Greatness in Music

[jochanaan]

A fine question worth considering, I think.

It takes being willing to set aside your own tastes for must a moment and asking yourself, "If I were this other person--had his personality and experience and preferences--would I think the same?"  Not an easy exercise even for the most self-aware among us...

[karlhenning]

No, but like many none-too-easy exercises, most worthwhile.

[drogulus]

This is the most unintentionally hilarious thing you've said in weeks, Ernie.  By the way, "the higher up the intellectual pecking order you go," the more self-impressed mediocrities you find.  I've known very few really bright people whom I would denigrate as "intellectuals," and very few intellectuals of more than high-normal intelligence--but they sure do think highly of themselves!

     I was not referring to self-described intellectuals specifically. And I don't see a problem with identifying Schoenberg as an intellectual. I don't use the term in an ironic sense.

     

Autonomy of Art ideas are attractive because it puts the Artist/Thinker in the drivers seat, so the Gershwins ask the Schoenbergs how to do things, rather than the other way round which Justice would demand...

Why would Justice demand this?

I think (maybe) Ernie was being a wee bit wry there, jochanaan . . . .

     Yes, that was what I was a wee bit being. Though the serious point can be made that Schoenberg was right in thinking that Gershwin didn't need his help. And if some composers might be led by Autonomy of Art ideas to imagine 12-tone postmen a similar use of such ideas is found among modernist listeners who classify music according to its purported progressive content. I don't see this as a problem as an exercise in personal taste-making. You can like music for whatever reason you can come up with. It does play a role when listeners try to make general rules about the kind of music one ought to listen to. Not just because the ideas are progressive, since the same problem arises with the rule-making of conservatives who say civilization will collapse if it isn't sustained by constant booster shots of 19th century tonality. Both sides think the world goes to hell with the wrong kind of art. Neither side sees change in art as organic, that is mostly not under the control of ideas.

[jochanaan]

...the serious point can be made that Schoenberg was right in thinking that Gershwin didn't need his help.

I'd say Arnold was right.  They were two very different geniuses.

And if some composers might be led by Autonomy of Art ideas to imagine 12-tone postmen a similar use of such ideas is found among modernist listeners who classify music according to its purported progressive content. I don't see this as a problem as an exercise in personal taste-making. You can like music for whatever reason you can come up with. It does play a role when listeners try to make general rules about the kind of music one ought to listen to. Not just because the ideas are progressive, since the same problem arises with the rule-making of conservatives who say civilization will collapse if it isn't sustained by constant booster shots of 19th century tonality. Both sides think the world goes to hell with the wrong kind of art. Neither side sees change in art as organic, that is mostly not under the control of ideas.

Trying to regulate taste is an exercise in futility.  All I and most other "modernists" are trying to do is to encourage people to give modern music a chance, for the art's sake.  They might be surprised at what they find if they only LISTEN!

[snyprrr]

Can't I understand something without having to accept/tolerate it?

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Can't I understand something without having to accept/tolerate it?

Snyprrr, I don't see this as any different than the Schubert exercise you recently went through. First you held Schubert in disdain, while accusing him of all manner of vagaries; then I jumped in and forced you to actually spend time with Schubert before passing judgment; later the tide turned and Schubert seemed to open up to you; and finally you accepted Schubert on his own terms and began to praise him.

Remember?

Same thing here. Sometimes it takes effort to appreciate something. Right?

[DavidW]

Well you can't blame me for thinking he was Paulb when I first got here!

Anyway Mr Snipper, tolerance is not the same as liking.  If you understanding something, you can tolerate it.  You don't have to like it.  I'm sure that Karl understands Mahler's music, but he dislikes it anyway.  The disliking part is a matter of taste, tolerating something is a matter of common sense.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Well you can't blame me for thinking he was Paulb when I first got here!

[jochanaan]

Can't I understand something without having to accept/tolerate it?

You can.  But when it's music, mere understanding often leads to greater acceptance, tolerance, and yes, sometimes love.

[karlhenning]

You can.  But when it's music, mere understanding often leads to greater acceptance, tolerance, and yes, sometimes love.

In the preface to a new (and equal parts marvelous and readable) history-cum-listening-guide of/to Jazz, the authors briefly mention the importance of empathy in evaluating music.

If there really is no objectivity, then it must be impossible to prove it. No objectivity means that all positions are subjective and therefore no one is in a position to prove that objectivity exists.

George's post has the twin virtues of elegance and simplicity;  and as a conditional statement, its elegance and simplicity are further graced with Truth.  Remove that if, and the statement becomes an absurdity – for it is then a bald contradiction:  an attempt to claim as objective truth the statement that there is no such matter as objectivity.

Thus, I enjoy George's post for its 'containment of grace' — that is, for both the truth and beauty of its expression, and for its wise limitation.

It is also, in that sensibly limited way, an important component in the ongoing conversation about music.

Equally, I enjoyed Harry's response, "Absolutely true,"  for its subtle good humor.  George's statement is a conditional, so that its truth is dependent on that condition;  describing such a statement as absolutely true, is a mate winking over a pint.

If the sun is shining, then the light through the windows will warm the kitchen, and the morning glories will open.

This statement is true;  this statement is regularly true;  and yet (obviously) this statement is not always true.  Its truth is dependent upon a condition, although that condition is regularly dependable.

All that, is equally applicable to George's axiom.

This forum is a wonderful 'virtual place';  I treasure the variety of participants, the diversity of geography and of musical background, the lively exchange of opinion, the great good humor.  It would be an unbearably sad place, IMO, if music were in fact a field of human endeavor in which there is no objectivity.  (And of course, if this were true, that there is no objectivity in the field of music, we should all go on crusade to abolish music departments in places of higher learning, for their practice would in essence be a lie, wouldn't it?  Our love of the truth would demand action, I should think.)   To briefly repeat what has been said on this forum repeatedly and at greater depth before, there are both subjective and objective elements in the communal endeavor of evaluating cultural artifacts — I thought Jen's illustration with the two wines (one of which is definitely a 'wine' in scare-quotes) admirably apt — and the fact that we all readily identify subjective components in the process does not somehow 'nullify' the objective component.

[George]

George's post has the twin virtues of elegance and simplicity;  and as a conditional statement, its elegance and simplicity are further graced with Truth.  Remove that if, and the statement becomes an absurdity – for it is then a bald contradiction:  an attempt to claim as objective truth the statement that there is no such matter as objectivity.

Thus, I enjoy George's post for its 'containment of grace' — that is, for both the truth and beauty of its expression, and for its wise limitation.

Thanks very much for your kind (or at least that's how I subjectively experienced them  ) words.

[jlaurson]

I thought Jen's Jens' [subtle, but the difference between male and female] illustration with the two wines (one of which is definitely a 'wine' in scare-quotes) apt...

...and never has the phrase 'scare quotes' been more apt. 

[karlhenning]

Sorry about the misplaced foot apostrophe.

[Brahmsian]

I remember this was one of my favorite threads.  I think I had a few dissonant chords with Karl on here.   

[karlhenning]

Then, too, I know many a dissonant chord which I like mighty well : )

[starrynight]

Can't I understand something without having to accept/tolerate it?

Every style has richer more inventive pieces in it alongside more average stuff, not everyone wants to keep listening to stuff which is just average (or worse).

[Catison]

Great music is great.

[jochanaan]

Great music is great.

Ah, that begs so many questions!  Why?  Who says?  What makes it?

[Brahmsian]

Bump!   

[DavidRoss]

Thank you, Ray, for resurrecting this thread.  Had you not, I would have missed this wonderful post by Karl:

This forum is a wonderful 'virtual place';  I treasure the variety of participants, the diversity of geography and of musical background, the lively exchange of opinion, the great good humor. It would be an unbearably sad place, IMO, if music were in fact a field of human endeavor in which there is no objectivity.  (And of course, if this were true, that there is no objectivity in the field of music, we should all go on crusade to abolish music departments in places of higher learning, for their practice would in essence be a lie, wouldn't it?  Our love of the truth would demand action, I should think.)   To briefly repeat what has been said on this forum repeatedly and at greater depth before, there are both subjective and objective elements in the communal endeavor of evaluating cultural artifacts — I thought Jens's illustration with the two wines (one of which is definitely a 'wine' in scare-quotes) admirably apt — and the fact that we all readily identify subjective components in the process does not somehow 'nullify' the objective component.[/font]

The statement I italicized perfectly captures what keeps drawing me back.  I might not know "greatness" in music, but I sure know greatness in internet forums, and its name is GMG!