Questioning the false dichotomies of classical music

[Sid]

When reading any source on music (including what people write on this forum) I often try to read between the lines and uncover some of the deeper aspects behind what people are saying.

This is how wikipedia defines false dichotomies:

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black and white thinking or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options.

Here are some of the false dichotomies I can think of in relation to classical music. Of course, aspects of some of them are interchangeable, they are sometimes difficult to distinguish and categorise from eachother. Another thing is that, for the sake of being to the point, I am kind of exaggerating how some people may present false dichotomies in relation to classical music. These are just a few of my own, feel free to criticise them or even add others you can think of.

Music can either be "good" or "bad" - Dismissing the fact that some works can be successful in some ways, but not so successful in others. Eg. "Russian music is not as good as German music tends to be, because thematic development is not the Russians' strong point." "Haydn was very good at symphonies and string quartets, and not very good at concertos or operas."

Composers versus eachother - Comparing one composer to another in a way that one of them ultimately comes worse off than the other. Eg. "Bizet's Carmen is too popular and trashy compared to Wagner's Ring, which was the most profound and significant (set of) operas ever written." Or maybe "All of the great composers died a hundred or more years ago" is a related example (the ideology of 'Dead White Males').

Popular versus more obscure music - Related to the Bizet/Wagner example in the last point. Valuing or devaluing things according to their popularity (or lack thereof). Sometimes, popularity is equated to or confused with quality.


Styles or eras versus eachother - Comparing the music of one era to another & showing what you value (rather than the actual value of the music taken on it's own terms) in the process. Eg. "Everyone knows that Romantic music is the most emotional music, whereas Baroque music is more technical and all sounds the same." Another related example - "Western Classical music peaked in the period from 1850 to 1950. Most other things written outside that period don't have the individuality or power of expression as does the music of that period." (the old Romantic and Modernist dogmas strongly surface here).

Genres versus eachother - Comparing one genre or type of classical music to another. Eg. "Everyone knows that orchestral music is more accessible to the masses than other genres - especially chamber and opera - which are only the realm of the elites and are more highbrow."

"High" versus "low" art - The distinctions between these are becoming less and less marked, yet some people still like to think in terms of accepting or enjoying one or the other, not both. Eg. "Bernstein's or Gershwin's musicals are trash compared to their more serious works." I'm sure you can make up plenty of your own (maybe more subtle) examples here.

Ideologies versus eachother - A broad topic, too broad to discuss succinctly here. Everyone has a mixture of ideologies behind their thinking. However, ideologues tend to focus narrowly on just one ideology and see everything through that lens. They argue that it's impossible to mix and match your ideologies as you go along. Some of the more common ideologies are Romantic, Progressivist/Modernist, Post-Modernist (which can be said to include things like Feminist and Environmentalist ideologies), various politically based ideologies (eg. Marxism, Communism), Anarchist, Libertarian, etc.

[Josquin des Prez]

None of this are false dichotomies, except perhaps for the one comparing styles, or genres.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Music can either be "good" or "bad" -

Composers versus eachother -

Popular versus more obscure music -

False or not, these sort of dichotomies are the lifeblood of discussion boards like this. Even those dumb polls start some good conversations.

Ideologies versus eachother - A broad topic, too broad to discuss succinctly here. Everyone has a mixture of ideologies behind their thinking.

Yeah well, my "ideology" is simple: I like good music and dislike bad music. Which brings us back to false dichotomy #1 

[Sid]

None of this are false dichotomies, except perhaps for the one comparing styles, or genres.

Well I'm no expert on these matters, but I'd generally like to discuss the assumptions underlying people's opinions and evaluations of music. You've got to admit that some people do have a "black and white" view of things, whether it be comparing styles, genres, conductors, etc. Some of these views often underpin people's evaluation of things as "good" or "bad," "great" and "mediocre," "valuable" and "garbage" etc. Another issue is ideology, which I briefly mentioned in the last point. I particularly wanted to point to some people's "either/or" kind of mentality. Eg. you can't enjoy or appreciate a certain type of music if you do the same with another - you have to choose between the two. Eg. There's a problem if you like BOTH Bizet AND Wagner EQUALLY for example. One has to be lower than the other in some people's estimation. They cannot be taken on their own terms, they always have to be compared...

[Florestan]

My own "false dichotomy" is simple: if I like it, it's good, even if it's bad; if I don't like it, it's bad, even if it's good. 

Seriously now, I have never understood --- and probably never will --- why some people seem to not be able to enjoy the music they like without feeling the need to trash the music they dislike.

De gustibus non disputandum est --- but taking this maxim at face value would spell the end of GMG, therefore I say it loud and proud: give me Bizet over Wagner anytime. 

[Grazioso]

Seriously now, I have never understood --- and probably never will --- why some people seem to not be able to enjoy the music they like without feeling the need to trash the music they dislike.

Insecurity.

[Florestan]

Insecurity.

Hmmm... might be. But I fail to see how trashing Mozart / Beethoven makes one more secure in his love for Stockhausen / Dittersdorf (any resemblance with real people is intentional  )

[mc ukrneal]

Well I'm no expert on these matters, but I'd generally like to discuss the assumptions underlying people's opinions and evaluations of music. You've got to admit that some people do have a "black and white" view of things, whether it be comparing styles, genres, conductors, etc. Some of these views often underpin people's evaluation of things as "good" or "bad," "great" and "mediocre," "valuable" and "garbage" etc. Another issue is ideology, which I briefly mentioned in the last point. I particularly wanted to point to some people's "either/or" kind of mentality. Eg. you can't enjoy or appreciate a certain type of music if you do the same with another - you have to choose between the two. Eg. There's a problem if you like BOTH Bizet AND Wagner EQUALLY for example. One has to be lower than the other in some people's estimation. They cannot be taken on their own terms, they always have to be compared...

Nice post, but not quite as good as your earlier one...

Seriously, some people do this in order to justify themselves, and there are a lot of people who think the only way to bring themselves (and their opinions) up is by bringing others down (or ridicule the opinions of others). When I read reviews, the only thing that usually interests me is the reason and thinking behind it. This is why I always loved Roger and Ebert. You could totally disagree with them and dislike them, but their views were always supported with an explanation (and that explanation was the most important and interesting part of the show for me). 

[MishaK]

None of this are false dichotomies, except perhaps for the one comparing styles, or genres.

They all are, actually, in the classic sense of the definition of a false dichotomy, namely one that posits a choice between only two options, when more than two exist or when the two options are in fact not mutually exclusive. I.e. they are all choices that need not be made, and indeed all of the ones Sid listed lead to the most daft discussions on this board.

False or not, these sort of dichotomies are the lifeblood of discussion boards like this.

That depends on what you mean by "life" and "blood".  In terms of sheer volume, yes, they do make up a large amount of the traffic here.

[Sid]

My own "false dichotomy" is simple: if I like it, it's good, even if it's bad; if I don't like it, it's bad, even if it's good. 

Makes perfect sense to me . Kind of says everything's relative. Shades of grey.

Seriously now, I have never understood --- and probably never will --- why some people seem to not be able to enjoy the music they like without feeling the need to trash the music they dislike.

Well it's easy to do. I've done that unintentionally, a couple of weeks back unfavourably comparing Vaughan Williams with Britten. Lethe brought me into line, and he was right. It's all based on one's ideology. I used to be pretty much a Modernist, believing virtually that unless music was about progress, innovation or the future, it was of little value. On the one hand, this ideology was useful for me to get to know some composers who were/are like that, pushing the boundaries. On the other hand, it kind of shut me out of many other composers, who although they were not innovators per se, they were able to bring together many past and current ideas/techniques/etc and create music that can be of interest and value in other ways.

De gustibus non disputandum est --- but taking this maxim at face value would spell the end of GMG, therefore I say it loud and proud: give me Bizet over Wagner anytime. 

When I gave that example, I thought I'd be attacked by the Wagnerites here so it's good to see that someone is of the opposite persuasion/taste. Yes, Bizet was great in many ways. It's common & yet pretty useless (imo) to compare contemporaries like that, setting up false dichotomies. Others I can think of are J.S. Bach & Handel, Mozart & Haydn, Schumann & Brahms, & even two of my favourites, Ginastera & his student Piazzolla (& Piazzolla, being less into the larger forms, much more popular and straddling the divide between so-called "high" and "low" art - though definitely not a lightweight - can come off as being seen as second best by some people).

[Sid]

Seriously, some people do this in order to justify themselves, and there are a lot of people who think the only way to bring themselves (and their opinions) up is by bringing others down (or ridicule the opinions of others). When I read reviews, the only thing that usually interests me is the reason and thinking behind it. This is why I always loved Roger and Ebert. You could totally disagree with them and dislike them, but their views were always supported with an explanation (and that explanation was the most important and interesting part of the show for me).

Well I don't envy the task of a reviewer. They not only have to inform people about the author and the work itself, but also give an opinion on things like the performance and sound quality. It must be difficult for them to put across some sense of balance. & they also have to communicate to a wide audience - whether it be people from the industry, seasoned listeners or less experienced ones. Sounds like VERY hard work to me!!!

They all are, actually, in the classic sense of the definition of a false dichotomy, namely one that posits a choice between only two options, when more than two exist or when the two options are in fact not mutually exclusive. I.e. they are all choices that need not be made, and indeed all of the ones Sid listed lead to the most daft discussions on this board.

Yes, in reality most things are a million shades of grey (or multicoloured), not just black and white. There's a lot of subtlety in many things, not least works of art...

That depends on what you mean by "life" and "blood".  In terms of sheer volume, yes, they do make up a large amount of the traffic here.

Yes, quality versus quantity (maybe that's another "false dichotomy" )

[Ten thumbs]

Yeah well, my "ideology" is simple: I like good music and dislike bad music. Which brings us back to false dichotomy #1 

This seems to be the point of the argument. If you like the music then it must be good, if you don't, it's bad. Classifying music objectively is fraught with dangers. For instance, if a major composer breaks the rules that is genius, if a lesser one does the same that is a mistake. That does not mean it is impossible. Some music is definitely hackneyed and, as such, it is dull. Some music tries to be bold and, perhaps, does not succeed. However, as always, not everyone will agree on even these points.

[mc ukrneal]

This seems to be the point of the argument. If you like the music then it must be good, if you don't, it's bad. Classifying music objectively is fraught with dangers. For instance, if a major composer breaks the rules that is genius, if a lesser one does the same that is a mistake. That does not mean it is impossible. Some music is definitely hackneyed and, as such, it is dull. Some music tries to be bold and, perhaps, does not succeed. However, as always, not everyone will agree on even these points.

Well, one can be objective to a point, but very few lay out their biases or what they value in the music. For example, I value melody and harmony above all else (in that order, but that does not mean I discount others or that I am totally inflexible). I dislike too much dischord or such as well. This all helps explain why I don't like atonality and some 20th century music (and some early music too). But that doesn't mean I cannot appreciate the changes they (atonal composers) made and the qualities they bring to the table. Not a precise example of this, but recently I've seen several posters state their love of Piazzolla. This is a composer I knew nothing about and was just a name I'd seen. Having heard some excerpts now, I am very interested in hearing more (and realized that I actually have a few pieces of his scattered on some tango and latin discs I have). Yet, he has some of the qualites I said I don't value, and despite this I still want to learn more about him. 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.

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.

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...

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Well it's easy to do. I've done that unintentionally, a couple of weeks back unfavourably comparing Vaughan Williams with Britten. Lethe brought me into line, and he was right.

Sara (Lethe) is still a she... 

[Scarpia]

I find the claim that these dichotomies are false to be false.   The dichotomies are useful points of reference, even if they cannot be satisfactorily defined and applied.

[DavidRoss]

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

[bigshot]

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.

[jowcol]

Not a precise example of this, but recently I've seen several posters state their love of Piazzolla. This is a composer I knew nothing about and was just a name I'd seen. Having heard some excerpts now, I am very interested in hearing more (and realized that I actually have a few pieces of his scattered on some tango and latin discs I have). Yet, he has some of the qualites I said I don't value, and despite this I still want to learn more about him.

You had many good points here-- I'm not even addressing a lot of the best ones.  But your mention of Piazzolla has me thinking of another false dichotomy that if a composer is "good" or "great", then everything he does must be great from every perspective. Piazzolla provides some great moments (particularly in  his final albums), but there are some syrupy parts I just have to ignore. I adore Moussorgsky, but I don't think he was "great" at formal structure.  Not all great composers were great orchestrators-- or vice versa. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

Seriously now, I have never understood --- and probably never will --- why some people seem to not be able to enjoy the music they like without feeling the need to trash the music they dislike.

I think Schumann wrote something like this somewhere: "The critic who is afraid to attack something bad is only a half-hearted supporter of something good."

[jochanaan]

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.