Greatness in Music

[Harry]

I would also, but others might not.  My wife is an "other".  She loves Willie Nelson's music, while I find it boring architecturally and in regard to Nelson's delivery.  Is Bach greater than Nelson?  I say yes, but my wife simply states that she much prefers Nelson and scoffs at the notion that greatness can be measured or determined through consensus.  What it really comes down to is that Nelson speaks to her, but he has nothing to say to me.

I should have said it this way, but you have, thanks.

[BachQ]

I disagree. From my point of view, Don's wife simply has an inferior taste in music. It's irrelevant what speaks to her. Is there anything particularly philistine about this view?

We should force her to appreciate Bach .......

[Josquin des Prez]

We should force her to appreciate Bach .......

How does that follow?

[Don]

I disagree. From my point of view, Don's wife simply has an inferior taste in music. It's irrelevant what speaks to her. Is there anything particularly philistine about this view?

I disagree right back.  What counts most is what speaks to her.

[quintett op.57]

I think quintett is just being argumentative.  To me, there is no doubt that Bach covers a greater array of human emotions

This yes. It's not what I had understood

Does this add to the premise that Bach's music is greater than Vivaldi's?

This no.

[Josquin des Prez]

I disagree right back.  What counts most is what speaks to her.

What counts most to her, perhaps. Why is that relevant to everybody else, let alone determining an objective value for greatness?

[karlhenning]

Offhand, I think that is covered under the "greatness maps onto what I like best" fallacy.

[Don]

What counts most to her, perhaps. Why is that relevant to everybody else, let alone determining an objective value for greatness?

Forget objective value; it does not exist.  Of course my wife's preferences are only relevant to her, and your preferences mean nothing to her.

[Josquin des Prez]

Offhand, I think that is covered under the "greatness maps onto what I like best" fallacy.

I think this is more a case of "what i like best maps onto greatness".

[Don]

I think this is more a case of "what i like best maps onto greatness".

Likely more from your end than my wife's.  Unlike you, she doesn't try to equate her preferences with any notions of greatness.

[karlhenning]

Forget objective value; it does not exist.

Most of us are already in agreement on that point:

From this perspective, attempts to define artistic greatness as either "subjective" or "objective" are both doomed to fail. Greatness is a matter of judgment, that is, neither provable fact nor personal whim, but instead the collective response of composers, performers, listeners, and scholars. This doesn't mean either that the canon of musical greatness is ossified for all time, or that composers and works may not be reevaluated up or down, or that individuals may not depart from the generally accepted canon here and there in accordance with personal taste. But by and large, the collective judgment of musically interested people is remarkably consistent, giving the lie to the notion that we all simply respond as individuals in a purely personal and subjective manner.

[Josquin des Prez]

Forget objective value; it does not exist. 

What makes you so sure?

Of course my wife's preferences are only relevant to her, and your preferences mean nothing to her.

Of course, but by your logic no preference is ever relevant, which is a mistake.

[karlhenning]

Likely more from your end than my wife's.  Unlike you, she doesn't try to equate her preferences with any notions of greatness.

All right.  But you had written:

What counts most is what speaks to her.

Which, given the discussion, might have been taken as some statement touching greatness.

What counts most to your wife, and in certain cases to you yourself, is what speaks to her.  No argument there.

[Don]

Most of us are already in agreement on that point:

What's with the "most of us"?  You are one person, that's all.

[Josquin des Prez]

Likely more from your end than my wife's.  Unlike you, she doesn't try to equate her preferences with any notions of greatness.

My love for Bach is NOT a preference, particularly considering how hard i had to work to fully grasp his music. That is the first fallacy in your reasoning.

[Don]

What makes you so sure?

Of course, but by your logic no preference is ever relevant, which is a mistake.

On the contrary.  I never implied that preferences are not relevant; they are the driving force behind the music that an individual chooses to listen to.

[Josquin des Prez]

yeah, thats what i was thinking also....or perhaps there is a language barrier issue or something, because it seems quintett is not fully comprehending whats being said.

Great exists ....and shock horror - bad exists, and many shades in between.

Inferior & superior...these things are reality.

And it is important that these things are pointed out for the SURVIVAL of art ... maybe folks don't notice that the world comprises a very large majority of the uneducated & unenlightened. That is not their fault. It would be yours & my fault if we failed to ADVOCATE what we believed to be the best of our culture. And that is not so as necessarily to convert them ... it is a marking out of territory, a bargaining posture, a statement of intent, as much as anything else.

Isn't it the logical conclusion of a relativistic line of thought that it is not possible to know, or proceed upon the basis that anything is better or worse than anything else ... a premise from which - in reality, not in wordgame land - it is impossible to begin evolution or growth of any kind. Put simply, relativism is a cop out. It is the equivalent to refusing to talk about ethics or metaphysics because you're a logical positivist and you think it's all nonsense. Logical postivism generally contradicting the rationalism of the Enlightenment. Aesthetic relativism is an idle cop-out, as it inevitably leads to an end to the discussion.

And isn't that what it comes down to: in the real world we must proceed on the basis of judgements ... and those judgements are made by the informed / educated, and are further nuanced, enhanced, and developed by intuitive knowledge of the uneducated-talented (as they evolve), and that these patterns demonstrate the quality & meaning of things to us?

And it is based on INFORMED opinion, informed by intuition and maybe learning too, but intuition is always before theory. And what that means in our imperfect world is that we JUDGE things by a consensus of informed opinion - inabsolute as that may be - and that such informed opinion is all we can judge with.

What is the problem with this ?

I'm just having to repeat the obvious - because to me there is a group-think over reaction to the calamitous idea that - in art - some people just don't get it and some do ... that some people are better than others ... that YOU CAN SAY SO, and that is the way it has been and probably always will be. And that is all we have ... but it's good enough.

And can anyone here really say that they don't judge ... by which I mean, when you KNOW at some fundamental level that, say, a certain player or attempt at composition is awful. Don't you ever feel that ? The passion & involvement - the desire to say that standards of rigour & quality have not been met.

Strong critical judgement is a prerequisite of high quality art.
I wonder ... has an artist of quality ever existed who did not exercise this critical judgement.

I'd love to hear of an alternative model.

Lo, it seems i'm not alone in this fading civilization.

[Don]

My love for Bach is NOT a preference, particularly considering how hard i had to work to fully grasp his music. That is the first fallacy in your reasoning.

Have it your way, but I'm not buying it.

[karlhenning]

What's with the "most of us"?  You are one person, that's all.

Sure;  but I am not the only person to express agreement with that point on this thread.

There are ample opportunities for one person to employ the phrase most of us.

[Scriptavolant]

Isn't it the logical conclusion of a relativistic line of thought that it is not possible to know, or proceed upon the basis that anything is better or worse than anything else ... a premise from which - in reality, not in wordgame land - it is impossible to begin evolution or growth of any kind. Put simply, relativism is a cop out. It is the equivalent to refusing to talk about ethics or metaphysics because you're a logical positivist and you think it's all nonsense. Logical postivism generally contradicting the rationalism of the Enlightenment. Aesthetic relativism is an idle cop-out, as it inevitably leads to an end to the discussion.

Come on! I may even agree with your view as a whole, but this is just not the way to put it. Relativism doesn't state that "anything is better or worse than anything else", it simply looks for given parameters and standards to make every statement meaningful in a given context.
And logical positivism doesn't reject metaphysics on the basis of a fancy, but it provides serious logical analysis of the reasons why metaphysical statements are nothing else but pseudo-statements, not necessarily denying its historical importance or developement.

It's a very ideological practice to reject (a distorted view of) relativism only on the basis that assuming a relativist perspective then "Art would die".
Provide instead detailed analysis and proofs of the fallacies in relativistic thought and the rightousness of non-relativism. Otherwise I will assume we're just chatting and chatting and making.. pseudo-statements.