Topic: Schönberg / Handel vs. Webern / Bach

[PSmith08]

According to a surprisingly large amount of posters here.

We need one-minute clips to seal the deal! With clips alone I shall prove Roxette>Kajagoogoo>Sibelius>Bach>Handel! Judgments on entire oeuvres can be made on the basis of one-minute sound clips arbitrarily chosen!

[scottscheule]

Okay. I'm not familiar with your posts to tell whether or not you were being sarcastic.

In all seriousness, I really do hate the democratization of taste (i.e. "it's not bad, it's just different!")

High five!

[scottscheule]

We need one-minute clips to seal the deal! With clips alone I shall prove Roxette>Kajagoogoo>Sibelius>Bach>Handel! Judgments on entire oeuvres can be made on the basis of one-minute sound clips arbitrarily chosen!

I thought your position was that such judgments were simply impossible, no matter how much research is done.

[PSmith08]

I thought your position was that such judgments were simply impossible, no matter how much research is done.

I thought humor occasionally worked on the mighty Interweb, but it seems I sent my rapier-like wit down the wrong sequence of tubes. 

[scottscheule]

Sure it does, but when one sarcastically affirms a position, they typically are affirming the opposite.  So if I say, sarcastically, "Right, like quality can be compared by one-minute clips and not entire oeuvres!" the implication is that I really believe: "Quality can be compared on the basis of entire oeuvres and not by one-minute clips."

So what puzzled me, or at what least seemed promising as an avenue to further discussion, is you don't believe the opposite either.

[PSmith08]

Sure it does, but when one sarcastically affirms a position, they typically are affirming the opposite.  So if I say, sarcastically, "Right, like quality can be compared by one-minute clips and not entire oeuvres!" the implication is that I really believe: "Quality can be compared on the basis of entire oeuvres and not by one-minute clips."

So what puzzled me, or at what least seemed promising as an avenue to further discussion, is you don't believe the opposite either.

You can compare quality all you want, as soon as you recognize that the comparisons - indeed, the "quality" itself - is subjective. The comparisons are of no objective value whatsoever, but if they help you articulate why you like something (and not something else), then they're not all for naught. We should, however, not fool ourselves into thinking any objective judgment on art is even remotely possible. It is not, never has been, and never will be. Subjective judgments, though, and their articulation and refinement (though there is a limit on it in a mathematical sense, just to close my barn door here) forms the basis of what we call aesthetics and criticism.

[scottscheule]

You can compare quality all you want, as soon as you recognize that the comparisons - indeed, the "quality" itself - is subjective. The comparisons are of no objective value whatsoever, but if they help you articulate why you like something (and not something else), then they're not all for naught. We should, however, not fool ourselves into thinking any objective judgment on art is even remotely possible. It is not, never has been, and never will be. Subjective judgments, though, and their articulation and refinement (though there is a limit on it in a mathematical sense, just to close my barn door here) forms the basis of what we call aesthetics and criticism.

I would think subjective judgments form the basis of everything.  What am I missing?