Quality

[some guy]

"I love high quality things .. who doesn't? Quality control is a good thing."

This comment came up in another thread. I'm presenting it anonymously because I see the principle of ad hominem as informing all online discussions all the time. And I'd like to see if it's possible to discuss what's been said without referring to who did the saying.

Of course, the sayer can take credit for this remark at any time. Can we resist personalities if he does so?

If you want a little context for this, here it is: should one confine one's listening to only great works? (With the suggestion that "greatness" is chimerical.)

[bigshot]

Why wouldn't everyone choose quality if given the opportunity?

[Karl Henning]

Fresh fish is of better quality than fish which is two weeks old.

A house which remains standing is of better quality than one which is knocked down by a hurricane.

In both cases there are objective measures which inform the question of quality.

In the arts, so many facets are governed by matters of taste . . . it does not even mildly exercise the imagination to see people glibly confusing what I like/prefer with higher quality.

For that reason, this rhetorical question:

Why wouldn't everyone choose quality if given the opportunity?

. . . is disingenuous.

[PaulSC]

In the arts, so many facets are governed by matters of taste . . . it does not even mildly exercise the imagination to see people glibly confusing what I like/prefer with higher quality.

Well said. And therefore a more pertinent (if still rhetorical) question is: Why wouldn't everyone judge quality for themselves if given the opportunity?

Now, there is still a place for curators, but their value is not in deciding what is good, but in giving us the opportunity to encounter an artwork in an illuminating context.

[PaulSC]

There is such a glut of information, including new art, music, literature, that it is good (imo) to have a professional class to sort it out, applying certain gauges of quality as has traditionally been applied to art.  The kind of "democratic" method you seem to prefer would lead to a popularity contest, also imo, and not establish a meaningful standard.

Well, we are each free to choose, but letting somebody else, professional or otherwise, be a gatekeeper is not an attractive prospect to me. I'm not opposed to critical discussion of music, I just want to be an active participant in it. I don't really value "tastemakers".

[bigshot]

Why would anyone judge quality by anyone else's standards but their own?

This whole thread seems to me to be rhetorical at the same time being self evident.

[some guy]

One thing that fascinates me about the quote I offered up--and it's been very heartening to see some posters actually looking at the quote and engaging with the text--is how it hides the mechanism for establishing the quality. Quality in that quote is a given, no process has been gone through, it's just there, self-evident.

But how? How does one know? What is the mechanism for arriving at the judgment? All that is often, usually, elided. It seems a species of circular reasoning. The thing that has not yet been established is simply stated and then used as the basis for further commentary. But wait a minute. Simply stating something isn't good enough. Truly, it's not.

Another thing that fascinates me is the assumption that quality is a property of the things. Quality points to the experience with the thing, not to the thing itself. When a human engages with a thing, there's an experience. Quality is a property of that experience. After all, the same thing can be experienced quite differently by different people without changing any of its proper properties. The difference is not in the thing, it's in the experience.

[prémont]

Why would anyone judge quality by anyone else's standards but their own?

So you do not think it is possible to acknowledge quality, even if it is not to one´s own taste?

[snyprrr]

Beyond the Valley of the Dolls is certainly hiiigh quality, but, it's not Citizen Kane. I think you should have called this Thread 'Guilty Pleasures'?

Quality can be gauged this way: take something like a genre, say, 'slasher films', then, see ALL of them, then you will certainly be able to 'judge' amongst them. Surely there will be ones of higher and lesser quality, which can be gauged by things like acting ability, steady camera, realistic blood,... did I mention acting ability? ... set diresction, blah blah, all the elements that go into it.

Let's say we have a 100 Point Criteria for judging slasher flicks. As we watch, we mark off, and comment. At the end of the process, we have waaay enough information to make informed and intelligent criticism.

Oh, yes,... and 'cheeze' factor IS a legitimate criteria!


Maybe the process by which we gauged 'quality' is long and de rigouer (sic), but, come on, are we not men?, can we not eat an elephant bite by bite? So, surely, we can gauge quality. And, no, not everyone is allowed to vote!! Only us illuminated ones.

A psychologist can only help an alcoholic if the psych is an alcoholic ALSO. You can only discuss Rear Window if you've even HEARD about it.

Apparently, gold retains its value as something of quality, whereas other things don't?

Judging between things is out God given right. How else could we discern ANYTHING?


I'm sure if we only used the Freeman Etudes as the yardstick, we'd be hitting closer to home as to the core of the argument, and where it's coming from?


And to think that everyone has their own yardstick? Come on, are we not men? Is there nothing common between us?



ok, I actually have the perfect 'subject' for this: Daniel Johnston. Anyone?

[Karl Henning]

Judging between things is [our] God given right. How else could we discern ANYTHING?

Behold, I shew you a mystery: It is even given unto men (and women) to judge even the act and mechanisms of judgment.

[snyprrr]

Behold, I shew you a mystery: It is even given unto men (and women) to judge even the act and mechanisms of judgment.

Which is what we're doing?

Quality can be qualified, no? Surely, more magnification yields higher quality resolution?

If one says that "all is gray", I point out that a newspaper picture LOOKS gray only at a distance. The closer you get, the more you realize it is made out of black and white dots. Therefore, there IS only absolutism. Each note in music has a moral role to play!

I know when poop smells like death, and when it smells like a warm biscuit.

Surely you know when you've a conversation of high quality versus one of low quality?


In moments when one is not sure what kind of quality one is getting, I like to use this example: sometimes I can't tell if that certain girl is looking at me in a good way, but I sure can tell when a girl doesn't like me! Sometimes, I can't tell what the signals are, but if she comes up and grabs my stuff, well! , then, surely I KNOW the signals I'm getting. So, quality, IS qualitative!! YOU can either be a) clear, or b) not,... THOSE are the two choices, nothing else. Everything else is self evident, meaning, there is no choice. Absolutism.

[snyprrr]

In moments when one is not sure what kind of quality one is getting, I like to use this example: sometimes I can't tell if that certain girl is looking at me in a good way, but I sure can tell when a girl doesn't like me! Sometimes, I can't tell what the signals are, but if she comes up and grabs my stuff, well! , then, surely I KNOW the signals I'm getting. So, quality, IS qualitative!! YOU can either be a) clear, or b) not,... THOSE are the two choices, nothing else. Everything else is self evident, meaning, there is no choice. Absolutism.

The above may be an example of an example of low quality argument.

[snyprrr]

someguy KNOWS I'll be stuck in this Thread for days. I say his motives are of low quality!

[ggluek]

You've asked the $64,000 question, and you would be intriqued to learn there's no easy or universally subscribed to answer.  If you're really interested in quality, read Robert Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintenance," which among it many beautifully written and mostly moving threads, includes a narrative of one' man's attempt to define quality, with disastrous results.  You'll come away with more questions than answers, but you'll put it down knowing you've really just read something.

[Karl Henning]

Hi, George!

And actually, I don't think it will surprise Michael (some guy) much that there's no easy or universally subscribed to answer : )

[Elgarian]

The cleverest words I know on this subject ('quality', in relation to art) may well be those of Bob Dylan, who insisted that he could sing just as well as Caruso, and furthermore, could hold his breath three times as long. No matter how many words I try to string together, I know I can't come up with anything as witty, as pertinent, and as insightful, as that.

[Karl Henning]

He cud hold his breath longer back in the day, that's sartin.

[snyprrr]

The cleverest words I know on this subject ('quality', in relation to art) may well be those of Bob Dylan, who insisted that he could sing just as well as Caruso, and furthermore, could hold his breath three times as long. No matter how many words I try to string together, I know I can't come up with anything as witty, as pertinent, and as insightful, as that.

witty?, pertinent?,... insightful?,...

I offer the quality decision of not publishing the next three paragraphs concerning the quality of the arguments that flood from his general direction. (shaking off the the mere thought of RZ) I DIDN'T KNOW THAT WAS A TOPI....see??? now you made me caps lock!!!!

uhhhhh, I didn't know that name would cause apoplexy....

[snyprrr]

Getting back to that Richard Wilson String Quartet No.3 that I found to be of low eternal qualities. Sure, there was quality craftsmanship involved, but, of course, a 'certain' quality was lacking, that ineffable spark that most all know as... gasp... genius.

I realized that I had used SUCH 'negative' words to describe it, that Michael thought that I must have being a prude. He was like, "Now I HAVE to hear it, because snyprrr is lambasting so heavily." Well, I realized that if I had described it as containing only the stock gestures of the time available as concerning 'University Serialism", and said it only sounded like any number of mediocre, anonymous sounding Serial Expressionists, of whom I would point to Ralph Shapey as an example of high quality,... well, if I had used the words of 'mediocrity', instead of the words of 'hate', perhaps M would have correctly interpreted my reaction as 'eh' instead of 'rant'?

I saying that, out of all the String Quartets I have heard by American Serial Expressionist University Ptof. Composers 1957-1987, which is a pretty nice sampling, you'd find this one near the bottom. It would be there on a QUALITATIVE basis, meaning, on all points considered, this one simply scored lower.

One can argue all one wants, but the facts are, snyprrr won't accept your argument unless you listen to about 100 SQs according to the criteria. snyprrr is convinced by the Doctrines of Grace, that, after you have listened to that many SQs by Academic US Composers, besides wanting to pull your hair out, you will just NATURALLY place Wilson's work at the bottom of the pile, so to speak. I GUARANTEE IT!! I have blazed the trail, and you should simply trust my everydau, normal ears: I sat there and listened to 100 of these things, and I can save you TIME & ENERGY WASTED by pointing you to the Top20, instead of you going behind me to check my work.

At least, that's the way I learn of new Composers of High Quality. There's certain reviewers on Amazon ('scarecrow ginz', 'autonomous hutch...', 'discophage', 'Scott Morrison', 'CRCulver' (our own!), etc.,...) that I TRUST, ALMOST IMPLICITLY, just as a matter of course. 'scarecrow' has NEVER let me down, and personally credit this reviewer with an almost mentor-like credit. I ALWAYS learn from others' mistakes: it's called wisdom.

[aukhawk]

If you want a little context for this, here it is: should one confine one's listening to only great works? (With the suggestion that "greatness" is chimerical.)

It's surely true that life's too short to spend time listening to 2nd-rate music badly played.

The question really is, what about:
2nd-rate music well (or brilliantly) played?
great music played imperfectly?

And what about either of the above, but not well recorded?  (Eg a classic historical recording)