Do you think too much pop/rock music can be a waste of time?

[Florestan]

In a few days you'll send me a private message of apology, tell me you were drinking or something...

Nope, not his time, assuredly. I am perfectly sober and I stand by each and every point I made, including the cool shower. Makes you sleep better.

[Madiel]

I look forward to your "apology". Understanding that is something completely different from an apology.

[Florestan]

Oh I see. So when I use completely different words to the words you use, it makes no difference to the meaning at all. But when you add fucking quote marks to it makes "the whole difference in the world".

What an incredible wanker you can be.

You know, heaping scorn and making offensive remarks on the opponent is easy. I could do that myself. For instance: "I am just curious: why so much fucks in your latest posts? Do you miss a good one or what?" But I don't see the point of doing so.

[Florestan]

I look forward to your "apology".

When it arrives, please let me know.

[Scion7]

Both of you hush before I unleash my Magyar hordes upon ye both, and make war-banners out of yer skins.

[Harry]

All the energy this must cost to all parties involved, better use that on music, and write about that.

[nathanb]

What? You can't even manage to keep straight WHAT I'M SAYING! What the hell difference does it make whether my words are based on something I've read or on something I made up myself?

It's got absolutely nothing to do with splitting semantic hairs over something you haven't seen. Every single criticism of you I've just made is 100% based on the words that every single person can read on this thread. It's now based entirely on YOUR OWN words, and the fact that you have said things that completely contradictory with other things you've said.

Which is exactly what happens every damn time you get into this argumentative mode. In a few days you'll send me a private message of apology, tell me you were drinking or something... I don't care. I'm going to bed, I have an enormous amount of other shit to deal with right now without wasting any more energy on the bizarre conversations to be found on this forum either because people are just plain lunatics (not you) or because they are the kind of people who simply cannot concede any points in a conversation and meet other people halfway (very much you).

I really don't give a fuck now what you think, because you will change what you think just for the sake of getting in my face because I dare not agree with you that there's some fundamental hierarchy of musical genres. Go listen to whatever the fuck you want, as that was the point anyway, and I hope that you will do the rest of the world the courtesy of letting them listen to whatever the fuck they want.

Out.

Amen.

[Mirror Image]

All the energy this must cost to all parties involved, better use that on music, and write about that.

Wise words, Harry. I fully concur. Time is better spent talking about things we love rather than creating friction.

[Florestan]

Time is better spent talking about things we love rather than creating friction.

Friction aside, is it not obvious that both orfeo and me love, as in are deeply interested in, the things we talked about? 

[Mirror Image]

Friction aside, is it not obvious that both orfeo and me love, as in are deeply interested in, the things we talked about? 

Well sure, but it seemed like to me that it went beyond this initial love and launched into an argument that wasn't worth it.

[bluemooze]

...Seriously, all it takes is to convert statements like "heavy metal is crap" into "I don't enjoy heavy metal" and the problem is solved...

This.   :tiphat:

[Jo498]

The biggest problem with this is that different generations have not agreed on these assessments at all. There are names that are famous now that were heavily out of favour in some other period of "classical" music that had different values. There are names that were extremely famous at some point that are now relegated to footnote status.

This is to some extent true but my point was more general and I conceded that music was different from other arts for most of its history (I'd say that Western music recognizes "classics" rather obviously since the time of Beethoven and there are some forerunners as well as composers "classicised" around the same time, e.g. Palestrina, Bach, Handel. This is only about 200 years but e.g. Beethoven and Mozart have been stable classics for this time period.)
In poetry or sculpture we really have works that have been considered classics, defining aesthetic standards and providing inspiration for other artists for hundreds or even thousands of years. That in addition to those classic other exemplars sometimes change, that there are fashions or fads is of course true as well. But the existence of "stable classics" is also undeniable. And they do not seem to be random picks. So they must be picked because of actual features they have. Work out these features and you get a glimpse of objective aesthetic values (I don't claim that it is easy or obvious how to do that).

And different countries don't agree. I'm reminded of a recent discussion about Sibelius, but he's only one example of a phenomenon where a composer is wildly popular in one part of Europe and largely dismissed in another. I struggle to find the objectivity in such assessments. I can't help feeling that they are culturally driven.

But if you concede that something can be culturally driven, then there is apparently more than personal subjective tastes, namely "cultures" and I'd claim that this is one step towards the kind of objectivity I mean. The next step is that cultures do not latch onto any old piece of art but those regarded as exemplary really have certain features setting them apart as extraordinary. And then one can again widen the horizon and will reach a "human culture" that would recognize exemplars from different local cultures as extraordinary, e.g. both the Taj Mahal and the Parthenon and the Venus of Milo etc. See above.

A very similar procedure could be done with "subcultures", e.g. recognizing that in some branch of popular culture the work of certain artists is regarded very highly (as opposed to short-lived "one hit wonders") and then try to look at the features that make their work special. So my claim is that every field implicitly strives to some evaluation beyond the merely subjective and this would probably be enough to get the process started. In such fields it is often not that hard to name "local criteria", e.g. how and why Dorothy Sayers' crime fiction is superior to Edgar Wallace's. It only gets difficult when one tries to encompass larger fields. E.g. "Crime and Punishment" could be regarded a failure as crime fiction because we know from the beginning who the perpetrator is. (Dostoevsky got better: We are quite uncertain for a long time who the murderer was in the Brothers Karamazov ) Obviously this is a poor criterion that does not apply here.

Heck, don't we do this even when reflecting about our personal tastes and preferences, e.g. discussing or recommending books or music with friends? We point out certain features that make such pieces appealing and we don't think we pick them at random, even if we usually cannot give complete accounts and explicit criteria. It might sometimes happen that we "just love" something without being able to tell why but usually we can point out what we love about something and why certain features appeal to us. So the drive towards objectivity starts (or could start) by reflection about subjective preferences.

[Florestan]

This is to some extent true but my point was more general and I conceded that music was different from other arts for most of its history (I'd say that Western music recognizes "classics" rather obviously since the time of Beethoven and there are some forerunners as well as composers "classicised" around the same time, e.g. Palestrina, Bach, Handel. This is only about 200 years but e.g. Beethoven and Mozart have been stable classics for this time period.)
In poetry or sculpture we really have works that have been considered classics, defining aesthetic standards and providing inspiration for other artists for hundreds or even thousands of years. That in addition to those classic other exemplars sometimes change, that there are fashions or fads is of course true as well. But the existence of "stable classics" is also undeniable. And they do not seem to be random picks. So they must be picked because of actual features they have. Work out these features and you get a glimpse of objective aesthetic values (I don't claim that it is easy or obvious how to do that).
But if you concede that something can be culturally driven, then there is apparently more than personal subjective tastes, namely "cultures" and I'd claim that this is one step towards the kind of objectivity I mean. The next step is that cultures do not latch onto any old piece of art but those regarded as exemplary really have certain features setting them apart as extraordinary. And then one can again widen the horizon and will reach a "human culture" that would recognize exemplars from different local cultures as extraordinary, e.g. both the Taj Mahal and the Parthenon and the Venus of Milo etc. See above.

A very similar procedure could be done with "subcultures", e.g. recognizing that in some branch of popular culture the work of certain artists is regarded very highly (as opposed to short-lived "one hit wonders") and then try to look at the features that make their work special. So my claim is that every field implicitly strives to some evaluation beyond the merely subjective and this would probably be enough to get the process started. In such fields it is often not that hard to name "local criteria", e.g. how and why Dorothy Sayers' crime fiction is superior to Edgar Wallace's. It only gets difficult when one tries to encompass larger fields. E.g. "Crime and Punishment" could be regarded a failure as crime fiction because we know from the beginning who the perpetrator is. (Dostoevsky got better: We are quite uncertain for a long time who the murderer was in the Brothers Karamazov ) Obviously this is a poor criterion that does not apply here.

Heck, don't we do this even when reflecting about our personal tastes and preferences, e.g. discussing or recommending books or music with friends? We point out certain features that make such pieces appealing and we don't think we pick them at random, even if we usually cannot give complete accounts and explicit criteria. It might sometimes happen that we "just love" something without being able to tell why but usually we can point out what we love about something and why certain features appeal to us. So the drive towards objectivity starts (or could start) by reflection about subjective preferences.

Amen, brother!

[North Star]

This is to some extent true but my point was more general and I conceded that music was different from other arts for most of its history (I'd say that Western music recognizes "classics" rather obviously since the time of Beethoven and there are some forerunners as well as composers "classicised" around the same time, e.g. Palestrina, Bach, Handel. This is only about 200 years but e.g. Beethoven and Mozart have been stable classics for this time period.)
In poetry or sculpture we really have works that have been considered classics, defining aesthetic standards and providing inspiration for other artists for hundreds or even thousands of years. That in addition to those classic other exemplars sometimes change, that there are fashions or fads is of course true as well. But the existence of "stable classics" is also undeniable. And they do not seem to be random picks. So they must be picked because of actual features they have. Work out these features and you get a glimpse of objective aesthetic values (I don't claim that it is easy or obvious how to do that).
But if you concede that something can be culturally driven, then there is apparently more than personal subjective tastes, namely "cultures" and I'd claim that this is one step towards the kind of objectivity I mean. The next step is that cultures do not latch onto any old piece of art but those regarded as exemplary really have certain features setting them apart as extraordinary. And then one can again widen the horizon and will reach a "human culture" that would recognize exemplars from different local cultures as extraordinary, e.g. both the Taj Mahal and the Parthenon and the Venus of Milo etc. See above.

A very similar procedure could be done with "subcultures", e.g. recognizing that in some branch of popular culture the work of certain artists is regarded very highly (as opposed to short-lived "one hit wonders") and then try to look at the features that make their work special. So my claim is that every field implicitly strives to some evaluation beyond the merely subjective and this would probably be enough to get the process started. In such fields it is often not that hard to name "local criteria", e.g. how and why Dorothy Sayers' crime fiction is superior to Edgar Wallace's. It only gets difficult when one tries to encompass larger fields. E.g. "Crime and Punishment" could be regarded a failure as crime fiction because we know from the beginning who the perpetrator is. (Dostoevsky got better: We are quite uncertain for a long time who the murderer was in the Brothers Karamazov ) Obviously this is a poor criterion that does not apply here.

Heck, don't we do this even when reflecting about our personal tastes and preferences, e.g. discussing or recommending books or music with friends? We point out certain features that make such pieces appealing and we don't think we pick them at random, even if we usually cannot give complete accounts and explicit criteria. It might sometimes happen that we "just love" something without being able to tell why but usually we can point out what we love about something and why certain features appeal to us. So the drive towards objectivity starts (or could start) by reflection about subjective preferences.

Many good points here. I particularly like your pointing out how different criteria must be used to judge different works of art, and the using of works of art in a medium other than music as examples. 

Analysis of art can reveal why it is that we feel some way about a work of art - and the act also changes and deepens our relationship with the work. 'Objective aesthetic standards' - well, that is never all that objective, as it is always cultural. Aesthetic standards and classics are basically born when they have been copied, imitated, and used as models long enough. A great many of the antique sculptures that have survived are copies.

[Madiel]

Jo, I think there's a lot of good points there. I guess I'm not very satisfied with a concept of objective that says that a larger group of people all sharing the same view converts subjectivity into objectivity... Even though I know that in law, for example, that's exactly the process that's used.

It's also a proposition that is inevitably going to lead towards the conclusion that the culture we live in has "objectively" found pop music to be better than that old fashioned classical stuff.

[Madiel]

One symptom of where culture is currently at is the way the word "song" has come to mean "a piece of music".

And people associate Classical music with instrumental music. It's that genre where the songs have no singers.

Which of course is deeply flawed to anyone who frequents this forum, but that is a line of thinking that is very easy to find in society.

[Monsieur Croche]

Friction aside, is it not obvious that both orfeo and me love, as in are deeply interested in, the things we talked about? 

Unfortunately, ladies, gentlemen, and tenors...
love, on its own, is not enough :-/

[Jo498]

Jo, I think there's a lot of good points there. I guess I'm not very satisfied with a concept of objective that says that a larger group of people all sharing the same view converts subjectivity into objectivity... Even though I know that in law, for example, that's exactly the process that's used.

I agree and I actually do not think that a larger group of people sharing a view converts something into objective truth. Objective truth in the strongest sense is independent of personal or collective views. It can only be recognized. The problem is that we have different and often not very reliable methods to recognize objective truths. It is not easy (but reasonably clear) how to get to objective truths in logics and mathematics and in empirical science we are also comparably certain that our methods get us closer to the truths.

To claim such reliability in aesthetics would be preposterous but broad agreement can be an indication that something is objective and there are also methods to distill some common features even from some disagreements. E.g. symmetry is important, but too much predictable symmetry can also be boring (this sounds trite but one could probably come up with more sophisticated criteria).

The more important difference to e.g. maths, I think, is that aesthetics should not have such strong independence to be meaningful. It should be more specific at least to the human condition in a broad sense (including but not reduced to biology, physiology etc.) because it is tied to our modes of perception, emotional responses etc. The difficult and interesting point is not to collapse this into "mere" individual subjectivity or collective agreement. I would put it roughly like this: informed/expert collective agreement + reflection is a decent indicator for objective features. While fascinating, it is in the end an "academic" question (of philosophical aesthetics) if such features are "out there" in a similar way values of acceleration and mass and charge are. They are sufficiently dissimilar to make this a difficult question (but it is not a meaningless question, I'd say, although it cannot be denied that there is a tradition (positivism in a broad sense) that claims exactly that).

I think that something like "culture-relative aesthetic judgment", in a sense of "culture" that is so broad that it would explain why we can still regard the Iliad as a worthwhile and fascinating classic, not only for historical interest, is something we can be fairly certain about. And it will usually inform our individual tastes; it's not just the sum of random individual tastes since ca. 2700 years but something more complex because obviously a lot of these individual tastes were formed by education such that they would regard the epic as a paragon of poetry. (Similarly like today many people grow up with a popular song as what music typically is.)

But: There is always the "reflexive drive" that is we can "bracket" any opinion or judgment and try how it fits with the most general things we assume to be true. So we can try out "The Iliad is obsolete archaic nonsense, what's to like about such stuff?" and I am pretty sure that brilliant and rebellious young persons have had such thoughts many times. But apparently in the end the Iliad survived such questioning for a long time. (Therefore I'd say that it was not mere tradition like maybe with some holy scriptures.)

Both of this are for me indications that e.g. the Iliad instantiates certain features that make brilliant epic poetry. This is, for me, as objective as it gets in this domain. There obviously cannot be a mathematical proof or a physical experiment about such facts. (And it is also not the case that as the oldest and most famous Western epic the Iliad simply defined what is great poetry, so the statement would be analytic. There were more epics around (there was a whole cycle covering the Trojan War), so the Iliad and Odyssee have acquired their status because they did what they did exceptionally well.)

It's also a proposition that is inevitably going to lead towards the conclusion that the culture we live in has "objectively" found pop music to be better than that old fashioned classical stuff.

Yes, that's why we are a decadent and doomed culture

[71 dB]

It's also a proposition that is inevitably going to lead towards the conclusion that the culture we live in has "objectively" found pop music to be better than that old fashioned classical stuff.

I am not sure such conclusion has been made. I think the conclusion has been: Pop music is more suitable for most.

In general, people aren't into intellectual things. Even if they are, who says they turn to music for that? Poor people use their mental energy into worrying how to pay the bills. How is anyone supposed to be interested of Haydn's string quartets when the Bank is taking your house? Who listened to classical music in the past? It was aristorates and other better offs. More importantly they couldn't choose between pop music and "art music". Perhaps pop had been overwhelmingly popular had it existed in the days of Beethoven? 

[Karl Henning]

Jo, I think there's a lot of good points there. I guess I'm not very satisfied with a concept of objective that says that a larger group of people all sharing the same view converts subjectivity into objectivity... Even though I know that in law, for example, that's exactly the process that's used.

Well, because it isn't a hermetically binary proposition, right?  Somebody plot me a Venn diagram . . . .