top of my head. I was just pointing out what a hornet's nest this is.


That wasn't an example, though. It was a deliberately concocted "modern horror" that does nothing for this or any other argument.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> The consensus that Bach's WTC is great music has held up quite well, I'd say. Any sign that its reputation is falling? No? I'd say that "resembles" objectively-held opinion more than fashion.


Bach's WTC was almost invisible from his own time until well into the 20th century. Certainly a few enthusiasts valued it as did some professional composers like Mozart and Beethoven. Mozart's music was pretty well ignored through the 19th century aside from a few minor-key Beethovenian works; Haydn was absent almost completely.

I doubt if, on a forum like this one, many of the works of these three would have been listed as high among the "greats". But times change.

(I could be wrong about this history, and look forward to gentle correction!)


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ahammel said:


> I 'unno. Like I said, it's hard to determine. You might as well go with your intuition as a first approximation. What's the worst that could happen?


Ye Gods man! Go with your own intuition as a first approximation? That would lead to people making up their minds independent of others, leaving us with 0 posts where we get to rate and rank the greatness of composers. The polls category might just dry up completely, and then one or more members here might die of dehydration!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Bach's WTC was almost invisible from his own time until well into the 20th century. Certainly a few enthusiasts valued it as did some professional composers like Mozart and Beethoven. Mozart's music was pretty well ignored through the 19th century aside from a few minor-key Beethovenian works; Haydn was absent almost completely.
> 
> I doubt if, on a forum like this one, they would have been listed as high among the "greats". But times change.
> 
> (I could be wrong about this history, and look forward to gentle correction!)


Mozart and Beethoven were sure of Bach's greatness and so am I. And the three of us have excellent company. That's a reputation spanning centuries. I stand by my statement.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Bach's WTC was almost invisible from his own time until well into the 20th century. Certainly a few enthusiasts valued it as did some professional composers like Mozart and Beethoven. Mozart's music was pretty well ignored through the 19th century aside from a few minor-key Beethovenian works; Haydn was absent almost completely.
> 
> I doubt if, on a forum like this one, they would have been listed as high among the "greats". But times change.


I take your point, but if you think that things like science aren't prove to fads and broad changes in public opinion, well, I really don't know what to tell you.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

ahammel said:


> I take your point, but if you think that things like science aren't prove to fads and broad changes in public opinion, well, I really don't know what to tell you.


Science is certainly subject to fads and fashions! Not hard to find lots of examples. Music likewise.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> *But the utility of a sound cannot be determined by whether or not it has a determinable pitch.* I think most people would agree that the inharmonic vibrations of a snare drum certainly have utility that a pure sine wave does not. *You are using sounds that are not normally considered a part of music, but that in itself is no indication that they cannot or should never be used in music in some way*, possibly abstracted from their original associations (as many other instruments have been).
> 
> *You are claiming that perceptions of "crazy modern music" in the past are completely irrelevant to discussions of "crazy modern music" in the present* (which is special pleading), *or perhaps that critics and audiences were lying or misrepresenting their actual perceptions* (in which case the burden of proof is on you to show this).
> 
> I believe that they are equally valid, full stop.


I didn't say that sounds with nonperiodic vibrations have no use in music. I said they have _different_ uses.

I didn't say that perceptions of modern music in the past are irrelevant to perceptions of modern music in the present. I said that I _wasn't impressed_ by the parallels that are constantly drawn between the two. The fact that some people in 1815 thought Beethoven was crazy while we've decided he's one of the greatest composers in history says nothing about Xenakis or Ferneyhough or about anyone's estimate of them, now or in the future.

And I certainly never implied anyone was lying, then or now.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Mozart and Beethoven were sure of Bach's greatness and so am I. And the three of us have excellent company. That's a reputation spanning centuries. I stand by my statement.


I think one can do a bit better than consensus. Bach fugues are quintessential exemplars of the form. Archetypal. If one studies the musical values of the age, reading theoretical and musical-rhetorical treatises, one can see the extent to which the extolled virtues and values are fulfilled. His stretto passages are masterpieces of tiling not unlike the decorative elements in architectural masterpieces like the Alhambra. They have facets like jewels, and nearly everyone can grasp perfection in this quasi-geometric sense. One can examine Bach's fugues as a stage in the historical evolution of the form and see the archetypal features attaining preternatural purity and sharp focus in his work. Bach was a master jeweler, as was Josquin. Objectivity? No, but the ideals and aesthetic goals toward which baroque fugal techniques are plied are stated in fairly objective terms. Judging the extent to which these criteria are realized admits subjectivity, of course, but I would say the intersubjective consensus on these works has a fairly strong basis. Or as strong as one can expect such a consensus to have.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

PetrB said:


> I'm not the one you addressed your response to, but it is an open forum and I'm a brave enough fool "to want to go there." (*Interesting you chose the Vaughan Williams as some sine qua non of beauty* and then used it as gauntlet / weapon / threat.) *It also can strike the reader that as you expressed it, there is one mandated absolute definition of (musical) beauty with no other equally valid, or more strongly valid, possibility in the universe.* :lol:
> 
> The antique classical attribution of what is beautiful if 'profoundly beautiful,' is by its very nature _also inherently disturbing to terrifying_.
> 
> ...


This only pretends to be a response to my comment to ahammel. You begin by making two false assumptions about my beliefs, and then act as if you're refuting me.

If you've a hankering to give a lecture on your idea of beauty, then just do it. Why begin by pretending that that you're representing _my_ idea of beauty (which you call "prettiness"), when you really haven't a clue what it is?

You're certainly entitled to think what you like of Vaughan Williams's _Tallis Fantasia_. Just know that many find it far more than a "sugar-coated placebo." A friend of mine says it helped get him through the prolonged and painful death of his partner from AIDS by offering him a powerful spiritual vision of suffering transcended. That's pretty damned "beautiful," don't you think?

Beauty comes in many forms. _That_ is what _I_ think.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> I think one can do a bit better than consensus. Bach fugues are quintessential exemplars of the form. Archetypal...


All very fine. But what if one values fugues, even the most perfect, as merely entertainment, like watching a trained seal juggle several rubber balls skillfully? Diverting to be sure, but hardly "great"! I suggest that granting that Bach wrote really fine fugues is a long way from saying that his fugues are great.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> *I think one can do a bit better than consensus.* Bach fugues are quintessential exemplars of the form. Archetypal. If one studies the musical values of the age, reading theoretical and musical-rhetorical treatises, one can see the extent to which the extolled virtues and values are fulfilled. His stretto passages are masterpieces of tiling not unlike the decorative elements in architectural masterpieces like the Alhambra. They have facets like jewels, and nearly everyone can grasp perfection in this quasi-geometric sense. One can examine Bach's fugues as a stage in the historical evolution of the form and see the archetypal features attaining preternatural purity and sharp focus in his work. Bach was a master jeweler, as was Josquin. Objectivity? No, but the ideals and aesthetic goals toward which baroque fugal techniques are plied are stated in fairly objective terms. Judging the extent to which these criteria are realized admits subjectivity, of course, but I would say the intersubjective consensus on these works has a fairly strong basis. Or as strong as one can expect such a consensus to have.


I think so too. You say these things better than I (or, there are things you can say that I can't say at all). It's often very difficult to talk about just what it is that makes something fine, beautiful, great. There's nothing I enjoy more than the effort to do that. Thanks much.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Change is inevitable, guys. Don't be afraid. You're ideas will ultimately be wiped out. Let's enjoy the forward momentum...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> All very fine. But what if one values fugues, even the most perfect, as merely entertainment, like watching a trained seal juggle several rubber balls skillfully? Diverting to be sure, but hardly "great"! I suggest that granting that Bach wrote really fine fugues is a long way from saying that his fugues are great.


What distinction are you making between a "really fine" fugue and a "great fugue"? Is it a difference of degree or of kind?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> What distinction are you making between a "really fine" fugue and a "great fugue"? Is it a difference of degree or of kind?


This is petty as hell... I can't imagine you're this bored.

...But, I must be conflicted to point this out... Oh, god, my hypocrisy knows no bounds.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Blake said:


> ...But, I must be conflicted to point this out... Oh, god, my hypocrisy knows no bounds.


Welcome to the ranks of the terminally bored! Yes, we could be out there feeding the hungry, bringing comfort to the afflicted, whatever-- but it's easier just to sit here pecking away in interminable and meaningless disputes. Ain't it wonderful? :lol:


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Welcome to the ranks of the terminally bored! Yes, we could be out there feeding the hungry, bringing comfort to the afflicted, whatever-- but it's easier just to sit here pecking away in interminable and meaningless disputes. Ain't it wonderful? :lol:


I think I love you.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I didn't say that perceptions of modern music in the past are irrelevant to perceptions of modern music in the present. I said that I _wasn't impressed_ by the parallels that are constantly drawn between the two. The fact that some people in 1815 thought Beethoven was crazy while we've decided he's one of the greatest composers in history says nothing about Xenakis or Ferneyhough or about anyone's estimate of them, now or in the future.


Of course it doesn't, not in particular. But it does say something about the reaction that some have to music that goes against their aesthetics.

That something strikes a conservative-minded listener as abhorrent doesn't by itself make it a contender for a masterpiece in the next generation's estimation. There is easily as much lousy "progressive" as there is "conservative" music, in this as in all eras. This is obvious, and not in the slightest related to what I was arguing.

But when someone comes up with an aesthetic claim, you must realize that it comes from a perspective that may have a very thorough knowledge of the past yet lack a similar knowledge of the present. Those people who considered Beethoven crazy were many of them fine musicians with a well-developed aesthetic sense, and it is this exact thing which led them to condemn something which flew in the face of all they considered acceptable. The fact that, furthermore, the claims are not only related in field or even in form but also in content (the exact same words, the exact same phrases) suggests that the reactions are related to each other.



> And I certainly never implied anyone was lying, then or now.


This (the misconstruing of their own perceptions) is implied if you believe that the people who wrote those things were not actually having the experiences they reported.

Once again, if they were having the experiences they seemed to report, and those reports are identical to reports from those struggling with contemporary music today, on what basis is this similarity irrelevant to a discussion of people's present-day aesthetic perceptions?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> What distinction are you making between a "really fine" fugue and a "great fugue"? Is it a difference of degree or of kind?


I think Ken's mention of Bach fugues and the possibility they are merely entertaining is a real possibility. The highly lauded technical aspects laid out like a laundry list of criteria of what qualifies them as great can be regarded as a parallel to near exact-like comments of praise on the composer of an extremely intricate and elegant crossword puzzle.

This is for me where praising the craft alone, analyzing it and listing the technical merits, will never approach qualifying as an argument enough in its own sake for the thing superbly crafted as great. Lists of the most lauded and admired technical feats still do not explain why a work is necessarily good or great. They may point to the one lauded being highly intelligent and acutely clever in the extreme, but I do not think they can prove 'greatness,' but instead are one criterion of the sum of parts which end up qualifying something as great.

Some think Bach's contemporary Jean-Phillipe Rameau is an equal of Bach in 'greatness.' Talking about either Bach's fugal procedures and finesse in no way helps explain or can be applied to prove Rameau's greatness; listing all of Rameaus great technical feats does not help qualify Rameau as great, nor explain or qualify why Bach is great. _"Houston, we have a problem."_

This greatness issue is rather a parallel to that question of "How do you know it is classical?" as stated by one of my colleagues. She said, "listen to a lot of classical music, all eras, a lot of it, for years, and then you will know, and know how you know."

As quite on the money as her answer is, where, simultaneous with that acquired over time ability to know, is the definable 'objectivity,' of it? Where is the well defined set of critera upon which enough agree to make a significant number of those who are in consensus?

I think it is all subjective, a consensus over time becoming a supporting proof for many -- they liked it, another generation liked it. O.K. I can toss my hat in to that ring. Over any length of time, the consensus as to greatness can hold, or wax, or wane as another 'bumps' the former great 'down one,' -- or more. (Salieri.)

I think it always boomerangs back to my colleague's explanation of "How you know it is classical," and the issue of greatness, especially when set to relatively newer works, is no neater, no more concretely determined or defined than "How you know it is classical."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Blake said:


> This is petty as hell... I can't imagine you're this bored.
> 
> ...But, I must be conflicted to point this out... Oh, god, my hypocrisy knows no bounds.


My music comp teacher used to call that sort of thing _precious._


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

PetrB said:


> This is for me where praising the craft alone, analyzing it and listing the technical merits, will never approach qualifying as an argument enough in its own sake for the thing superbly crafted as great. Lists of the most lauded and admired technical feats still do not explain why a work is necessarily good or great. They may point to the one lauded being highly intelligent and acutely clever in the extreme, but I do not think they can prove 'greatness,' but instead are one criterion of the sum of parts which end up qualifying something as great.


Completely agree. That's more or less the answer I was fishing for.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> ...Lists of the most lauded and admired technical feats still do not explain why a work is necessarily good or great. They may point to the one lauded being highly intelligent and acutely clever in the extreme, but I do not think they can prove 'greatness,' but instead are one criterion of the sum of parts which end up qualifying something as great.


Which of course begs the question: What other things enter into that "sum of parts," and are they immutable with time?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Once again, if they were having the experiences they seemed to report, and those reports are identical to reports from those struggling with contemporary music today, on what basis is this similarity irrelevant to a discussion of people's present-day aesthetic perceptions?


Didn't say it was irrelevant. It's worth noting. Patterns of behavior do repeat. The new in any field is bound to upset somebody, and upset people tend to say similar things. But people who point out these precedents are usually pleading on behalf of something or someone (not saying you are). "But they said those things about Mozart too" is the sort of observation which, as I said, doesn't impress me, because it tells us nothing, necessarily, about any present case.

That's all I mean.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Which of course begs the question: What other things enter into that "sum of parts," and are they immutable with time?


To start with, there are aesthetic qualities which are not adequately described as "technical feats." The ability to achieve complexity without confusion or an overload of detail, for example. Or the ability to come up with a striking, memorable theme which is pleasing and expressive in itself but also capable of transmutation and combination with other material. Or the ability to generate a harmonic scheme which creates an absorbing pattern of tension and release or resolution.

Bach is masterful in all of these.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Bach is masterful in all of these.


Well, I personally agree with you. But these attributes are highly subjective. It may also be that whatever list of attributes we come up with will be invalid in other times. Some of the attributes that Mozart valued in music (and wrote about in letters) have been contradicted many times in this forum.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Well, I personally agree with you. But these attributes are highly subjective. It may also be that whatever list of attributes we come up with will be invalid in other times. Some of the attributes that Mozart valued in music (and wrote about in letters) have been contradicted many times in this forum.


By "subjective," do you mean the _perception_ of these things or their _evaluation_? If such musical accomplishments are viewed in the context of an understood musical idiom, those who grasp that idiom find them quite objectively present, and will value them for exemplifying the possibilities of that idiom. We certainly live in "other times" than did Bach, but we can still substantially perceive and value his work in terms of what it achieves, whether or not it's fashionable or to our personal taste.

I doubt we can fully appreciate the greatness of music we don't love. That's about what the music _says_ to us, and it's the part that's forever subjective. But much else that makes for excellence can be understood if we know the "language" and can hear the way it's used.

What _hasn't_ been contradicted in this forum, by the way? :lol:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ahammel said:


> You and I have rather different understandings of what "objective" means, then. For me it just means independent of anybody's experience in particular.
> 
> It's not possible to empirically or mathematically prove that I'm not a brain in a vat, but I think that there's still an objective answer to that question (in the sense of an answer that doesn't depend on who's asking).


To tell you the truth, I just don't understand what you mean.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

KenOC said:


> All very fine. But what if one values fugues, even the most perfect, as merely entertainment, like watching a trained seal juggle several rubber balls skillfully? Diverting to be sure, but hardly "great"! I suggest that granting that Bach wrote really fine fugues is a long way from saying that his fugues are great.


Yeah. Let's see a seal write a fugue-- or even your modal tenured university professor.

"A metaphysician is one who, when you remark that twice two makes four, demands to know what you mean by twice, what by two, what by makes, and what by four. For asking such questions metaphysicians are supported in oriental luxury in the universities, and respected as educated and intelligent men."

- H. L. Mencken, _A Mencken Chrestomathy_


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

I'd say greatness in classical music is dependent on the following factors:

a) how effective is the piece in conjuring up a certain atmosphere or feeling? I.e. if it attempts to be joyful, sad, abstract, etc., how well does it achieve this, in comparison with other pieces in the same 'genre'?

b) How 'accessible' are the melodies in the piece? Does one want to hear them again afterwards?

c) Are there novel ideas in the piece? If so, how well are they integrated into what the hearer 'does' expect? How successful is the attempt at novelty - i.e. is it musically interesting, or does it come across as more of a nuisance?

d) Are there elements of unpredictability - can the composer hold the listener's attention, create suspense?

e) Craftsmanship - how well does the composer use the techniques at his or her disposal? Does he/she know which moments demand which 'texture'?

f) Structure - how does the structure of the piece support the main sentiment or atmosphere it wants to communicate? Is the composer able to create cohesion in the piece - organic unity? For e.g. a melody from the 1st movement recurs, in somewhat altered form, in the 4th? 

g) Instrumentation - how effective is the composer's use of tonal colour? Does it contribute to the melodic content? Is the composer adept at engaging several instruments simultaneously and exploiting the interactions of their timbres?


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

+/@ HaydnBearstheClock I think there are problems with this, although most of it appeals to me: structure, craftsmanship, instrumentation and other implied technical masteries.

Sometimes music does not intend to conjure up a feeling, but it is still great. Sometimes it is very inaccessible and has no recognizable melodies, but one wants to hear it all the more often, love it even more and recognize its superior greatness.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Greatness is indeed a nuisance. I've had to eliminate PM's. So annoying.


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2015)

Greatness cannot be heard, it is not intrinsically contained in music. It is read about or talked about, it is a public expression of a ranking. When I listen to music, I can never hear greatness, so it is irrelevant in my listening. I can never ask is this music I am hearing exhibiting greatness. I am asking is it authentic? Is it real to me? Is it communicating something to me? Is it connecting? Is it achieving something? Is it creating? It is never about greatness. That, for me, is something to do with hierarchical ordering. It doesn't even have nuisance value.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

science said:


> To tell you the truth, I just don't understand what you mean.


I mean that whether something is objective or not is nothing to do with whether it can be proved to "any reasonable person" (or proved at all).


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ahammel said:


> I mean that whether something is objective or not is nothing to do with whether it can be proved to "any reasonable person" (or proved at all).


Oh, I see.

To me, "objective" means that something can be verified any observer (with the right tools), whereas "subjective" means that something depends on who is looking at it.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

A lot of people like the idea of creating a hierarchy of great composers and are motivated by their own insecurity and desire for order to try and impose their views on others as though they were an objective fact.

In reality there is just no foundation for saying X's music is greater than anyone's, because even the merits of technical feats are ultimately a matter of taste.

Personally, however, I think there _may_ be _something_ to be said for popularity, because I believe it's possible there is a genetic component to recognizing greatness and beauty, even if those things are ultimately subjective themselves. It _seems_ possible that if any given composer's ideas resonate with that inherent sensibility, if it is indeed common to most humans, that they could quite well become very popular - however, people also accumulate a lot of other kinds of sensibilities and are socialized in a certain way, so that could impede their ability to recognize the alleged greatness when they are confronted with it.

On the other hand, the one person in the Universe whose opinions I respect more than anyone else said that "recognition of beauty is a learned response" or something to that effect - and told the story of when he and his infant son were watching a sunset, he had to point out the beauty of the colors for his son to begin to recognize and respond to them. Maybe the way we respond to music is largely a result of socialization....I don't know for sure.

(And I no longer have enough respect for many researchers' methodology in many fields, as well as their sometimes obvious indoctrination with regard to certain common assumptions, to give that much heed to X or Y study - on the issue of heritability, or a lot of other things).



hpowders said:


> Greatness is indeed a nuisance. I've had to eliminate PM's. So annoying.


Just wanna say that with this post your greatness, if it was ever question for me, is no longer.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

science said:


> Oh, I see.
> 
> To me, "objective" means that something can be verified any observer (with the right tools), whereas "subjective" means that something depends on who is looking at it.


Yes, and I think you're making an error, because there are things that can neither be verified by observation, but do not change depending on the observer. Here are some of them:

I am not a brain in a vat.
You shouldn't hurt people just for fun.
The number 3 is prime.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

science said:


> Oh, I see.
> 
> To me, "objective" means that something can be verified any observer (with the right tools), whereas "subjective" means that something depends on who is looking at it.


Would "the right tools" include an ability to perceive and respond to aesthetic values - which clearly exists in people in differing degrees - or would that be in the realm of the "subjective"?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> ...In reality there is just no foundation for saying X's music is greater than anyone's, because even the merits of technical feats are ultimately a matter of taste.


This calls to mind a funny story. A student was arguing with Saint-Saens about the merits of some piece of music. Finally the student threw up his hands and said, "Well, after all it's just a matter of taste." Saint-Saens replied, "Yes. Good or bad."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> *A lot of people like the idea of creating a hierarchy of great composers and are motivated by their own insecurity and desire for order to try and impose their views on others as though they were an objective fact.*
> 
> *In reality there is just no foundation for saying X's music is greater than anyone's, because even the merits of technical feats are ultimately a matter of taste.*
> 
> ...


While attempting to create a "hierarchy" of greatness is indeed a foolish and hopeless endeavor, I have to point out that engaging in such an extreme overreach is a far cry from simply recognizing excellence and genius or their lack. If you think that the human need to understand through making comparisons is a symptom of insecurity, I suggest that it is instead a normal and constantly employed technique for refining our perceptions and deepening our knowledge in every area of life.

There is strong foundation for saying that one thing is superior to another, if we are clear about _in what respect_ it is superior. Whether it is superior in pleasing our tastes is only one such respect.

Recognition of beauty is certainly a learned response, but that doesn't mean it isn't also an innate response, much as language is a learned skill but one that we are innately programmed by the structure of our brains to learn. Just as acquisition of a few unconscious principles of syntax causes language to flower in all its nuanced complexity, an elementary awareness of aesthetic appeal leads (to different extents in different people, like all capacities) greater and greater comprehension of aesthetic quality.

I was not "socialized" to comprehend the complexity of Baroque counterpoint, or the implications of chromatic harmony. Once I had a sense of the simplest chord progressions, the possibilities of voice leading and modulation opened up to me very quickly. Nor was I "socialized" to paint pictures of beautifully balanced and dynamic design; I simply became aware of how to do this by doing it. I firmly believe that other artists and musicians would say much the same.

The perception of beauty, or artistic excellence in any form or degree, is learned. But it's learned, albeit with the help of others, primarily from ourselves, from our own natures in interaction with the world. That's why, when we do learn it, it feels like something natural and familiar, and so we call it _"re-cognition."_


----------



## Kibbles Croquettes (Dec 2, 2014)

Greatness is a handicap.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Kibbles Croquettes said:


> Greatness is a handicap.


...in a world of envious mediocrity.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> A lot of people like the idea of creating a hierarchy of great composers and are motivated by their own insecurity and desire for order to try and impose their views on others as though they were an objective fact.
> 
> In reality there is just no foundation for saying X's music is greater than anyone's, because even the merits of technical feats are ultimately a matter of taste.
> 
> ...


Thank you! You are obviously much, much kinder than the other 1567 regular posters on TC! :lol:

My post was a bit "tongue in cheek". I'm actually a humble person.:tiphat:


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I'm currently playing to a Greatness handicap of 3. Almost "Scratch".


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> While attempting to create a "hierarchy" of greatness is indeed a foolish and hopeless endeavor, I have to point out that engaging in such an extreme overreach is a far cry from simply recognizing excellence and genius or their lack. If you think that the human need to understand through making comparisons is a symptom of insecurity, I suggest that it is instead a normal and constantly employed technique for refining our perceptions and deepening our knowledge in every area of life.
> 
> There is strong foundation for saying that one thing is superior to another, if we are clear about _in what respect_ it is superior. Whether it is superior in pleasing our tastes is only one such respect.


Sure, if you establish a rubric that explains what is superior and what isn't, but in music people ultimately evaluate by how much they like something - so even a standard that is meant to provide some sense of objectivity has no real foundation other than personal preference.



Woodduck said:


> Recognition of beauty is certainly a learned response, but that doesn't mean it isn't also an innate response, much as language is a learned skill but one that we are innately programmed by the structure of our brains to learn. Just as acquisition of a few unconscious principles of syntax causes language to flower in all its nuanced complexity, an elementary awareness of aesthetic appeal leads (to different extents in different people, like all capacities) greater and greater comprehension of aesthetic quality.
> 
> I was not "socialized" to comprehend the complexity of Baroque counterpoint, or the implications of chromatic harmony. Once I had a sense of the simplest chord progressions, the possibilities of voice leading and modulation opened up to me very quickly. Nor was I "socialized" to paint pictures of beautifully balanced and dynamic design; I simply became aware of how to do this by doing it. I firmly believe that other artists and musicians would say much the same.
> 
> The perception of beauty, or artistic excellence in any form or degree, is learned. But it's learned, albeit with the help of others, primarily from ourselves, from our own natures in interaction with the world. That's why, when we do learn it, it feels like something natural and familiar, and so we call it _"re-cognition."_


I mean, I think there is a genetic component to recognition of beauty, but (and I've been a composer and musician of not-particularly-avante-garde taste for years) it's become quite apparent that people in different cultures can have wildly different ways of experiencing music and that many people would scarcely recognize the staples of the Western classical music repertory as being great because of that.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> Sure, if you establish a rubric that explains what is superior and what isn't, but in music people ultimately evaluate by how much they like something - so even a standard that is meant to provide some sense of objectivity has no real foundation other than personal preference.
> 
> I mean, I think there is a genetic component to recognition of beauty, but (and I've been a composer and musician of not-particularly-avante-garde taste for years) it's become quite apparent that people in different cultures can have wildly different ways of experiencing music and that many people would scarcely recognize the staples of the Western classical music repertory as being great because of that.


If all you mean by "evaluation" is a statement of taste, then of course people evaluate by how much they like something. But that is simply a tautology: "I think it's good because I like it because what's good is what I like." What does that tell us?

Why do you assume that all standards merely provide a "sense" of objectivity and have "no real foundation other than personal preference?" How do you account for the statement, made by peceptive and knowledgeable people, "That's great music, but I don't care for it"?

If you are an artist of any kind, can you honestly say that there are no criteria of aesthetic excellence beyond personal taste that you have applied to your own efforts, and that you cannot recognize excellence in the work of other artists whose styles may be different from your own and even not to your "taste"?

The fact that there are very different styles of music and art in different cultures, and in different eras and locales within the same culture, and that people tend to like what they're accustomed to and initially find strange what they're unaccustomed to, doesn't make people incapable of appreciating quality in the work of other styles and cultures. They learn to do this all the time. Even if I, for example, coming from the musical culture of Bach and Wagner, never learn to love the classical music of India - though in fact I do love some of it - I can learn to listen to it with great appreciation and no little discrimination. Why? Because, once I get used to the unfamiliar sounds, and once I drop any expectations I may have about musical texture and form, I can hear, not what I've been "socialized" to hear, but the aesthetically satisfying working out of musical forms which my brain recognizes as, first, coherent, and, second, expressive. This recognition allows an appreciation for what I hear, and it may - or may not - result in a taste for it.

Taste is just as likely to result _from_ evaluation as to result _in_ it.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> If all you mean by "evaluation" is a statement of taste, then of course people evaluate by how much they like something. But that is simply a tautology: "I think it's good because I like it because what's good is what I like." What does that tell us?


What I mean is even when people establish what in music is a technical merit and what isn't, they do it because of what is pleasing to them.



Woodduck said:


> Why do you assume that all standards merely provide a "sense" of objectivity and have "no real foundation other than personal preference?" How do you account for the statement, made by peceptive and knowledgeable people, "That's great music, but I don't care for it"?


Maybe there are people who come to an appreciation of music on a solely intellectual level in which they are merely impressed by the execution of technical feats, but I think that's fairly rare, as well as being an _extremely_ superficial and borderline-pointless way to experience music.

It would be impossible to say that one considers X music to be great without genuinely liking it in some sense, because to do so would amount to experiencing the music on an exclusively intellectual level, which I think is very rare and not an altogether pleasing experience.



Woodduck said:


> If you are an artist of any kind, can you honestly say that there are no criteria of aesthetic excellence beyond personal taste that you have applied to your own efforts, and that you cannot recognize excellence in the work of other artists whose styles may be different from your own and even not to your "taste"?


With regard to my own very humble creations, I certainly have criteria but I don't see it as objective and I realize that there are some people who will never, ever appreciate it.....if anyone appreciated it merely because it fit a checklist of requisites for greatness and not because it actually spoke to them on a deep level, I'd be very disappointed because that is not remotely the kind of experience I would be trying to give anyone. Similarly, I wouldn't try to impose on anyone the idea that someone else's work is great because it had all the hallmarks of greatness yet failed to leave an impact on me beyond the intellectual.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> Quote Originally Posted by Kibbles Croquettes View Post
> Greatness is a handicap.





Woodduck said:


> ...in a world of envious mediocrity.


. . . where pointing out what is 'average' is just plain 'mean.'


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ahammel said:


> Yes, and I think you're making an error, because there are things that can neither be verified by observation, but do not change depending on the observer. Here are some of them:
> 
> I am not a brain in a vat.
> You shouldn't hurt people just for fun.
> The number 3 is prime.


That the number 3 is prime can be seen by anyone who understands the concepts, so that is objectively true.

But the others aren't objective.

The "brain in a vat" (and its newer version, the universe as a computer simulation) problem is objectively unsolvable. The closest thing we have to a solution (as far as I know) is pragmatism. But pragmatism doesn't establish objective truths. For now, "I am not a brain in a vat" has to be taken as a very widely shared opinion - true for all practical purposes (and arguably irrational to doubt) but unprovable - rather than an objective truth.

You shouldn't hurt people just for fun is not an objective truth, IMO. I believe in it, but clearly not everyone does. Most of all, I can't imagine why we would expect other forms of consciousness to share our moral values. It is easy for me to imagine an intelligence without compassion for human suffering. If a God exists whose authority determines moral truths, then this may be an objective truth, but until we find a way to know about that God and that God's commands, I don't see any way to establish objective truths in the realm of morality. Also, I don't want to. If that God were to command us to hurt each other for his entertainment, I'd wish to have the integrity to stick to my own subjective beliefs about morality, defying his authority.

This is really the important issue because I think that moral judgments and aesthetic judgments work very much the same way. They _feel_ objective to us. That's funny if you think about it: subjectively, they seem objective. A lot of people very passionately wish to compel others to submit to their own moral or aesthetic judgements. But it turns out that on inspection, there is no objectivity there. Both, upon analysis, reduce to human emotion, however rigorously controlled.



Woodduck said:


> Would "the right tools" include an ability to perceive and respond to aesthetic values - which clearly exists in people in differing degrees - or would that be in the realm of the "subjective"?


Listening skills and ability would be among the tools, but I'm not sure what you mean by "aesthetic values" in this context.

The values themselves must be subjective. There might be all kinds of objectively true or false things we can say about them. For example, "People who like Schubert's late piano sonatas usually also like Beethoven's late piano sonatas." I'd guess that's true, but but I might be wrong; we could objectively verify or falsify it. What we can't do is prove that someone who enjoys Schubert's late piano sonatas is right or wrong to also enjoy Beethoven's late piano sonatas.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> What I mean is even when people establish what in music is a technical merit and what isn't, they do it because of what is pleasing to them.
> 
> Maybe there are people who come to an appreciation of music on a solely intellectual level in which they are merely impressed by the execution of technical feats, but I think that's fairly rare, as well as being an _extremely_ superficial and borderline-pointless way to experience music.
> 
> ...


When you speak of an "exclusively intellectual" appreciation of art, I honestly don't know what you mean. Is a feeling for aesthetic qualities purely "intellectual" in the sense that the ability to tell light from dark, or a logical statement from an illogical one, is purely intellectual? I'd say no. Aesthetic perception is fundamentally rooted in feeling - not emotion, as we usually think of the term, but feeling. You know a painting is balanced because you can feel that it is, not because you can put its elements on a postal scale and "intellectually" prove that they balance. You seem to want to separate feeling and intellect in a way that is alien to my experience of art.

For someone to say that they can perceive a Mozart opera is a greater work of art than a Kalman operetta, but that they enjoy the operetta more than the opera, does not indicate that their appreciation for and comprehension of Mozart's superior genius is "purely intellectual." There are many levels of perception and feeling involved in aesthetic appreciation. It's in the nature of the artistic experience that intellect and feeling work together, in various states of balance. And the feelings involved in aesthetic perception are not necessarily an indicator of personal liking or taste; I am quite capable of feeling the freshness and fluidity and ingenuity and poise of Mozart's music whether or not I care to hear it performed (although my perception of those qualities will probably incline me more toward doing so). And this is not at all an unusual sort of experience; I would guess that we all have tastes and preferences which we realize clearly have little to do with the level of "greatness" of the things we like or dislike.

It's true that liking a work of art will make us more capable of appreciating its qualities. But those qualities are there whether we like the work or not, and a perception of a work's qualities is likely to dispose us more to like it. Of course not everyone will be able to appreciate everything. Everyone's perceptions are influenced by a myriad of factors, definitely including taste. If we truly loathe a piece of music, we will not be in a good state to perceive what qualities it possesses! But artistic appreciation is not the same as personal taste and is not wholly determined by it, and is at the same time much more than a dry appraisal of "technical tricks."


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> When you speak of an "exclusively intellectual" appreciation of art, I honestly don't know what you mean. Is a feeling for aesthetic qualities purely "intellectual" in the sense that the ability to tell light from dark, or a logical statement from an illogical one, is purely intellectual? I'd say no. Aesthetic perception is fundamentally rooted in feeling - not emotion, as we usually think of the term, but feeling. You know a painting is balanced because you can feel that it is, not because you can put its elements on a postal scale and "intellectually" prove that they balance. You seem to want to separate feeling and intellect in a way that is alien to my experience of art.
> 
> For someone to say that they can perceive a Mozart opera is a greater work of art than a Kalman operetta, but that they enjoy the operetta more than the opera, does not indicate that their appreciation for and comprehension of Mozart's superior genius is "purely intellectual." There are many levels of perception and feeling involved in aesthetic appreciation. It's in the nature of the artistic experience that intellect and feeling work together, in various states of balance. And the feelings involved in aesthetic perception are not necessarily an indicator of personal liking or taste; I am quite capable of feeling the freshness and fluidity and ingenuity and poise of Mozart's music whether or not I care to hear it performed (although my perception of those qualities will probably incline me more toward doing so). And this is not at all an unusual sort of experience; I would guess that we all have tastes and preferences which we realize clearly have little to do with the level of "greatness" of the things we like or dislike.
> 
> It's true that liking a work of art will make us more capable of appreciating its qualities. But those qualities are there whether we like the work or not, and a perception of a work's qualities is likely to dispose us more to like it. Of course not everyone will be able to appreciate everything. Everyone's perceptions are influenced by a myriad of factors, definitely including taste. If we truly loathe a piece of music, we will not be in a good state to perceive what qualities it possesses! But artistic appreciation is not the same as personal taste and is not wholly determined by it, and is at the same time much more than a dry appraisal of "technical tricks."


What do you mean by "greatness?" If someone said, "I perceive that a Mozart opera is a greater work of art than a Kalman operetta," and I asked what they meant, what do you think they would say as an explanation?

When you write that "artistic appreciation is not the same as personal taste and is not wholly determined by it, and is at the same time much more than a dry appraisal of 'technical tricks,'" you're not actually telling me what artistic appreciation is. And if it is neither an intellectual evaluation of how well a work fulfills certain criteria, nor a matter of emotional response to the work, I don't know what it is you're referring to.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

science said:


> What do you mean by "greatness?" If someone said, "I perceive that a Mozart opera is a greater work of art than a Kalman operetta," and I asked what they meant, what do you think they would say as an explanation?
> 
> When you write that "artistic appreciation is not the same as personal taste and is not wholly determined by it, and is at the same time much more than a dry appraisal of 'technical tricks,'" you're not actually telling me what artistic appreciation is. And if it is neither an intellectual evaluation of how well a work fulfills certain criteria, nor a matter of emotional response to the work, I don't know what it is you're referring to.


After working so hard already today - and it's now after 11 PM - I'm just sitting here staring at the computer, weary, squinty-eyed, mouth hanging open listlessly, wondering how anyone can look at something like the Sistine Chapel ceiling, or listen to the Bach B-minor mass, and think that the reasons they are overwhelmed to speechlessness have nothing to do with any qualities the work actually contains or any innate faculty that allows them to perceive such qualities, but are just matters of "personal taste" or "social conditioning."

The temptation is to just shut up and point and say "THAT is what I mean by greatness!"

I do not know how to tell anyone what an aesthetic response is like, any more than I know how to tell someone what a perception of tension or balance or clarity or conflict or intensity is like - except that an aesthetic response involves all these perceptions and many, many more, in response to an object of contemplation exhibiting qualities capable of provoking such responses.

I'd say that such objects - works of art - which exhibit a richness of such qualities can be perceived by the sensitive as fine and interesting works of art. This is fundamentally a matter of perception and judgment - not of personal taste, which has other origins - although taste influences judgment. It is also a process involving both intellect and feeling, which I take to be a defining characteristic of the aesthetic experience.

Mozart exhibits a greater richness of the kinds of qualities that provoke an aesthetic response than does Kalman. His genius is of a higher order. I can perceive that, and I can pay tribute to it, even while saying truthfully that I would rather listen to _Graefin Mariza_ than to _Cosi fan tutte_. Thus do my aesthetic judgment and my personal taste diverge.

And now I need to leave this thread for the night and find one where I can just say something witty before going to bed.

:cheers:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> Greatness is indeed a nuisance. I've had to eliminate PM's. So annoying.


I doubt that is anywhere near greatness, I mean, c'mon, neither a secretary or a biographer in sight?


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Didn't say it was irrelevant. It's worth noting. Patterns of behavior do repeat. The new in any field is bound to upset somebody, and upset people tend to say similar things. But people who point out these precedents are usually pleading on behalf of something or someone...


No, they're not.

Though they pretty consistently get _accused_ of so doing.

But ubiquity of accusations doesn't add up to anything any more than ubiquity of the same half dozen canards about whatever is new at the time add up to any sort of commentary on the actual music itself.

That's the real issue. Whether a criticism is really directed at the music itself or whether it's simply a generalized reaction to the unknown or the unliked, similar to everyone else's generalized reactions to same, world without end, amen.


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2015)

Sorry for being so dilatory.



Woodduck said:


> While attempting to create a "hierarchy" of greatness is indeed a foolish and hopeless endeavor, I have to point out that engaging in such an extreme overreach is a far cry from simply recognizing excellence and genius or their lack.


In a way, I agree. Attempting to create a hierarchy of greatness would indeed be foolish and hopeless, not because it cannot be done, not because it would be "an extreme overreach," but simply because it is something that is already done.

The concept "great" includes "hierarchy" as part and parcel of its meaning. You cannot have any sort of greatness without there being hierarchy. It's not overreach; it's fundamental to what "great" means. Superior, to use another term, implies inferior and thus sets up a hierarchy. Being clear about "in what respect" something is supposedly superior has nothing to do with whether or not superior and great are hierarchical terms. Superior and great are hierarchical, period.


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2015)

Three swings and I'm out, strikes or not.:lol:



Woodduck said:


> I'm just sitting here staring at the computer, weary, squinty-eyed, mouth hanging open listlessly, wondering how anyone can look at something like the Sistine Chapel ceiling, or listen to the Bach B-minor mass, and think that the reasons they are overwhelmed to speechlessness have nothing to do with any qualities the work actually contains or any innate faculty that allows them to perceive such qualities, but are just matters of "personal taste" or "social conditioning."


Um, your imagined situation has only one response to these two objects, "overwhelmed to speechlessness."

Surely there are other possible responses.

Surely it is the multitude of possible reponses that's the real idea being expressed in these responses.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Didn't say it was irrelevant. It's worth noting. Patterns of behavior do repeat. The new in any field is bound to upset somebody, and upset people tend to say similar things. But people who point out these precedents are usually pleading on behalf of something or someone (not saying you are). "But they said those things about Mozart too" is the sort of observation which, as I said, doesn't impress me, because it tells us nothing, necessarily, about any present case.


I think no one would cite a list of past negative critiques (or downright silly ones) of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven -- any of the great composers of the past -- as any kind of good argument that because a contemporary work has a good number of similar detractors that work is therefore a great piece.

Citing such reactions from the past is however a healthy reminder of _a very consistent behavior_ on the part of many an art consumer (as well as some connoisseurs and artists) whose tastes and arguments for the older way and older aesthetics which they think define and make what they think are beautiful and great works is then argued or stated as the only, or only worthwhile measure.

I.e. More than a few get stuck, arrested, or simply decide that some line in time separates a good deal of that which was / is great from later works which 'are not' -- and that nearly shuts the doors on anything _which might be just as worthwhile, maybe just as "great." which was / is done at a date later than their given shut-off point._

Saint-Saens was an extremely retro-conservative composer even as compared to other somewhat conservative composers of his era. I doubt he thought Debussy was anything worthwhile, let alone what we know of what he thought of Stravinsky  Yet, a great composer, and in that role one could ideally think that as a great artist, he would have had an open, receptive, and modern mind, yet he was more toward that decided lumpen mentality where "it's hard to beat the old boys... really we should stick most closely to their principles and aesthetics if we hope to make anything worthwhile in the present."

So too, some here have briefly or at length waxed loud and large on 'beauty, the depth of human expression' etc. -- as manifested and found _in those works which fall within the range of their personal taste_, those same tastes pretty much eliminating their finding anything of equal interest or worth from any date past their personal cut-off line. There is no solidly arguable good defense for this mode as better than others, other than 'what it is.' Somehow, a number who do have that particular (peculiar?) stance also manage to well imply or outright declare the 'later stuff' worthless noise as being devoid of any of those qualities as found within the parameters of their personal 'cut-off' line.

Does not just about everyone today laugh when they read the hyperbole from one of his contemporaries that Beethoven's piece x was "cacophonous meaningless noise?" It is no wonder then that people living now who have that more closed-set perception might just sound as silly and non-perceptive about the more current and contemporary music when they spout those same kind of indefensible and non sequitur sorts of clichés about modern and contemporary music as did their predecessor counterparts.

These kinds of statements are so familiar that about any of them make a current utterer of same as like to a living anachronism as can be, plucked out of a distant past where they were without much of a clue, now in our own time having no more of a clue.

With those current examples being so much like those now thought of as backward or silly reviews and comments from the contemporaries of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc. I think we at least have proof that more than a few "like that" currently exist, that they are saying near-identical things to those backward and silly comments on the works of their contemporaries, without their even bothering to take a few steps out of either their comfort zones or their rather smugly comfortable set of personal criteria taken stance -- or as it seems sometimes almost worn as apparel.

I've always wondered why those whose criteria do not reach much to, if at all, the 20th century and up through our present time even bother commenting on any works made since ____. People who start criticizing classical and romantic using the yardstick for the baroque are rightfully called out for it... I don't much see the difference if someone is instead using the 18th and 19th century yardsticks for the 20th century and contemporary works from the latter half of the 20th century.

Those who hold dear and most right the criteria for earlier music have every right to do so. But it really makes me think, and sorry, laugh at least a little, to hear one who does start regenerating clichés about later music so like the century old comments which do sound so similar to the more recent ones made 'like bacon frying in a pan, etc.' If you don't have the tools to measure the later stuff, I suppose I would have to ask and wonder "Why bother to comment on it at all if it is so outside one's grasp?"


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> After working so hard already today - and it's now after 11 PM - I'm just sitting here staring at the computer, weary, squinty-eyed, mouth hanging open listlessly, wondering how anyone can look at something like the Sistine Chapel ceiling, or listen to the Bach B-minor mass, and think that the reasons they are overwhelmed to speechlessness have nothing to do with any qualities the work actually contains or any innate faculty that allows them to perceive such qualities, but are just matters of "personal taste" or "social conditioning."
> 
> The temptation is to just shut up and point and say "THAT is what I mean by greatness!"
> 
> ...


<Ping!>

_Si monumentum requiris, circumspice._


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

science said:


> The "brain in a vat" (and its newer version, the universe as a computer simulation) problem is objectively unsolvable.


This nearly demonstrates the confusion, I think. The question isn't "can I prove I'm not a brain in a vat?", or" how do I know I'm not a brain in a vat?", the question is "am I a brain in a vat?". Clearly either I am or I'm not. Equally clearly, what you or I think about the subject has no effect on my brain-in-a-vat-hood.


> You shouldn't hurt people just for fun is not an objective truth, IMO. I believe in it, but clearly not everyone does.


Well maybe thet don't, but so what? They're wrong. Are you if the opinion that their beliefs mean it's OK for them to hurt people just for fun?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I'm just sitting here... wondering how anyone can look at something like the Sistine Chapel ceiling, or listen to the Bach B-minor mass, and think that the reasons they are overwhelmed to speechlessness....


The dilemma inherent in "they are overwhelmed to speechlessness" by those things is that not everyone is so overwhelmed by that particular piece of music or that particular piece of art, and the same who are not overwhelmed may be instead just as overwhelmed by another piece of the same greatness which has little or no effect on those overwhelmed by the Bach or the Michelangelo.

The Bach may overwhelm some with its beauty, and to keep to another religious choral work, Stravinsky's _Threni_ might have the same effect on some where the Bach 'did not work on them that way at all.' The Sistine Chapel ceiling mural may not overwhelm where a large painting of Rothko will. Ergo, Stravinsky and Rothko are innately great, need no other explanation, really, other than a wave of the hand directing the viewer or listener to them, then saying "That is Greatness." Trouble is, it just does not work that way.

This means that some works more thought of as universal as examples of 'what is great' are just not as universal as they are cranked up to be, and follows suite, are not necessarily innately great.

I'm certain acculturation, including the insidious subconscious and often completely unconscious and non-articulated bundle of data called the semiotic, acquired via osmosis, as well as other things seen, heard, overheard, are all in full play when these calls of 'great' are made. It is then a myriad of acquired information which in toto is at work on what is seen and heard, and that information is anything but innate.

The subjects, whether Bach or Stravinsky, Michelangelo or Rothko, are all things of the most extreme artifice. There is nothing at all natural to their outward forms or the techniques which produced them that are part of what we see or hear. It takes an audience already quite used to that level of artifice to take them in and find them 'innately great,' or for them to have much of any real meaning at all.

I think acculturation and what is picked up along the way, unconsciously as well as overheard, taught us, has a tremendous part to play in what is thought of as great, and all that preconditioning, whether thought a good thing or bad, is near impossible to avoid, or be free of.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ahammel said:


> This nearly demonstrates the confusion, I think. The question isn't "can I prove I'm not a brain in a vat?", or" how do I know I'm not a brain in a vat?", the question is "am I a brain in a vat?". Clearly either I am or I'm not. Equally clearly, what you or I think about the subject has no effect on my brain-in-a-vat-hood.
> 
> Well maybe thet don't, but so what? They're wrong. Are you if the opinion that their beliefs mean it's OK for them to hurt people just for fun?


With the "brain in a vat" problem, you're right that I misunderstood you, thinking that you meant to assert that it is an objective truth that you are not a brain in a vat. (So it appeared in the context of your other examples.) Whether you are or are not a brain in a vat is a matter of fact - that fact is an objective thing. That's not in question. But another objective fact is (again, to the best of my knowledge) that at this time no one can prove that you are or are not a brain in a vat. There is, objectively, no answer; it is, as I wrote, objectively unsolvable.

Obviously I don't think that someone's belief that it's ok to hurt people just for fun makes it ok for them to do so. For me to assert that would be to assert that my moral beliefs (about it being ok for people to act in accordance with their moral beliefs) trump my moral beliefs (about it being not ok for people to hurt each other for fun), an obvious contradiction.

Instead, I think that hurting people is _objectively_ neither ok nor not ok. It's not an objective issue at all. Both my moral beliefs and other people's moral beliefs exist only in our minds. That obviously does not mean I won't try to impose my moral beliefs on others. On the contrary, I will and _do_ try to, because one of my moral beliefs is that I should try to impose at least some of my moral beliefs on others. I hope that I and other people who share my most cherished moral convictions win the arguments, the elections, the negotiations, or, failing those, the battles, because I hope that we who share them can curb those who don't.

But the strength of my moral conviction does not make my conviction an objective truth. Instead, the objective truth (verifiable by observation) is that these convictions exist nowhere but in minds.

The brain-in-a-vat problem is not analogous to a moral problem because we are able to are able to figure out (by virtue of the humanness of your behavior) that something very much like your brain (let's say "your brain" for simplicity) must exist, even though we can't figure out whether that happens to be in a vat or a skull. For the analogy between the two problems to hold, you'd have to be able to show that some objective moral truth must exist. That you cannot show.

The analogy between the moral problem and the aesthetic problem does hold, however, for just as you cannot show that objective moral truths exist, so you cannot show that objective aesthetic truths exist. If I behold - to borrow one of Woodduck's examples - the Sistine Chapel ceiling, and feel indifference or repulsion, I am not wrong to do so.

In the whole history of humanity not one objective moral truth or objective aesthetic value has been found, because they don't exist. In fact, aesthetic and moral values being nothing but products and expressions of human emotion, they're not the kind of thing that _can_ be objective. Paradoxically, we go on wishing they were objective, denying that they are products of our emotion, precisely because they are so emotionally important to us.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

PetrB said:


> I think no one would cite a list of past negative critiques (or downright silly ones) of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven -- any of the great composers of the past -- as any kind of good argument that because a contemporary work has a good number of similar detractors that work is therefore a great piece.
> 
> Citing such reactions from the past is however a healthy reminder of _a very consistent behavior_ on the part of many an art consumer (as well as some connoisseurs and artists) whose tastes and arguments for the older way and older aesthetics which they think define and make what they think are beautiful and great works is then argued or stated as the only, or only worthwhile measure.
> 
> ...


I substantially agree with your statements in this post and would respect you for writing it if you had not felt the need to conclude with presumptuous personal evaluations of me and my "tools" for measuring musical worth and what is or is not "outside my grasp."

The humorous image you quote was not a comment on any music in particular. A little defensive, aren't you?

Your compulsion to denigrate with cute sarcasms music - particular music - you dislike, and to make insupportable judgments about other members of this forum, grew tiresome long ago.

Address my clearly stated ideas if you can. Don't be telling me and others what we think and are capable of.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I substantially agree with your statements in this post and would respect you for writing it if you had not felt the need to conclude with presumptuous personal evaluations of me and my "tools" for measuring musical worth and what is or is not "outside my grasp."
> 
> The humorous image you quote was not a comment on any music in particular. A little defensive, aren't you?
> 
> ...


PetrB, be nice-- I know how nice you can be. _;D_


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> The humorous image you quote was not a comment on any music in particular.


No, it was a not so subtle slam of a particular member of this forum, an ad hominemical (say _that_ three times fast) way of saying that said member has such terrible taste that nothing they say about any music could have any value.

Speaking of tiresome, personal remarks about other members are certainly that: "Your compusion to denigrate...." Come on. That's clearly outside what is polite, whatever Petr may or may not have said to elicit that remark.

But there's always positive stuff in the world, too. And I was sitting near the top of La Rambla the other day, feeling fed up by recent postings to TC, and a guy walked by with a bag--from the Picasso museum, I'm sure--with these words on it, which were the perfect words for me to read in my mood:

"El principal enemigo de la creatividad es el buen gusto."

Perfecto!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> No, it was a not so subtle slam of a particular member of this forum, an ad hominemical (say _that_ three times fast) way of saying that said member has such terrible taste that nothing they say about any music could have any value.
> 
> Speaking of tiresome, personal remarks about other members are certainly that: "Your compusion to denigrate...." Come on. That's clearly outside what is polite, whatever Petr may or may not have said to elicit that remark.
> 
> ...


You realize that you have the most buen gusto of us all.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> The temptation is to just shut up and point and say "THAT is what I mean by greatness!"


Make sure you all include masterpieces though... from the distant past up to the present day, for they are excellent, essential music.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

some guy said:


> No, *it was a not so subtle slam of a particular member of this forum*, an ad hominemical (say _that_ three times fast) way of saying that said member has such terrible taste that nothing they say about any music could have any value.
> 
> Speaking of tiresome, personal remarks about other members are certainly that: "Your compusion to denigrate...." Come on. That's clearly outside what is polite, whatever Petr may or may not have said to elicit that remark.
> 
> ...


_Which_ member of this forum? Don't want to be specific? Can't be sure?

No. It was _not_ a reference to any member, or to any music, in particular. But if you fancy the shoe, some guy, I can't prevent you from wearing it.

And was I even talking to, or about, you, by the way?

As for that "compulsion to denigrate": I am very tired of reading profligate putdowns of music and composers loved by many, many people who come to this forum to share that love with others. If you will look at my many posts since I have been around here, you will not find me expressing constant contempt for this composer or that work which I don't happen to like. The same cannot be said for your fellow storm trooper, whom you are now so eager to close ranks with against that dreaded foe of all things modern Woodduck, who has committed the grave transgression of tossing off a humorous remark about something you take to be music you like.

If you people really feel such a desperate need to assure us all that my poking fun at bacon frying, highway construction, and giving birth to triplets without anaesthesia, must be referring to "your" aesthetic tastes - well, you know your tastes better than I do.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> _Which_ member of this forum? Don't want to be specific? Can't be sure?
> 
> No. It was _not_ a reference to any member, or to any music, in particular. But if you fancy the shoe, some guy, I can't prevent you from wearing it.
> 
> ...


One can always rely on the 'bitter' to give one's own superb manners and breeding the benefit of the dirt.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Greatness is nothing more than an expression of opinion and consensus. A word that people like to use to elevate art to something that is beyond opinion. It is pretending that certain products of the creative mind of man are so good that there is intrinsic, objective, universal quality to them that should be recognized even by alien lifeforms.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DeepR said:


> Greatness is nothing more than an expression of opinion and consensus. A word that people like to use to elevate art to something that is beyond opinion. It is pretending that certain products of the creative mind of man are so good that there is intrinsic, objective, universal quality to them that should be recognized even by alien lifeforms.


No amount of wishing or play-acting fantasy will make an adobe hut the aesthetic equivalent of the Sistine Chapel.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> No amount of wishing or play-acting fantasy will make an adobe hut the aesthetic equivalent of the Sistine Chapel.


No where in this thread has any member said, implicitly or explicitly, anything remotely like that ^^^ .

What on earth prompted the depositing of such a complete non-sequitur comment in the thread?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

PetrB said:


> No where in this thread has any member said, implicitly or explicitly, anything remotely like that ^^^ .
> 
> What on earth prompted the depositing of such a complete non-sequitur comment in the thread?


Well, actually, PetrB, it was the post directly above my own that elicited the response. _;D_. . .

Marschallin Blair: on guard for beauty.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

That nice lady is conspicuously short on underwear. Tsk tsk. But it's OK... :lol:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

------------------------------ never mind -------------------------------


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Well, actually, PetrB, it was the post directly above my own that elicited the response. _;D_. . .
> 
> Marschallin Blair: on guard for beauty.


"Sheath that blade, Madame, for I am harmless."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> You realize that you have the most buen gusto of us all.


I think that some guy has demonstrated over and over again, via links to works he has posted, that his taste is -- quite often enough -- extremely "vulgar," or as it used to be distinguished between "Sacred or Profane," then, profane


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Science, I think that some guy has proved over and over again, via links to works he has posted, that his taste is -- at least oten enough -- extremely "vulgar," or as it used to be distinguished between "Sacred or Profane," then, profane


You've reminded me of the times he spoke up in defense of Karl Jenkins, Ludovico Einaudi, Eric Whitacre, Jennifer Higdon, John Williams, and Andrew Lloyd Webber. I'd forgotten.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

PetrB said:


> "Sheath that blade, Madame, for I am harmless."


The Pavlovian drool is perfectly innocuous. I won't hurt you, honey.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

KenOC said:


> That nice lady is conspicuously short on underwear. Tsk tsk. But it's OK... :lol:


As the Parisians are apt to say: There are three sexes-- men, women, and clergymen.

_;D_


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Well, actually, PetrB, it was the post directly above my own that elicited the response. _;D_. . .
> 
> Marschallin Blair: on guard for beauty.


If I was still 13 years old, I would have saved this picture in the "boring stuff" folder, if ya know what I mean.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> As the Parisians are apt to say: There are three sexes-- men, women, and clergymen.
> 
> _;D_


In Voltaire's _Dictionary of wit_, under _Divorce,_ he said their should always be a jury, 50/50 male and female, and in cases of a stalemate verdict, a hermaphrodite should be called in to cast the deciding vote.

In the world of performing musicians, there is that address to a mixed group, "Ladies, Gentlemen, and Tenors."


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

violadude said:


> If I was still 13 years old, I would have saved this picture in the "boring stuff" folder, if ya know what I mean.


Oooh, probably not the right place. If your family is anything like mine, a "classical music" folder would've been a much better hiding place. You could probably even have a subfolder inside that one labeled "hardcore freak fetish porn illegally downloaded with viruses" and you'd be safe, at least from your parents and siblings.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> You've reminded me of the times he spoke up in defense of Karl Jenkins, Ludovico Einaudi, Eric Whitacre, Jennifer Higdon, John Williams, and Andrew Lloyd Webber. I'd forgotten.


O.K. this was in the 60's and 70's, but in those quarters where all was 'high-grade' music esteemed not only for its sound but formal structures, a quip about a very fine composer thought to be a "guilty pleasure," was, "Poulenc is my favorite bad composer."

Poulenc is still one of my favorite "bad composers."


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2015)

science said:


> You've reminded me of the times he spoke up in defense of Karl Jenkins, Ludovico Einaudi, Eric Whitacre, Jennifer Higdon, John Williams, and Andrew Lloyd Webber. I'd forgotten.


Nice twist of the original intention.

But while I have never defended any of these composers, and why should I?, I have spoken several times in defense of their fans. Perhaps you are remembering that.

Anyway, really. We should get off this focus on posters. How seductive that seems to be. But the rule of discourse as set down by the ancient Greeks is to attend to the things said, not to the sayers. And TC often honors that Aegean legacy by handing out infractions to those who infract.


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2015)

PetrB said:


> O.K. this was in the 60's and 70's, but in those quarters where all was 'high-grade' music esteemed not only for its sound but formal structures, a quip about a very fine composer thought to be a "guilty pleasure," was, "Poulenc is my favorite bad composer."
> 
> Poulenc is still one of my favorite "bad composers."


I have a friend who when we first started hanging out was very keen to listen to all the new stuff I was listening to. He tried to go too fast and ended up spending most of his time with Gluck and Handel and Purcell. You could do quite a lot worse.

Anyway, he discovered Poulenc at some point and, having already fabricated a fabrication of my attitudes, mentioned it to me once very tentatively. When I said that Poulenc had long been a favorite of mine and that I owned many discs of Poulenc's music, he was quite put out. He couldn't believe that I actually enjoyed Poulenc and had spent money to listen to as much of his music as possible. How dare I?

Interestingly enough, a poster on a forum of large South American rivers recently made the same mistake: after I had expressed a delight in Dvorak's _Bagatelles,_ he immediately responded with incredulity. Well, it's true. I like Dvorak as much as and probably more than I like Poulenc. I certainly have a lot of Dvorak's music as well. And listen to it frequently.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

PetrB said:


> In Voltaire's _Dictionary of wit_, under _Divorce,_ he said their should always be a jury, 50/50 male and female, and in cases of a stalemate verdict, a hermaphrodite should be called in to cast the deciding vote.
> 
> In the world of performing musicians, there is that address to a mixed group, "Ladies, Gentlemen, and Tenors."


But how many men of the cloth actually sing?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

violadude said:


> If I was still 13 years old, I would have saved this picture in the "boring stuff" folder, if ya know what I mean.


Don't let youth and beauty get under your skin.

<_Sotto voce_>: It isn't dignified.

_;D_


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Don't let youth and beauty get under you skin.


I don't think you understood what "boring stuff folder" meant...maybe it's just a guy thing. :lol:

Or maybe you did get it and I'm not getting your comment.


----------



## Giordano (Aug 10, 2014)

Getting back to the topic of greatness...

Greatness is what I find great. It's blindingly obvious. Don't argue with me.



For example: Liu Yifei -- the greatest beauty of all time


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

violadude said:


> I don't think you understood what "boring stuff folder" meant...maybe it's just a guy thing. :lol:
> 
> Or maybe you did get it and I'm not getting your comment.


Or perhaps beauty and fashion to the boring, seem boring.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Or perhaps beauty and fashion to the boring, seem boring.


Hm, okay nevermind. You didn't get the joke.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> Giordano: Getting back to the topic of greatness...
> 
> Greatness is what I find great. It's blindingly obvious. Don't argue with me.
> 
> ...












Cute picture. . .

"If it is right to me, it is right."

- Max Stirner, _The Ego and Its Own_

_;D_










Elle _uber Alles_.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

violadude said:


> Hm, okay nevermind. You didn't get the joke.


Try as I may, I am congenitally blonde- and for that I do apologize.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Try as I may, I am congenitally blonde- and for that I do apologize.


It's okay. I suppose you just didn't have a "boring stuff" folder when you were a young adolescent.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

violadude said:


> It's okay. I suppose you just didn't have a "boring stuff" folder when you were a young adolescent.


Okay, violadude 'straighted me out' behind the scenes with a PM, politely explaining to me what he meant by what he said.

Breaking it down potato-head style, so that the Super Model could understand it.

I laughed like one wouldn't believe when I 'got it.'

-- So with that said, I retract and rescind my formerly snarky post.

Snark button off. . . at least temporarily.

_;D_


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Elle _uber Alles_.


Neh. When I walk around the street, or go to work by public transport, I see a more attractive lady than any of those top models, every day. Not because their faces and bodies are "perfect", but because they don't live behind a facade and have something much more real, cute and warm about them.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Music is neither objective or subjective; it's a language designed by a performer or composer to convey meaning to an audience. It does this by using universally understood symbols. 

It is also a "mapping of experience;" the composer's ability to translate his experience into musical forms, and how effective that process is in evoking an empathetic response.

To the degree that the music effectively conveys meaning is a measure of its "greatness." This quality of greatness does not necessarily rely on sheer numbers, or on how many listeners "get" the meaning, although popularity in large numbers does not disqualify it. 

In many cases, only a few will grasp the "greatness" of a work. This may be due to numerous factors, such as the complexity of the work and the expertise of the audience.

Thus, "greatness" may be invisible to many, or obscured by inability to grasp it, or to circumstances involving the work's performance history, the times, and its visibility and availability.

Historically, "great" works will rise to visibility because of the sheer number of viewers who agree, and if the qualities of the work prove to be universally appealing and profound, and of "success" of the work as a marketplace entity in the "game." This historic visibility is merely one symptom, and should not be confused for the true criteria, which intrinsically exists as "potentialities for profound meaning," and is independent of sheer number.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Giordano said:


> Getting back to the topic of greatness...
> 
> Greatness is what I find great. It's blindingly obvious. Don't argue with me.
> 
> ...


This is literally the most beautiful woman I have ever seen. You win the thread. I would walk 1000 miles in broken glass to just get a glimpse of her for 5 seconds. Pure and simple. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DeepR said:


> Neh. When I walk around the street, or go to work by public transport, I see a more attractive lady than any of those top models, every day. Not because their faces and bodies are "perfect", but because they don't live behind a facade and have something much more real, cute and warm about them.


I agree: exuberance is beauty-- certainly _;D_

But then, equally true: 'fierce is fierce.'


----------



## Giordano (Aug 10, 2014)

SeptimalTritone said:


> This [Liu Yifei] is literally the most beautiful woman I have ever seen. You win the thread. I would walk 1000 miles in broken glass to just get a glimpse of her for 5 seconds. Pure and simple. Nothing more, nothing less.


Haha! I understand. There are plenty of photos you can ogle... I mean, admire, and many movies you can watch. She is now doing several movies a year.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

KenOC said:


> That nice lady is conspicuously short on underwear. Tsk tsk. But it's OK... :lol:


Of course it's okay. . . the hotpants are even shorter.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

All of you's are incorrect, the most beautiful woman in the world is neither Liu Yifei or Elle. It's Deepika Padukone. ;-)

In all seriousness, I agree with DeepR's sentiments.


----------

