Questioning the false dichotomies of classical music

[(poco) Sforzando]

Just remember that in most contexts, "It's good" means 'I like it" and "It's bad" means "I don't like it." 

But I don't think that's necessarily the case. I greatly prefer listening to almost any G+S operetta to Parsifal. Yet I would be a fool to think any G+S operetta is superior to Parsifal.

[mc ukrneal]

But I don't think that's necessarily the case. I greatly prefer listening to almost any G+S operetta to Parsifal. Yet I would be a fool to think any G+S operetta is superior to Parsifal.

Why? What do you mean by superior?

[Sid]

Some interesting replies here. I have to be brief, as I have limited time. Bear with me...

...But knowing my preferences, you will probably be able to predict the music I like and dislike with decent accuracy. But in general, we hide this from one another for various reasons (at least some do, or simply won't discuss it for whatever reason). Of course, with each new composer I expose myself to, there is a chance those biases and values will shift. And that is the greatest thing one can have happen in my opinion.

I pariticularly like that quote from mc ukrneal that I bolded above. I agree that some degree of flexibility is important to challenging some of the ideologies that we may unconsiously hold (some of which may be false dichotomies - black & white thinking). Then we can move on & possibly expand our appreciation of things that before we may have thought to be inferior or not worth considering.

This also explains why I would place Offenbach and John Williams at the level of Stravinsky, Vaughan Williams, or such (which I know irks some). It is a matter of what we value. Now, some people will just reject these assessments with a knee-jerk reaction based on the names and not the reasoning. For example, in assessing the quality of the music itself (not the importance of the composer) - the history of what those composers did new or changes they made to the professions, I think this can be separated out from the quality of the music itself. Perhaps some would argue they cannot be or should not be, and this would impact the resulting discussion in a huge way.

I'd also add that often, it's not the composers themselves who are sticking to the false dichotomies or other unhelpful ways of thinking - it's the fans. Like I know that Wagner praised Bizet's Carmen, he said something to the effect that it was the most intelligent opera to come out of France for decades. Another one is how John Cage said the Alan Hovhaness' music reminded him of "inner singing." We as fans or obsessives of certain types of music set up our own false dichotomies which simply did not exist in composer's minds - even if they were seemingly at the opposite ends of certain stylistic trends or ways of doing things.

In the end, we spend too much time arguing about which composer or which piece is better, or trying to push our agenda on others instead of just enjoying, sharing, and spreading the music. I actually like discussing some of the things Sid posted about, but not in a ranking system as is often the case. I'd prefer a spectrum or horizontal discussion. Anwyay, just a few thoughts...

I agree, everyone has a certain "agenda." Sometimes these agendas are part and parcel of our passions, in developing our interests in certain areas of the repertoire or certain type of composers. But at other times they can hold us back from exploring other possible avenues that can be equally deserving of our attention and possibly bring us equal pleasure and engagement.

[Sid]

The problem with dilemmas/dichotomies is that they don't allow for fine shades or individual differences--as if, for example, composers for orchestra were either completely inept or absolute masters.  But if we see these "opposite" qualities as points on a line, that allows for fine shades of distinction; you can recognize a composer as being a good orchestrator without being on the same level as, say, Ravel or Mahler; or you can recognize ineffective orchestration without relegating it to the Dumpster of music.

It also allows us to see insufficiencies in even recognized masters.  Mahler, for example, had a tendency to write occasional notes for woodwinds that simply cannot be played, like a low Bb for a flute (!), and to write low notes for oboe or English horn at pp, which is almost impossible even for great players--yet he's still one of the great masters of the orchestra.

Well that's very interesting. Often we create certain demigods in music (or the other arts) & put them on a pedestal. We've all seen how some people say things like for example "If you don't understand or appreciate how composer X does orchestration, then you won't understand the basics of orchestration." I think that's an all or nothing kind of view, and not particularly helpful. In terms of being a composition student, I'd hazard a guess that they'd study a whole variety of composers in theory and in practice. Not just composer X. For lay listeners like myself, I think it's better to take in whatever I can in terms of the "big picture" rather than focussing on small details which can be pretty pedantic. I find that if I focus too much on the detail, I easily miss the general gist of what's going on in the music...

[(poco) Sforzando]

Why? What do you mean by superior?

Better. Greater. 

[Ten thumbs]

Better. Greater. 

Indeed, so what do you mean by Better. Greater?

Superior. 

[bigshot]

The way to ask it is... What positive attributes does Gilbert and Sullivan have that Parsifal lacks. If you ask for evidence rather than conclusions, you'll end up with info that illuminates the comparison whether you agree with the conclusion or not.

[karlhenning]

I agree, everyone has a certain "agenda."

No; I should agree that everyone views from his own viewpoint.

Apart from that: some of us (probably a comparative minority) have what can fairly be described as an agenda.

Also apart from that: some of us (I shan't speculate whether in the minority or majority) understand that we approach things from a certain perspective, and cultivate an ability to appreciate other points of view.

[mc ukrneal]

The way to ask it is... What positive attributes does Gilbert and Sullivan have that Parsifal lacks. If you ask for evidence rather than conclusions, you'll end up with info that illuminates the comparison whether you agree with the conclusion or not.

Great response - agree totally.

[starrynight]

Any two different things can be compared and judged objectively. You just have to define your criteria for judging. Different criteria may produce different results, but that doesn't mean that objectivity is impossible.

All opinions are not created equal. Some are well defined and supported by evidence, and some are just expressions of personal taste. The most common logical fallacy is reducto ad absurdum... Arguing that because some opinions are simply expressions of personal tastes that all opinions are the same.

I agree, I don't see complete relativism as being useful.  Music of any kind is a craft, it isn't something which is completely random so it can't be judged randomly either.  Everyone is influenced by what others say about music but I think it's important to question and discuss the value of things and to grow to understand aspects of music for yourself.

Some fans of music, particularly popular music, say musical opinion is just taste and nothing else.  On popular music forums people can get very insecure about some favourite artist of theirs being criticised.  Instead of just looking at it more objectively as just music they over-identify with it and take it personally if anyone questions their idol's music.  Everybody has preferences but it's important not to let that cloud one's judgement. 

Also I think it is much easier to compare works in the same style for their creativity than those in different styles.  Some pieces will obviously be more complex, use different kinds of themes and structure than others.  But that can just be nature of the style being dealt with rather than issues concerning it's craft or creativity.

Some people can be more limited in the styles they wish to listen to, and that's ok that is their choice.  But I wouldn't trust someone's judgement in music that they aren't that familiar with.  I tend to think the more someone listens to in a particular style the more they can tune into it and understand it properly.  The mind probably adapts to the different ways creativity is expressed in another style.

From my own perspective I suppose I put things under good or bad as in music I want to hear again or music I don't want to.  It's an important means of filtering.  We all need to make these choices.  That doesn't mean I suppose that the 'bad' music is totally terrible just that there isn't enough in it for me to really like it enough.  There is too much good music out there to just listen to what I would see as average stuff. 

But styles that are more my preference I may have a higher tolerance of music which is not 'great' but is at least very good to me.  And I think you have to judge a work by it's purpose which may not always be greatly ambitious.

I know these discussions come up hundreds of times on forums and it can seem repetitive, but it is essential to the whole process of how people interact with music so it's hard to avoid.

[bigshot]

Poor critical thinking is a problem in all of society, not just music discussion. People get defensive if their opinions are challenged instead of taking it as an opportunity to define one's criteria for judging and learn from opposing viewpoints. Even if my own criteria leads me to a different conclusion, I can still learn something from people who disagree as long as they argue their point fairly. Debate illuminates a subject from all angles.

As for music, I find that people with wider frames of reference have more interesting opinions about music. Those with very specialized tastes often are focused on the details, while those with very broad tastes have insights into the big picture of how one type of music relates to another. Most of my friends are artists and musicians so I have been exposed to a great deal of different music. I've actually made an effort to listen to types of music most people don't come in contact with... Classical, opera, country western, bluegrass, folk, Cuban mambo, all types of jazz, easy listening, pop vocals, big band, ethnic music, popular music, rock 'n roll, rock, etc. All of the styles of music are like languages that I learn to become fluent in. I learn things from one style that teaches me something about a totally different style.

I'm never afraid to compare apples and oranges because that's how I learn.

[Sid]

Everyone has made some interesting points here. I think bigshot put it very well when he said:

Poor critical thinking is a problem in all of society, not just music discussion. People get defensive if their opinions are challenged instead of taking it as an opportunity to define one's criteria for judging and learn from opposing viewpoints. Even if my own criteria leads me to a different conclusion, I can still learn something from people who disagree as long as they argue their point fairly. Debate illuminates a subject from all angles.

Basically I am arguing that it is useful to understand what is "black and white" thinking (or false dichotomies) not in order to stifle criticism or comparison, but to actually improve it. I particularly agree that a debate that is informed and more balanced "illuminates a subject from all angles." It's more accurate to see the many shades of grey in whatever thing you are talking about or comparing to another thing, rather than reduce it down to black and white, which is easy to do (I'm sure many of us have done it at some stage).

I also thought that Apollon's thoughts on this topic were interesting:

No; I should agree that everyone views from his own viewpoint.

Apart from that: some of us (probably a comparative minority) have what can fairly be described as an agenda.

Also apart from that: some of us (I shan't speculate whether in the minority or majority) understand that we approach things from a certain perspective, and cultivate an ability to appreciate other points of view.

This makes me think of the concept of "schemata" in child psychology, which I studied briefly many moons ago. As s/he grows up and develops an understanding of the surrounding world, a child develops these schemes or "schemata" or ways of understanding the world. Eg. a child may first see a dog and learn to call it "dog." When the child then later sees a cow, it might extend his/her understanding of the dog and call the cow something like "big dog." I am simplifying things here but I hope you get my point. We all have a particular set of schemata or reference points which make up our understanding of the world, which is undoubtedly more complex than we could ever comprehend. When we compare things, we are bringing our "schemata" or prior knowledge into play. Ultimately we are all limited to an extent by these schemes which we uniquely possess & use to understand the world around us...