We've had favourites threads, what about the hates?

[Robert Newman]

Well, no, I am saying (and surely you agree) there ARE experts in music, just as there are experts in tennis playing, chess, carpentry and every area of creative activity.

Yet you say 'Greatness is by definition subjective'.

But this is a sort of circular argument. Your definition of musical greatness is made subjective because, in your argument there is no greatness other than subjective greatness !

All this indicates you do not believe in absolutes. Doesn't it ? And, because you don't believe in absolutes you are left with subjectivity and with the very vagueness you criticise in others.

It's clear to me that what is great music is really the creative application of laws that relate to music itself. These laws applied with something other than the 'letter of the law'. In fact, applied by 'the spirit of the law'. And that great music is therefore a fusion of real musical laws, these creatively applied in the free spirit of the same.

 

[Art Rock]

I believe in absolutes that can be defined and proven. Mathematics. Physics. Chemistry.

I do not believe in absoluteness where you cannot define it or once defined cannot prove it. I cannot accept one without the other.

You do not define what is great music in your posts. You point to authorities, or to applicaiton of laws without defining what laws these are. Yes, there are lots of people who know a lot more about music than you and I. But I doubt very much (to put it mildly) that they would be able to define for you what makes great music.

If these experts come back to you and say John Cage's 4:33* is the greatest composition of the 20th century, do you then bow your head and agree that this is great music because the authorities say so?


*)Another much maligned composer - I agree that this particular work is over the top, but he composed some great music. Subjectively, for me.

 

[Robert Newman]

I believe in absolutes that can be defined and proven. Mathematics. Physics. Chemistry.

I do not believe in absoluteness where you cannot define it or once defined cannot prove it. I cannot accept one without the other.

You do not define what is great music in your posts. You point to authorities, or to applicaiton of laws without defining what laws these are. Yes, there are lots of people who know a lot more about music than you and I. But I doubt very much (to put it mildly) that they would be able to define for you what makes great music.

If these experts come back to you and say John Cage's 4:33* is the greatest composition of the 20th century, do you then bow your head and agree that this is great music because the authorities say so?


*)Another much maligned composer - I agree that this particular work is over the top, but he composed some great music. Subjectively, for me.

Well, authorities are authorities only because they are rooted in the laws that govern music. Without which they are charlatans and no authorities at all.

In answer to your request for a musical law - one which cannot possibly be contravened or contradicted, what of the interval of the octave ? The octave is (mathematically and musically) exactly two times in frequency higher than the fundamental. Neither less nor more. So the laws that govern music are based upon it. Or should be. The simplest, most profound and indisputably true fact of music. All music flows from an understanding of this single fact and it's from within the octave (real and theoretical) that all musical knowledge comes. The octave is, to all intents and purposes, an absolute fact.


Regards

 

[Art Rock]

I was not asking for a musical law that cannot be contravened or contradicted. I was asking for such a law that according to you determines whether a composition is great.

 

[Art Rock]

Well, it's been an interesting discussion, but as I have to get up at 5AM it is time to hit the sack. Subjectively.

 

[Robert Newman]

Absolutely !

Regards

 

[some guy]

Robert,

Some guy here. Some guy, not ArtRock. Do try to keep us separate. Even when we seem to be agreeing, we're not the same person, nor do we say the same things.

You mentioned absolutes in one of your posts. Well, here's an absolute for you: the statement "Bach is great," is not a statement of fact. It is what freshman writing instructors refer to as a value judgment. Repeating "Bach is great" over and over again won't make it a fact. Wanting it, for whatever reason, to be a fact, will not make it one. It is a value judgment.

That is not to say that it's not also true. I think it is, as do many musicologists and even more listeners. But it's not objective. It is the end result, the conclusion, of the accumulated experiences of many people, some knowledgeable, some not.

So what is the importance to our discussion of making this distinction? Well, it will keep us honest. It will confine us to being fair. It will, most of all, keep us from making pronouncements without support, as if their putative obviousness or absoluteness were inextricable components of their makeup--or at least as if obviousness and absoluteness were conferred upon them by divine fiat.

I'm not saying that Bach is not great, nor that varying degrees of greatness cannot be assigned to different composers, to different pieces. I am saying that greatness is a subjective term; it is in a different category, linguistically, from objective terms, such as "yellow" or "three foot long," or "15 stone" or whatever.

Objective and subjective are not, however, antagonistic. They exist in a relationship. A fact is valueless by itself. Only when it is used as support for a conclusion does it acquire importance. An opinion is valueless by itself. Only when it is supported by facts does it acquire importance. We ignore this relationship at our peril, eh?

 

[rojo]

Personally, I leave my hatred for things such as violence, cruelty and disease. Which is not to say that there isn't music that I don't particularly care for; there is. But I don't 'hate' it. I just prefer other music.

That said, there are definitely people who 'can't stand' hearing a certain style of music, or who 'abhor' the works of a particular composer. And people are free to express that.

I tend to avoid what's termed 'bashing' because I don't feel the need to denigrate generally speaking (although I do complain about some other things,) and in particular in regards to music, which I believe to be harmless.

I was reading somewhere today that it's good for our health to complain about what bothers us. Maybe I just haven't heard music that really bothered me enough to make me hate it. *shrug*

 

[Robert Newman]

Robert,

Some guy here. Some guy, not ArtRock. Do try to keep us separate. Even when we seem to be agreeing, we're not the same person, nor do we say the same things.

You mentioned absolutes in one of your posts. Well, here's an absolute for you: the statement "Bach is great," is not a statement of fact. It is what freshman writing instructors refer to as a value judgment. Repeating "Bach is great" over and over again won't make it a fact. Wanting it, for whatever reason, to be a fact, will not make it one. It is a value judgment.

That is not to say that it's not also true. I think it is, as do many musicologists and even more listeners. But it's not objective. It is the end result, the conclusion, of the accumulated experiences of many people, some knowledgeable, some not.

So what is the importance to our discussion of making this distinction? Well, it will keep us honest. It will confine us to being fair. It will, most of all, keep us from making pronouncements without support, as if their putative obviousness or absoluteness were inextricable components of their makeup--or at least as if obviousness and absoluteness were conferred upon them by divine fiat.

I'm not saying that Bach is not great, nor that varying degrees of greatness cannot be assigned to different composers, to different pieces. I am saying that greatness is a subjective term; it is in a different category, linguistically, from objective terms, such as "yellow" or "three foot long," or "15 stone" or whatever.

Objective and subjective are not, however, antagonistic. They exist in a relationship. A fact is valueless by itself. Only when it is used as support for a conclusion does it acquire importance. An opinion is valueless by itself. Only when it is supported by facts does it acquire importance. We ignore this relationship at our peril, eh?

Hi there Some Guy,

First, sorry to confuse you with Art Rock (and vice-versa). It was late when I last posted.

Let me begin by correcting some of what you said of me. I haven't said that Bach or any composer is great. But I say (repeatedly) that much of Bach's music IS great. Let's use the word 'excellent'.

You yourself do not deny this may actually be true. For you write -

That is not to say that it's not also true. I think it is, as do many musicologists and even more listeners. But it's not objective. It is the end result, the conclusion, of the accumulated experiences of many people, some knowledgeable, some not.

Thus, you even think Bach's music is great/excellent yourself, though you quickly say it is great only in the subjective sense.

And here (with respect) is where the confusion begins. For, the simple fact is the music of this composer is more objectively great, more demonstrated and recognised to be excellent, than that of virtually all other composers. Which is surely why learned musicians are in such agreement about the fact of it. As are many who instinctively say the same thing though they are not learned in music. There is surely no coincidence.

And what IS the greatness/excellence in this music ? Is it (as you suggest) merely a matter of opinion ? A subjective judgement ?

Well, no. For an activity which is well judged is judged objectively, according to laws. Or else our judgement of that activity is based on nothing but mere opinion and subjectivity. That which conforms to the particular laws which relate to it, and which is also a free and creative expression of the same is, by definition what we are talking about. So say good judges. Bach's music is great/excellent in the sense that it fulfills both the laws of music and also wonderfully transcends them.

As you yourself even say -

An opinion is valueless by itself

Very true. Opinions and judgements should never be confused. They are not the same thing. If the greatness of music is determined solely by opinions or by subjective criteria we end up with no objectivity and no rule of law whatsoever.

Thus great music is determined/judged objectively and its greatness is constantly agreed about by experts and amateurs alike. Which is precisely what we see and hear in the near miraculous music of Johann Sebastian Bach and in a few others. But which we only rarely catch glimpses of in many other composers.


Best regards

Robert

 

[Andrew Roussak]

A very interesting thread , sorry I didn't notice it before!

I will try to share my thoughts on it, so I guess it will be a kind of reply to several posts here.

1. First, a general remark - music is the most irrational of all known arts. Have you ever asked yourself, what makes you to spent hours, listening/ exercising / performing the music? Where does ( or did ) music come from? For example, one can say that the painting arts are in this or another way a reflection of what we see around us. We can rationally explain how the literature or theater began. And, what about music?

2. The perception of music is subjective only up to ( or should I rather say, from ) a certain level. For example, I don't think that anybody can answer a simple question like, why we percept the minor triad as smth. "sad" and the major triad as smth. "joyous". Such things are not subjective anyway, and they are not the matter of taste, education etc.

It could be really not that easy ( if at all possible ) to determine the criteria of GREATNESS - but in this case, we have to compare THE BEST compositions of the BEST composers anyway, right? In contrary, we can obviously unite in the following statement - there exists such thing as "bad" classical music. The very first examples coming to my mind are the sonatines of Muzio Clementi from the music school course , unless one would want to regard them only as the finger exercises.
Which means, the matter is not THAT subjective.

3. I have once listened to the broadcast on SWR2 ( a channel for classical music in Germany ) dedicated to the days of the Corean classical music in Stuttgart. I found this music itself very interesting, but it worked on me like smth. purely Martian . Now, we use the same term "music" for the tonal music, atonal music, microtonality, oriental classical music - I guess only because all of these arts are , definitely, not literature or graphic design. But, it means we can not actually apply the same categories speaking about, for example, tonal and atonal music. The definitions like "atonal noise" imply, in fact, the comparison of atonal music to the traditional music, which is NOT noise. But it doesn't make any sense; the atonal music was born exactly on the way of denial the tonality. Therefore, one can not directly compare Mozart and Gubaidullina, like one can not compare Picasso and Dostoewsky.

Regards,
Andrew

 

[some guy]

First, sorry to confuse you with Art Rock (and vice-versa). It was late when I last posted.

Get some rest!!

Let me begin by correcting some of what you said of me. I haven't said that Bach or any composer is great. But I say (repeatedly) that much of Bach's music IS great. Let's use the word 'excellent'.

You misunderstand. My point was not about whether you had said "Bach is great" or "Much of Bach's music is great." The point was about language. About words and what words mean and, most importantly, how they mean. The word excellent is a synonym for great. It means roughly the same thing and, more importantly, it is the same kind of word, a value judgment.

Thus, you even think Bach's music is great/excellent yourself, though you quickly say it is great only in the subjective sense.

(emphasis mine, again!)

"Only" is your word. I would never say that anything is only subjective or only an opinion or anything like that. And although I agree that Bach's music is great/excellent--your replacement is only(!!) an addition?--that does not mean that I think that a value judgment has suddenly morphed into a fact. As for true, yes, I see how that might have been confusing. There's another component at work here, on another axis as it were: both facts and value judgments can be true or false. The sun is yellow is a fact and true. Bach was born in 1887 is a fact and false. Bach's music is great is true. Stockhausen's music is ugly is false.

You probably instantly recognize how much more difficult it is to demonstrate the truth or falsity of a value judgment over demonstrating the same about facts. That just goes to show how different the two really are, eh?

And here (with respect) is where the confusion begins. For, the simple fact is the music of this composer is ... objectively great...

And the confusion consists of calling a value judgment a fact--adding "simple" has no argumentative value, and making an oxymoron, "objectively great," just adds confusion to confusion.

Let me try to truly simplify: the words "objective" and "fact" point to one type of reality. A reality that can be proven. A reality that is outside the realm of opinion. One can say, for instance, "Cage is great in my opinion," but one would never say "Cage was born in 1947 in my opinion." His birthdate is an empirically verifiable fact, not an opinion. His greatness is a value judgment.

Which brings us to the other type of reality: the words "subjective," "opinion," and "value judgment" point to a reality that can be argued. Argued but never proven, though some things (like Bach's greatness) have been so accepted for so long that they seem to take on qualities of objectivity. It only(oh! I did it again!!) seems.

Is it (as you suggest) merely a matter of opinion ? A subjective judgement ?

I hope you know the answer to this. I would never say that something is merely a matter of opinion. And all judgments, by definition, are subjective. There are good judgments and bad. There are true judgments and false. But there are no objective judgments. Objective belongs with with facts and with proofs. Judgment belongs with opinions and argument. This is all just Freshman English 101, you know!!

As you yourself even say -

An opinion is valueless by itself

Very true. Opinions and judgements should never be confused. They are not the same thing.

Even? No, no "even" about it. And to quote one quarter of a tightly constructed symploce is to destroy the meaning of the whole utterance. (And to go on to give that one quarter a meaning entirely alien to the meaning I had given it is simply dishonest.)

Opinions and judgments are synonyms. They occupy (or perhaps I should say that they delineate) the same reality. An opinion is at the very least a type of judgment. (In conversational contexts, an opinion is a judgment that's not completely convincing. In other contexts, legal and medical, an opinion is a professional judgment. Surely you have heard the phrases "a legal opinion" and "a medical opinion.")

If the greatness of music is determined solely by opinions or by subjective criteria we end up with no objectivity and no rule of law whatsoever.

Only, merely, solely--this is starting to look like a trend! The greatness of anything is determined by opinions and by subjective criteria. That's the kind of word "greatness" is. I kind of understand the desire for one's opinions to have objective truth. Kind of. And if you'd ever been inside a courtroom, you would certainly know that the law is made up of little things called precedents, which are opinions given by various lawyers over the years. I don't think this whole legal metaphor is working at all the way you seem to be wanting it to.

 

[Robert Newman]

Hi there Someguy,

Thanks for your post. You seem determined to confuse opinions with reality and want us all to believe they are the same thing. But at least your error is already the main topic of the discussion. So something good will come of it, for sure !

You begin well enough. You agree excellent music is really the same as great music. Fine. Nice to start with your agreement. But you write -

It means roughly the same thing and, more importantly, it is the same kind of word, a value judgment.

No, with respect, that's wrong. You are mistaken to say words, in themselves, are value judgements. Your error is understandable and no doubt you're sincere in your view, but it's an error all the same. Let me explain.

Words are often wrongly used. Aren't they ? So too are numbers. Both can, we agree, serve as value judgements. To use words or numbers wrongly may of course be due to lack of understanding. We see countless examples of such errors. But it's really not words or numbers in themselves which are a value judgement. They become a value judgement for those justified to use them.

Numbers themselves are constructs. They have no real existence. They are of course representations. Are they not ? The same is true of words. They, in themselves are not judgements though they are used to form a judgement. But words are not judgements in themselves. Words are often inappropriate, they may be errors, and may even be slander, inaccurate, proof of a lack of education, of lack of judgement, etc. etc. So words in themselves are not value judgements. They are, as are numbers, neutral things. However, when the right word or the right number is correctly used, words BECOME value judgements if they come from those who wisely judge and who have evidence to support their use. But judgements made by bad judges and by those who lack evidence are inappropriate and wrong.

A judge judges. But his judgement must first supported by his understanding of the law and of the evidence of the case on which he is judging. The judgement of a specific case only comes when the evidence has been presented and is only made by his wise consideration of the FACTS that relate to it. Is that not true ? Judgements are not made from the opinions or prejudices of the judge. And so, no, words in themselves are not value judgements. They become value judgements at the end of a process. Just as a pile of numbers is not in itself a value judgement. Numbers may accurately or not accurately represent a specific quantity or amount.

A pile of letters of the alphabet may, if put together correctly, be made to form words. And so, in the same way, words can become value judgements but only according to the wisdom of those using them, having first considered the laws and the evidence that justifies using them by those who wisely use them.

Thus words BECOME value judgements only at the point where they are rightly spoken. I mean, of course, words become judgements only by knowledge of the law and of the actual evidence that relates to the case. And judges wisely judge evidence. Not opinions. It is clear, therefore, that a judge judges having first learned his subject and having obtained the wisdom to arrive at his verdict.


Regards

 

[Contratrombone64]

For me quite a few, (maybe it's just my age)

Modern composers who can only write dull, tuneless, repetitive work, barely suitable for background noise in an elevator, like Einaudi, Glass and a few others, for Gorecki delete repetitive maybe but add discordant & atonal, as soon as I hear a radio presenter mention the Symphony of sorrowful songs I hit the off button or change channel; Arvo Paart an be added to the list as well. (Note I have not mentioned music as I don't consider it such)

As a matter of interest has anybody else apart from Einaudi recorded any of his works, I don't recall having heard one announced before I switch off.

Other instant switch offs include Cecilia Bartolli and similar divas that overdo the vibrato, Pavarotti and co, the 3 tenors, again over the top, give me Jussi Bjorling anyday. (and for a female vocalist Cleo Laine tops my list, although outside the classical genre)

I have similar feelings about modern art too, in fact I think probably there is a connection between the artist who randomly spatters paint on the canvas and Gorecki spattering notes on a score. In both cases I suspect a con job by somebody in media with a warped sense of humour conning those who think they have to support the "in thing" into buying the record/print etc so as to be seen as "with it".

I don't find it confined to the classical arts, jazz has also suffered, architecture has gone crazy, you can probably all think of other examples.

Am I alone in these feelings or just a grumpy old fart?

Mike - I am so with you on this, in fact Gorecki's symphony of sorrowful songs is (to me) one of THE most tedious, dull and boring works of the 20th century.

 

[some guy]

Robert, and you, for your part, seemed determined to misunderstand and distort. (I never said, by the way that excellent music is the same as great music. I said that the words "excellent" and "great" are synonyms. I hope that distinction is plain enough.)

My points are not confusing or difficult. Statements can be divided into two kinds, value judgments and facts. The same can be done with individual words. That's not an error, Robert, that's elementary rhetoric.

This has been fun, but I really cannot teach you basic facts about language or logic. Well, not without pay, anyway.

 

[Robert Newman]

Thank you Someguy,

Well, in pursuit of logic and clarity you seem to have changed your argument. In your previous letter you made much of the view that words are value judgements. You made no distinction about words. Now you seem to have changed to say 'statements can be divided into two kinds - value judgements and facts'. And this you describe as 'elementary rhetoric'.

I repeat that words are not value judgements. Words are thoughts expressed. They may of course become value judgements and often are. They may even be used for abuse. They may be used wrongly in cases where they are used ignorantly or without due thought. But words are not in themselves value judgements unless/until a jugement has first been made before they are used. Value judgements require facts, without which they are not value judgements but mere opinions or outbursts.

A balloon can fly in the sky. But only if it has been inflated. So also words. They cannot fly or be used to form a value judgement unless/until a judgement has actually been made. A judgement based on facts.

And this returns us to our theme. To the fact there IS great/excellent music and there is music of no value. The first is based on/derived from laws that apply to music. The other is anarchic, based on no understanding of these laws nor even belief in musical excellence. And since great music, excellent music, is consistent with these laws there is the measure of its value, its excellence. So too the reason why some music is bad. Perhaps you yourself will confirm Music is a science ? That the laws of this science of Music are united with art. And music not based on these laws or made in ignorance or contravention to them is, by definition, of less value than music which is ?

Your offer to teach language and rhetoric is itself a great and free lesson for which I'm thankful.

Regards

 

[Art Rock]

Robert,
You keep linking the concept of greatness of music to supposed laws. I ask you once again to name these laws (and not the general one you gave as an example before, which basically covers every single tone ever produced). If you cannot define these laws, it beats me how you can talk about the science of music.

there is music of no value.

Can you give some examples?

 

[Robert Newman]

Robert,
You keep linking the concept of greatness of music to supposed laws. I ask you once again to name these laws (and not the general one you gave as an example before, which basically covers every single tone ever produced). If you cannot define these laws, it beats me how you can talk about the science of music.

Can you give some examples?

Hi there Art Rock,

You (again) ask me to name the laws that apply to music. And you ask me to name some examples.

Well, I'm happy to repeat myself and admit that my answer has been so simple it may even have been overlooked. All great music (all excellent music) is derived from a law which is fundamental to itself, the simple but massively profound octave. It is a law of all music that the octave (and what may be derived from understanding and applying it) is the context within which literally everything we can know and use about harmony, orchestration, melody, and all other aspects of music are rightly understood and applied. From the octave all other musical rules and all we may know and apply in music is correctly derived and applied. And, if not correctly derived and applied it is the octave which provides reason to reject it or to value it less highly as music. So the octave IS the fundamental law of the science of music and all other rules, procedures and techiques of music are derived from it. It is the context within which music exists and within which it is well made. The relationship between 1 and 2 and between 2 and 1.

As for examples of this, they are found in abundance in all musical works which you and I both consider to be excellent. But they are not found, or are less commonly found in music that is not of such excellence.

I note you say -

'Not the general one you gave as an example before, which basically covers every single tone ever produced'

Yes indeed, and since it covers basically every single tone ever produced you may agree that it is IS as said.


Regards

Robert

 

[Art Rock]

Yes, I saw that, I referred to it as the example you gave before and which basically covers (almost) every tone produced.
So you think that say Britney Spears is great music, because her notes are based on the octave?

We seem to be talking cross purposes here. I am repeatedly asking for laws that define greatness (a linking concept you introduced in your posts), you keep throwing the octave at me.

We are not making progress here.

 

[Robert Newman]

No, you are confused. I didn't say the music of Britney Spears is great music. What I actually said was this -

From the octave all other musical rules and all we may know and apply in music is correctly derived and applied. And, if not correctly derived and applied it is the octave which provides reason to reject it or to value it less highly as music.

Whether we make progress or not seems dependent on you reading what I write and vice versa.

Regards

Robert

 

[Art Rock]

So be it.
You seem not to grasp what I am asking and/or I do not grasp what you are answering.
Either way, we are getting nowhere.