I recently ran across another iteration of a point of view that I just don't understand: another "given my taste in music, what would you recommend" request.
That inevitably reminded me of another idea about taste, which was that you can have good taste or bad taste in music. I recently mentioned a recording I like to a friend of mine, whose response was "Well, that just shows that you have good taste."
Gross!! This is music we're talking about. This is about an enormous universe of lovely and delightful things, from Perotin to Parmegiani. All I know is that the thrill I experience when I'm listening to music has nothing at all to do with taste. Taste doesn't enter into it. It's an impertinence.
And, the more I listen to new things (things I don't like, yet), the less useful having taste is to me. In fact, it simply gets in the way.
That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it. :)
+1 to this. Though I think you move much too quickly when you say that "taste doesn't enter into it"; maybe some people have a suppler taste, or taste of a different kind, i.e. a taste for new textures or sharp juxtapositions? Maybe curiosity is itself a function of taste, or is itself a taste? As for what you pretty clearly target, though, I am with you; so much that's called taste---and not only the maniacally-conservative wing of classical-music traditionalism---seems to be an endgame in repetition and exhaustive burrowing: the sense that you don't really "get" a composer's work if you've missed any recording (iteration) of it, yet, on the other hand, that it really doesn't matter that much if you've never tasted at all of the huge dark continents of wholly-other kinds of music. (Including arguably very different-sounding music made with the same means and within the same economy as the rest of "the tradition".) I am more sympathetic than ever to the priority of depth over and against breadth; but that depth should be regarded as acquired at a terrible price, as involving a real sacrifice (and not just the sacrifice-for-show designed to attract praise). So many self-styled experts I meet---and I mean experts period, not just music nerds or professors---don't seem too troubled by the dark side of their expertise, i.e. its provincialism. In fact they deny that it exists, this dark side. At least passively, it's implied that what they don't know, doesn't matter.
Taste as a kind of discipline or policing of self and others would seem to be a sorry-assed surrogate for community; like any community built on hazing, or on allergy to invention, or on xenophobia, such a community would seem more like a prison than a bustling city of ideas. Desert island, indeed!
Quote from: some guy on February 07, 2013, 11:08:40 AM
I recently ran across another iteration of a point of view that I just don't understand: another "given my taste in music, what would you recommend" request.
That inevitably reminded me of another idea about taste, which was that you can have good taste or bad taste in music. I recently mentioned a recording I like to a friend of mine, whose response was "Well, that just shows that you have good taste."
Gross!! This is music we're talking about. This is about an enormous universe of lovely and delightful things, from Perotin to Parmegiani. All I know is that the thrill I experience when I'm listening to music has nothing at all to do with taste. Taste doesn't enter into it. It's an impertinence.
And, the more I listen to new things (things I don't like, yet), the less useful having taste is to me. In fact, it simply gets in the way.
That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it. :)
+ another 1 Yes, agreed, there is a distinction between the experience of amazing aural manifestations and the simple idea of 'taste in music'. 'Taste in music' is yadda yadda. You cannot taste Beethoven! But by God you can hear him! :o
Taste = judgement. Some of it is subjective and some of it is objective. And sometimes it is a matter of perspective as well. For example, anyone who agrees with me has good taste! :)
Quote from: mc ukrneal on February 07, 2013, 11:50:03 AM
...anyone who agrees with me has good taste! :)
How very distasteful of you to say so. :P :laugh:
Quote from: J.S. MillIt is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinions, it is because they only know their side of the question.
QuoteWhat's taste, what's taste got to do with it? What's taste but second-hand aesthetics?
With apologies to Ms. Tina Turner.
I agree 100% with you, Michael! :)
Countless times, people that I work with or others in everyday life that listen to music other than Classical Music have this as a response to me:
Ray:
"I listen to Classical Music"
Response:
"Wow Ray, that is impressive! You have very good taste in music. I was never really into classical, although it is really great music to relax to!"
I find that I have to hold back my cringing, and sadness to the response. :'(
One acquaintance complained that classical music was too loud. I was too dumbfounded to reply. (Some classical (not Classical) music is too loud IMO, but that just struck me as a bizarre generalization.)
Quote from: Daverz on February 07, 2013, 04:03:50 PM
One acquaintance complained that classical music was too loud.
I once came across someone complaining that it is in turns too loud and too soft.
Quote from: Florestan on February 08, 2013, 03:59:53 AM
I once came across someone complaining that it is in turns too loud and too soft.
I've heard that complaint before. There was probably too much background noise. :P
What I like is what I like. I seldom consciously consider "taste."
Quote from: Florestan on February 08, 2013, 03:59:53 AM
I once came across someone complaining that it is in turns too loud and too soft.
I actually find that this can be true on long car trips; I have to keep my hand on the volume control when listening to orchestral music and driving. For instance, once I bought Boulez's complete
Firebird on DG, a recording with a truly huge dynamic range, and put it on while driving back home. Most of the first scenes were nearly inaudible, so I turned the volume way up... and nearly blew my eardrums out!
I think "taste" has several dimensions. Roughly speaking bad taste = lack of understanding coloured with personal preferences while good taste is understanding coloured with personal preferences.
Someone lacking understanding might says: "J. S. Bach's music is boring because it hasn't got electric guitars in it". This kind of bad taste can/should be criticized.
Someone having understanding might says: "J. S. Bach's Partitas are awesome keyboard music, but I don't like them played on piano" while another person having equal understanding but different preferences might enjoy Bach's Partitas played on almost any keyboard instrument.
Another dimensions of taste might relate to the function of music (for relaxing, dancing, ...etc.) and the ways one listens to music (at home, in concerts live, with loudspeakers, headphones...)
Quote from: Brian on February 08, 2013, 03:16:53 PM
I actually find that this can be true on long car trips; I have to keep my hand on the volume control when listening to orchestral music and driving.
That
is true. That's why I very rarely listen to classical music while driving.:)
Quote from: 71 dB on February 09, 2013, 01:49:18 AM
I think "taste" has several dimensions. Roughly speaking bad taste = lack of understanding coloured with personal preferences while good taste is understanding coloured with personal preferences.
Someone lacking understanding might says: "J. S. Bach's music is boring because it hasn't got electric guitars in it". This kind of bad taste can/should be criticized.
Someone having understanding might says: "J. S. Bach's Partitas are awesome keyboard music, but I don't like them played on piano harpsichord" while another person having equal understanding but different preferences might enjoy Bach's Partitas played on almost any keyboard instrument.
Another dimensions of taste might relate to the function of music (for relaxing, dancing, ...etc.) and the ways one listens to music (at home, in concerts live, with loudspeakers, headphones...)
With that minor correction I agree with everything you wrote. :)
Quote from: 71 dB on February 09, 2013, 01:49:18 AM
I think "taste" has several dimensions. Roughly speaking bad taste = lack of understanding coloured with personal preferences while good taste is understanding coloured with personal preferences.
Someone lacking understanding might say: "J. S. Bach's music is boring because it hasn't got electric guitars in it". This kind of bad taste can/should be criticized.
Someone having understanding might say: "J. S. Bach's Partitas are awesome keyboard music, but I don't like them played on piano" while another person having equal understanding but different preferences might enjoy Bach's Partitas played on almost any keyboard instrument.
Another dimensions of taste might relate to the function of music (for relaxing, dancing, ...etc.) and the ways one listens to music (at home, in concerts live, with loudspeakers, headphones...)
Amen. The most insightful thing I recall you posting here.
Which have taste get did without it's?
Quote from: Greg on February 09, 2013, 10:01:49 AM
Which have taste get did without it's?
See http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,10977.0.html (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,10977.0.html)
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 09, 2013, 10:47:25 AM
See http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,10977.0.html (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,10977.0.html)
Its good thread but.
and then were_
mmkay"'? :-\
Just to get a handle on the question posed in the title of the thread, ask an easier one first.
Imagine someone who said that oenology wasn't a matter of taste. That his preference for cheap Lambrusco was just as valid as my preference for Petrus and Krug.
Well in a way he's be right -- if you prefer Lambrusco to Petrus then that's fine, that's your right. But saying that isn't very interesting. I can't help feeling that there's much more to be said. The question is, I think, is Petrus a finer wine than cheap Lambrusco? The answer of course is yes.
Years of experience exploring fine wines has given me the acuity to identify components in a tasting which just aren't accessible to people who haven't invested a similar effort. My reading and discussion about wines has helped me acquire some difficult and hard to apply concepts which a more naive drinker just lacks.
Of course my hypothetical interlocutor may prefer the cheap plonk -- in doing so he's preferring an inferior product.
Now mutatis mutandis for music. Taste is a sort of sensory acuity. And an understanding of evaluative concepts. It's developed by certain sorts of experience: listening and participation in a musical form of life.
Quote from: Mandryka on February 11, 2013, 09:24:14 AM
Just to get a handle on the question posed in the title of the thread, ask an easier one first.
Imagine someone who said that oenology wasn't a matter of taste. That his preference for cheap Lambrusco was just as valid as my preference for Petrus and Krug.
Well in a way he's be right -- if you prefer Lambrusco to Petrus then that's fine, that's your right. But saying that isn't very interesting. I can't help feeling that there's much more to be said. The question is, I think, is Petrus a finer wine than cheap Lambrusco? The answer of course is yes.
Years of experience exploring fine wines has given me the acuity to identify components in a tasting which just aren't accessible to people who haven't invested a similar effort. My reading and discussion about wines has helped me acquire some difficult and hard to apply concepts which a more naive drinker just lacks.
Of course my hypothetical interlocutor may prefer the cheap plonk -- in doing so he's preferring an inferior product.
Now mutatis mutandis for music. Taste is a sort of sensory acuity. And an understanding of evaluative concepts. It's developed by certain sorts of experience: listening and participation in a musical form of life.
I make no argument either for or against your example, simply ask a question; using your example names foe ease of thinking about; let us say that Lambrusco was, in fact, a relatively complex and tasty wine. The grapes to make it grow abundantly and there is ample supply of it so despite the fact that it's popular, it is still cheap since demand doesn't outstrip supply. Petrus, on the other hand is only marginally superior, but (recall now that this is hypothetical!) it is always in short supply because the grapes are delicate and difficult to grow. Thus is it outrageously expensive. Now, is someone who prefers Lambrusco simply tasteless or is someone who prefers Petrus merely an effete snob? I am genuinely curious about this, not trying to stir up any crap. In the real world, this actually happens. :)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 11, 2013, 10:04:28 AM
I make no argument either for or against your example, simply ask a question; using your example names foe ease of thinking about; let us say that Lambrusco was, in fact, a relatively complex and tasty wine. The grapes to make it grow abundantly and there is ample supply of it so despite the fact that it's popular, it is still cheap since demand doesn't outstrip supply. Petrus, on the other hand is only marginally superior, but (recall now that this is hypothetical!) it is always in short supply because the grapes are delicate and difficult to grow. Thus is it outrageously expensive. Now, is someone who prefers Lambrusco simply tasteless or is someone who prefers Petrus merely an effete snob? I am genuinely curious about this, not trying to stir up any crap. In the real world, this actually happens. :)
8)
How do you think posing this question will help us get clear about taste in music?
Unless you really think that there isn't a significant difference between wines.
If you do think that, then choose something else -- cheese maybe. Someone who prefers Dairy Lee to an artisanal roquefort. Or whiskey -- some blended stuff to Laphrohaig. People who prefer the Dairy Lee and Blended whiskey are prefering an inferior product, which is fine of course.
Quote from: Mandryka on February 11, 2013, 10:41:37 AM
How do you think posing this question will help us get clear about taste in music?
Unless you really think that there isn't a significant difference between wines.
If you do think that, then choose something else -- cheese maybe. Someone who prefers Dairy Lee to an artisanal roquefort. Or whiskey -- some blended stuff to Laphrohaig.
Actually, the entire concept of "taste" in music is nothing more than a metaphor, and using wine (or cheese) as a corollary simply makes it worse. If you will note, ever since the beginning of the thread, repliers have been hung up on the metaphor and not addressing the question to speak of.
Of course I think there is a difference between wines. I also think at least part of the difference (in the taste and the price) is in the mind of the beholder. You must too, since you didn't answer my question. Or else you don't know what a hypothetical is.
As for music, taste has been used for centuries as an insult to spank people who don't like the same stuff I do. "Your taste is deficient". When in fact, my preferences may be different, but taste has nothing to do with it.
To stretch the metaphor a bit further, I have always like the phrase "tastes change, taste doesn't". :)
8)
I think judgements about taste are psychological, but they're not subjective. Like judgements about colours. Secondary qualities.
Gurn's excellent post came as I was doing something else. But here's my take on the matter, anyway.
Quote from: Mandryka on February 11, 2013, 09:24:14 AMImagine someone who said that oenology wasn't a matter of taste. That his preference for cheap Lambrusco was just as valid as my preference for Petrus and Krug.
Well, I would say that his preference for cheap Lambrusco is just as valid as your preference for Petrus and Krug. But that's as may be. That is NOT what I postulated in the OP, nor is it what I would argue or have argued.
What I argue is that the validity of preferences is impertinent to the experience of listening to a piece of music. Of course one can evaluate ones listening afterwards and evaluate the piece and the performance. Maybe even while the piece is going on, one might indulge in a spot of evaluating. But even then....
Let's look at some oenologists for a minute. Several oenologists, not just Mandryka's one. All the oenologists share experience and discernment. All the oenologists have the "acuity to identify components in a tasting which just aren't accessible to people who haven't invested a similar effort." All the oenologists
have "acquire[d] some difficult and hard to apply concepts which a more naive drinker just lacks."* Do all of these people agree about everything? No. Maybe about such extremes as Lambrusco and Pétrus (but only maybe), but about everything? Hardly.
Just so with music. How many lofty, all-discerning Oedipuses of critical acuity in music agree with each other about everything? Exactly. None.
Mandryka's proposal only seems to work if you consider one musicologist, one oenologist.
If all of this experience, all of this discernment, all of this acuity goes towards making for a satisfying experience, then good on that. If all of it goes towards setting up distinctions between listeners, if all of it goes towards setting up false categories or excluding styles and philosophies that are simply different from what you have painstakingly constructed as "the worthwhile masterpieces," then I ask, what's the point? This is something that some people, obviously, will never understand. I get a great deal of pleasure out of listening to Bach's
St. Matthew Passion. I get a great deal of pleasure out of listening to Xenakis'
Persepolis. Are they equally good? No. "Equally good" is impertinent. They are different. They offer different things, things that are not comparable. My enjoyment of them is different, too. I enjoy both, but more to the point, I enjoy each of them for what it has to offer. And I spend no effort at all whinging about the things that either of them does
not offer. They are what they are each of them. And I accept what each has to offer.
That's because I have discernment. :)
*And think, too, about the "difficult and hard to apply concepts" part of it. Perhaps a more naive drinker lacks that level of snootiness (though I have found that snootiness is a pretty common attribute of humans, regardless of experience or expertise--almost a defense mechanism against the unruly and chaotic reality of the real world), but a naive drinker drinking is having a pleasant experience, no? What's the percentage in trying to claim that that person's experience is inferior to the oenologist's refined sipping? It's possibly superior in at least one way. My crack about snootiness notwithstanding, the naive drinker is unlikely to be judging/evaluating/pronouncing than the oenologist. The naive drinker is going to be enjoying, plain and simple.
Aye, even the underinformed have snooty capacity.
Quote from: sanantonio on February 11, 2013, 12:38:15 PM
But about some things, e.g. Beethoven is a great composer, all musicologists do agree.
But if I understand the question at issue, you don't necessarily have no (poor, bad whatever) taste if he doesn't appeal to you. He simply doesn't appeal to you. In his own day, many, many people considered him to be in very poor taste. What does that say about them? :)
8)
Quote from: some guy on February 11, 2013, 12:30:17 PM
Gurn's excellent post came as I was doing something else. But here's my take on the matter, anyway.
Well, I would say that his preference for cheap Lambrusco is just as valid as your preference for Petrus and Krug. But that's as may be. That is NOT what I postulated in the OP, nor is it what I would argue or have argued.
What I argue is that the validity of preferences is impertinent to the experience of listening to a piece of music. Of course one can evaluate ones listening afterwards and evaluate the piece and the performance. Maybe even while the piece is going on, one might indulge in a spot of evaluating. But even then....
Let's look at some oenologists for a minute. Several oenologists, not just Mandryka's one. All the oenologists share experience and discernment. All the oenologists have the "acuity to identify components in a tasting which just aren't accessible to people who haven't invested a similar effort." All the oenologists
have "acquire[d] some difficult and hard to apply concepts which a more naive drinker just lacks."* Do all of these people agree about everything? No. Maybe about such extremes as Lambrusco and Pétrus (but only maybe), but about everything? Hardly.
Just so with music. How many lofty, all-discerning Oedipuses of critical acuity in music agree with each other about everything? Exactly. None.
Mandryka's proposal only seems to work if you consider one musicologist, one oenologist.
If all of this experience, all of this discernment, all of this acuity goes towards making for a satisfying experience, then good on that. If all of it goes towards setting up distinctions between listeners, if all of it goes towards setting up false categories or excluding styles and philosophies that are simply different from what you have painstakingly constructed as "the worthwhile masterpieces," then I ask, what's the point? This is something that some people, obviously, will never understand. I get a great deal of pleasure out of listening to Bach's St. Matthew Passion. I get a great deal of pleasure out of listening to Xenakis' Persepolis. Are they equally good? No. "Equally good" is impertinent. They are different. They offer different things, things that are not comparable. My enjoyment of them is different, too. I enjoy both, but more to the point, I enjoy each of them for what it has to offer. And I spend no effort at all whinging about the things that either of them does not offer. They are what they are each of them. And I accept what each has to offer.
That's because I have discernment. :)
*And think, too, about the "difficult and hard to apply concepts" part of it. Perhaps a more naive drinker lacks that level of snootiness (though I have found that snootiness is a pretty common attribute of humans, regardless of experience or expertise--almost a defense mechanism against the unruly and chaotic reality of the real world), but a naive drinker drinking is having a pleasant experience, no? What's the percentage in trying to claim that that person's experience is inferior to the oenologist's refined sipping? It's possibly superior in at least one way. My crack about snootiness notwithstanding, the naive drinker is unlikely to be judging/evaluating/pronouncing than the oenologist. The naive drinker is going to be enjoying, plain and simple.
This is a big post, and if I've missed your point, then I'm sorry. This medium isn't easy.
I think that the more refined the perception is, the more rich the experience is.
I had an experience here on this forum, to do with Art of Fugue. My capacity to enjoy the music was enhanced tremendously because premont took some trouble to explain some ideas, some concepts, some things to look for. It was like a whole new world opened up. The informed experience of listening to AoF was much richer than the naive one. I had a similar experience when Bulldog cajoled me into listening again and again and more openly to expressive performances of baroque music, like David Cates's French Suites.
I'm reminded of a bit of the Nicomachean Ethics where Aristotle talks about how courage is a value which is leaned. At first the soldier feels repelled by danger because he's frightened. But through guidance and experience he can appreciate and value things about battle which previously passed him by.
Same with me and Art of Fugue.
But taste is all about judgement and value. We judge artisitc merit by a set of parameters that are known to us (though we don't necessarily share with each other). So I could judge Petrus to be great - but why? It could have something to do with the terroir, the complexity of taste, the way (and length) it was stored in oak, the judgment of the winemaker (when to pick, how long to bottle, etc.), and so on. But ultimately, I need to explain why a certain wine is better. But if I don't value complexity, then I may not judge Petrus as highly.
When it comes to music, it is the same. I have a set of parameters in my head - how something should sound, impact it should and does have, technical execution, etc. They could be called filters. In seconds, I take what I hear through my own filters and pronounce judgment. If people share similar filters, our tastes are probably similar (and people usually call this good taste). If we have different filters (in effect, different values), then people usually refer to this as bad taste. Of course, my knowledge of the subject (and experience) will help beef up my credentials when it comes to accepting my pronouncements, but this can work for and against me (depending on the circles one runs in).
sanantonio has nailed it.
the use of "taste in music" in "given my taste in music, what would i enjoy" seems to be misunderstood as referring to one's favourite music, as opposed to how one actually approaches listening to music in the first place.
a more accurate phrasing of the question would be "given that i am a conservative and narrow-minded listener..."
(an open-minded listener would not ask the question in the first place; they would just listen!)
Let's take an example, from a review by Hurwitz of Mustonen's recording of Beethoven PC3:
"Mustonen's "poke and prod" approach to this music yields lumpish, goofy results that are very difficult to take seriously. The C minor concerto is one of Beethoven's more dramatic and turbulent works, particularly in its opening movement. Mustonen makes it sound silly, with random sforzando accents constantly interrupting the music's natural flow. His unconvincing rubato, very noticeable at the opening of the Largo, also destroys whatever momentum Beethoven is trying to create, while his Dadaist flourishes in the opening theme of the finale add insult to injury. It's the same story in the D major concerto, made worse by the thinness of the piano writing and Mustonen's refusal to play legato. His must be the most leaden account of the finale yet recorded.
Still, with all of these deficiencies, Mustonen can be interesting, often in passagework in the allegros of both concertos, where he illuminates an inner part or draws attention to some harmonic quirk where you least expect it. The problem is that he seems completely unable to distinguish between good ideas and bad, between flashes of insight and the much more frequent episodes of tasteless self-indulgence. Ultimately he sounds as if he's noodling with music that bores him, and the result is that he winds up boring us too. It's a pity. Mustonen remains a hugely talented musician who needs to grow up. Very good sonics and excellent orchestral playing unfortunately add nothing because Mustonen so relentlessly hogs the limelight–to Beethoven's detriment."
Hurwitz helps himself to a number of established performance values in music. Such as preserving momentum, lightness (non leadenness) the idea that rhythmic devices like softened should always have a reason in the music to justify them etc. He argues that in his opinion the Performance does not exemplify these values, and there are no redeeming values which it exemplifies.
Now, we may disagree with Hurwitz about whether he has correctly applied the value concepts. Maybe the sforzandi aren't random. And we may disagree with him about his summary dismissal - maybe the lack of momentum has a consequence which is good, and which ultimately justifies Mustonen's approach. It would be a mistake to confuse objectivity with consensus.
But it would be strange to disagree with the set of virtues which Hurwitz helps himself to. It would be odd to say that leadenness or random rubato was a good thing in itself, a performance virtue in itself. If we said that we'd be placing ourselves outside the form of life of music criticism. Our position would be the aesthetic analogue of amorality.
Quote from: sanantonio on February 11, 2013, 01:56:12 PM
I wouldn't say that. Some people are known for a preference for period instrument recordings, or someone else might have a strong preference for one period over others - so given their taste, it would not make much sense to recommend recordings that do not take those facts into consideration.
How authentic a performer's registration choices are, or their agogics, are examples of objective evaluations. I guess one trait of the people who are into period performance is that they give these sort of values a very high weighting when they're considering a performance.
We had a discussion along these lines here recently, about Jolanda Zwofferink. For period performance people, her inauthentic articulation was a deal breaker, whatever the other musical benefits of her performance.
Now I wonder: who is the Lambrusco of the classical music and who is the Petrus?
Anyway, it's always such a great way to set the records straight by using an analogy to explain a metaphor.
No rubato is random; that, too, is tendentious.
Quote from: sanantonio on February 12, 2013, 05:14:12 AM
If in fact the performance is leaden. While these qualities may be described as objective, the judgement of their presence is subjective. One person may hear leadeness while another listener may hear gravitas.
+1
Quote from: karlhenning on February 12, 2013, 05:41:26 AM
No rubato is random; that, too, is tendentious.
Have you heard Ms Lim's LvB sonatas?
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 12, 2013, 07:22:08 AM
+1
Have you heard Ms Lim's LvB sonatas?
Despite the innate amusement contained in that question, I still have a hard time choking down the concept of random rubato... :)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 12, 2013, 07:35:53 AM
Despite the innate amusement contained in that question, I still have a hard time choking down the concept of random rubato... :)
Ms Lim does for rubato what
Rain Man did for autism.
http://www.youtube.com/v/zF7NXgeoejo
What's
Rain Man got to do with taste? Good question. Think about it. Especially consider that he won the Academy Award for Best Actor for this performance.
Did Ms Lim win a Grammy?
Quote from: sanantonio on February 12, 2013, 05:14:12 AM
If in fact the performance is leaden. While these qualities may be described as objective, the judgement of their presence is subjective. One person may hear leadeness while another listener may hear gravitas.
So what is the objective quality that grounds both
leaden and
full of gravitas. Do you really think this:
Leaden = SLOW + Boo!!!!!
Full of gravitas = SLOW + Hurrah!!!!
Quote from: Florestan on February 12, 2013, 12:36:05 AM
Now I wonder: who is the Lambrusco of the classical music and who is the Petrus?
Anyway, it's always such a great way to set the records straight by using an analogy to explain a metaphor.
Sometimes when you're faced with a hard question, it helps to consider a related easier question first.
Quote from: dyn on February 11, 2013, 01:45:12 PM
the use of "taste in music" in "given my taste in music, what would i enjoy" seems to be misunderstood as referring to one's favourite music, as opposed to how one actually approaches listening to music in the first place.
a more accurate phrasing of the question would be "given that i am a conservative and narrow-minded listener..."
(an open-minded listener would not ask the question in the first place; they would just listen!)
Too passive. An open minded good listener would listen and try to understand what the performer was saying. And then he would try to see whether what was being said is worth saying.
Quote from: sanantonio on February 11, 2013, 12:38:15 PM
But about some things, e.g. Beethoven is a great composer, all musicologists do agree.
Just a general additional point. It would be a mistake to confuse
subjective and
difficult to apply or
disagreement about the application. And it would be a mistake to confuse
objective with
widespread agreement. There are lots of very objective concepts which are very contentious in hard cases -- this very often happens in law, when you have to apply a jurisprudential idea to a new hard case. Whether the doctors have the right to turn off the life support, that sort of thing, furnishes example where the judgment about whether someone has a right is certainly not subjective, but is very disputed.
There's also widespread agreement that Brussels Sprouts taste rubbish, but it's not objective.
Deciding whether some concept does apply -- whether it's leaden or gravitas or something else -- may be very difficult. It may take a listener with lots of experience and lots of familiarity with musical criticism to reach the correct application.
Quote from: Mandryka on February 12, 2013, 09:32:24 AMIt may take a listener with lots of experience and lots of familiarity with musical criticism to reach the correct application.
It is just this, however, which is chimerical. "The correct application" simply does not exist.
As for "a" listener with lots of experience et cetera, apparently you missed my previous comment about that.
In the real world, there are
many listeners with lots of experience and lots of familiarity with musical criticism, and those listeners do not agree about everything.
As I said before, you can only make your points by positing a single listener or a single oenologist. The fact still remains.
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 12, 2013, 07:52:43 AM
Did Ms Lim win a Grammy?
Would it have mattered if she did? The Grammy Awards are one of the biggest jokes of the music industry.
Quote from: ChamberNut on February 07, 2013, 03:55:45 PM
Countless times, people that I work with or others in everyday life that listen to music other than Classical Music have this as a response to me:
Ray:
"I listen to Classical Music"
Response:
"Wow Ray, that is impressive! You have very good taste in music. I was never really into classical, although it is really great music to relax to!"
You know how impressive it is when people start snoring out of pure bliss and make a quintet out of a quartet. I'd have to laugh at this response, like Newton who it is said laughed very heartily only once in his life when asked "What is the use of geometry?"
I think that there are certain objective standards that we can apply to music. Are all the notes played correctly and recognizably as the composer wrote them? (Unless you're improvising or arranging, of course.) Is the player's tone and dynamic range adequate and more or less appropriate both to the written music and to what is commonly known about performance styles when it was written? Do the tempos match (again, more or less) what the composer indicated?
But beyond these easily identifiable attributes, it's very hard to nail down objective qualities. I'm not saying they don't exist--just that it's hard to quantify them. How do you measure excitement? "Depth" or "heart"? Some would say (to use an easily identifiable example) that Sergiu Celibidache's tempos are "too slow," while others (and I confess I'm one) admire how he gives time for every note and chord to make its maximum effect. (To judge from the applause included on his live albums--and he never recorded in the studio--I'm not his only admirer.) Is my taste "better" or "more refined" because I like Celibidache's Bruckner better than, say, Zubin Mehta's? Who can judge, in the long run?
Quote from: jochanaan on February 12, 2013, 06:15:11 PM
Who can judge, in the long run?
The Pink Harp and James... but if their opinions clashed, it would create a paradox! :-X
Quote from: 71 dB on February 09, 2013, 01:49:18 AM
I think "taste" has several dimensions. Roughly speaking bad taste = lack of understanding coloured with personal preferences while good taste is understanding coloured with personal preferences.
Someone lacking understanding might says: "J. S. Bach's music is boring because it hasn't got electric guitars in it". This kind of bad taste can/should be criticized.
Someone having understanding might says: "J. S. Bach's Partitas are awesome keyboard music, but I don't like them played on piano" while another person having equal understanding but different preferences might enjoy Bach's Partitas played on almost any keyboard instrument.
Another dimensions of taste might relate to the function of music (for relaxing, dancing, ...etc.) and the ways one listens to music (at home, in concerts live, with loudspeakers, headphones...)
WRONG! (cue 'McLaughlin Group')
'Taste' is what happens after one has heard exactly 26 different recordings of
Le Sacre! If you do not HAVE taste by then,... well,... taste cannot be had.
Quote from: some guy on February 07, 2013, 11:08:40 AM
I recently ran across another iteration of a point of view that I just don't understand: another "given my taste in music, what would you recommend" request.
That inevitably reminded me of another idea about taste, which was that you can have good taste or bad taste in music. I recently mentioned a recording I like to a friend of mine, whose response was "Well, that just shows that you have good taste."
Gross!! This is music we're talking about. This is about an enormous universe of lovely and delightful things, from Perotin to Parmegiani. All I know is that the thrill I experience when I'm listening to music has nothing at all to do with taste. Taste doesn't enter into it. It's an impertinence.
And, the more I listen to new things (things I don't like, yet), the less useful having taste is to me. In fact, it simply gets in the way.
That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it. :)
You know, they're making food with dirt in Japan. I'm sorry,... silt. Well,... dirt too!
"Perotin to Parmegiani"?... Oh Come On!! You haven't even made it out of the Ps!! 8)
And... those aren't even 'challenging' Composers to fully admire...
How about from "Glazunov to Lucier"? ??? Now THERE'S a challenge!! eeek
Quote from: snyprrr on February 12, 2013, 09:49:39 PM
You know, they're making food with dirt in Japan. I'm sorry,... silt. Well,... dirt too!
"Perotin to Parmegiani"?... Oh Come On!! You haven't even made it out of the Ps!! 8)
And... those aren't even 'challenging' Composers to fully admire...
How about from "Glazunov to Lucier"? ??? Now THERE'S a challenge!! eeek
I meant "Glazunov to Branca"! ;)
Quote from: jochanaan on February 12, 2013, 06:15:11 PM
I think that there are certain objective standards that we can apply to music. Are all the notes played correctly and recognizably as the composer wrote them? [snip]
Tangentially . . . that said, it makes me smile when an enthusiast for a certain recording expresses that enthusiasm by claiming that it is "definitive" — without knowing the score, and thus with no awareness of the deviations which the recording takes from the composer's document.
And, why, yes: there are some such enthusiasts right here at GMG!:-)
Quote from: karlhenning on February 13, 2013, 09:29:11 AM
Tangentially . . . that said, it makes me smile when an enthusiast for a certain recording expresses that enthusiasm by claiming that it is "definitive" — without knowing the score, and thus with no awareness of the deviations which the recording takes from the composer's document...
Indeed. One of the most egregious examples is the second movement of Brahms' Symphony #4. Now, that's marked
Andante moderato, but the way most conductors (I won't name names, but one's initials are HvK ;) ) take it, you'd think it was marked
Adagio lamentoso! ::)
Quote from: jochanaan on February 13, 2013, 09:43:34 AM
. . . (I won't name names, but one's initials are HvK ;) ) . . . .
Harold van Kujper? . . .
Quote from: sanantonio on February 11, 2013, 01:34:08 PM
Personally, while I am aware of music history and who is ranked high, etc., I am not really interested in that kind of evaluation process. And I think someguy is suggesting that folks not let those kind of judgments, or even their own preferences, about what is good or bad influence their curiosity about any music.
The only thing that people should use to judge a piece of music is their own mind, but of course those new to a style may feel they lack the confidence and experience to do that. A listener has to grow out of that early insecurity by simply listening to more music in the style concerned.
Quote from: dyn on February 11, 2013, 01:45:12 PM
the use of "taste in music" in "given my taste in music, what would i enjoy" seems to be misunderstood as referring to one's favourite music, as opposed to how one actually approaches listening to music in the first place.
a more accurate phrasing of the question would be "given that i am a conservative and narrow-minded listener..."
(an open-minded listener would not ask the question in the first place; they would just listen!)
I think taste is simply that though....what someone's most favourite music is. Only those who are very narrow would use it define all that they listen to (and therefore excluding so much). So why let such a prejudicial view of music prevail over the surely more reasonable one? Most people have favourite pieces or styles that they come back to, but that doesn't exclude them listening to all other music.
As for music being a kind of food that you taste, I suppose it is something that helps sustain us more so perhaps in our modern world than ever before with the widespread availability of music. Composers of the past would never have imagined that it would occupy such a central place in most people's lives now and that as a result much music of the past has been far from forgotten. Taste also suggests something that is immediate and which can give continuing pleasure like food, but which can have the potential for obsession. The food analogy hardly works well with the artistry of the orginal composition and discounts the strongly intellectual aspect of art music which is obviously very important even while the sensual aspect will still exist.
Quote from: jochanaan on February 12, 2013, 06:15:11 PM
But beyond these easily identifiable attributes, it's very hard to nail down objective qualities.
That's why there can be an endless variety of interpretations based on what is really one set of notes unless like Mahler you want to rewrite some favorites like Beethoven's Nine. There is no such thing as a definitive performance objectively. It's all degrees of perception, meaning effect. External to that there is absolutely no value to it.
Quote from: jochanaan on February 12, 2013, 06:15:11 PM
I think that there are certain objective standards that we can apply to music. Are all the notes played correctly and recognizably as the composer wrote them? (Unless you're improvising or arranging, of course.) Is the player's tone and dynamic range adequate and more or less appropriate both to the written music and to what is commonly known about performance styles when it was written? Do the tempos match (again, more or less) what the composer indicated?
But beyond these easily identifiable attributes, it's very hard to nail down objective qualities. I'm not saying they don't exist--just that it's hard to quantify them. How do you measure excitement? "Depth" or "heart"? Some would say (to use an easily identifiable example) that Sergiu Celibidache's tempos are "too slow," while others (and I confess I'm one) admire how he gives time for every note and chord to make its maximum effect. (To judge from the applause included on his live albums--and he never recorded in the studio--I'm not his only admirer.) Is my taste "better" or "more refined" because I like Celibidache's Bruckner better than, say, Zubin Mehta's? Who can judge, in the long run?
Stuff like depth and heart and excitement are hopeless really. They're really subjective. I find Fey's Haydn boring and brash, someone else finds it thrilling. I find Hantai's Scarlatti cold and virtuosic, someone else finds it fulll of humanity. There's no fact of the matter as far as I can see.
But I think there are more promising examples of musical values which are more objective.
integrates the music into a whole (Richter in Brahms op 119 vs Kempff; Gieseking's Ravel Pavane)
stresses beauty of tone rather than dissonance (Rosenthal in Chopin vs Weissenberg; Hantai2 in the Goldbergs vs Mortensen)
Finds a variety of emotions (Verlet in WTC 2 vs Glen Wilson; Rozhdestvensky's Prokofiev 7 vs Malko)
Quote from: starrynight on February 13, 2013, 11:23:56 AM
Composers of the past would never have imagined that it would occupy such a central place in most people's lives now and that as a result much music of the past has been far from forgotten.
Indeed.