I think it's stupid. It's like all these endless debates about modern music ends on name calling and derailing the conversation. Why can't everyone have peace here!!!!??????





/angryandhungry

 

Is consensus boring?

Oh YES YES YES! Struggle leads to progress, peace to decay. Everybody knows that!

 

If not boring, pretty tame, flat-line, etc.

 

meh... On TC, or any other forum I've visited, I think there has never been a collective sense of wanting to make a consensus, or arrive at any one agreed upon notion.

Though I found it a bit surprising the overwhelming consensus on Higdon's work was fairly consistent and in the negative, that could have easily been colored by the OP including that interview where the composer so neatly and readily put both feet in her mouth. (Recalling Benjamin Britten saying he thought composers should Not Talk... specifically he meant about their own work

Add to that a member coming into that thread more than post five or so entries, and it is very likely that anyone who cared for Higdon's music saw the direction already taken, and did not enter the fray because they thought they would be beat down, disdained, etc. That 'result' then not 'real.'

At best, I have, and seen others, shift their thinking as affected by the presentation of another... not at all a bad thing.

But consensus? Never!
Where would the sport come in? Where would the platform for seriously officious displays of education go to, the mini-thesis of the self-taught at last actually published (at least virtually) then find a voice? etc.

There is also absent here, as much as some may disdain higher institutions of learning, the lack of the ground rules on collegiality, the ground rule that whatever your opinion you must make a good argument for it, or as Science pointed out, that if you are asked to back up a 'claim,' that you do so, if asked for a recommendation of some repertoire, you provide it.... none of that is in place here.

In one thread I read from a participant an inquiry as to why the OP had not responded to their request for a recommendation. The OP response was they were not responding because they were certain the participant would attack them. So much for anything remotely like a truly well-monitored forum, or the spirit of mutual respect.

I also think TC ought to have a rule that responses such as 'because that music is crap,' or 'that is not music' etc. ought to merit permanent banishment, as well as permanent banishment for outright refusing to recommend some pieces when one has been asked outright. What the hell sort of 'participation' is any of those dynamics, I wonder.

On less polarized issues, such as your OP on programming, the general agreement was a pleasure, and not surprising either. Ergo, for some, I suppose, 'not exciting enough.'

Naw, it is sometimes great, the participants all on board, good ideas and exchanges, but consensus? RARE.

 

Well, I've got to go to work now, so I'll have to come back and agree with what everyone's said a little later!

 

De gustibus non disputandum est—that is, there is no disputing against Hobby-Horses; and for my part, I seldom do.

 

De gustibus non disputandum est-that is, there is no disputing against Hobby-Horses; and for my part, I seldom do.

I had a hobby horse named Degustibus!

 

What was that old chestnut? Arguing about music is like...

 

Consensus is impossible imo. I doubt you can even find one statement about classical music that we would all agree upon. And the world would be much less interesting if we all thought the same things.

 

Consensus is impossible imo.

No it's not! :lol:

Seriously though. Consensus is about majority agreement, not utter and complete unanimity. I think there are some things about which majority agreement can be reached. It was reached in the thread to which Sid referred in his OP.

However, this would be a dull forum if all we had was a succession of posts where only agreement was present...

"Isn't Beethoven great?"
"Yeah, nice."

I confess I am more attracted to post in threads where I disagree with others - I want a debate and a wrangle (not an unpleasant one) and something of a challenge. But I would hope that by the end, everyone's agreed with me, or that I've converted at least one or two to my PoV!

 

Peacemakers are not boring. I believe they project passion and make ground to move on. They strive for authenticity and against artificial. That equates creativity.

 

I think it was Oscar Wilde who said "Gitcha filthuh haynds offamah oh-pinions, piiiiig!"

But seriously; I usually end up leaving for several months when we're in mutual back-patting mode. I like hanging out and having a laugh, of course, but I need at least a little action once in a while.


They're as interesting (and as dangerous) as anyone else, but in order for peacemakers to be peacemakers there must be conflict, you cannot be a peacemaker if all there is is peace because then there is no peace to make, in that instance a former peacemaker will become a warmonger that they may become a peacemaker again.

 

Take a look at the kinds of threads that generate the largest number of posts.

 

I would highlight the difference between consensus and moderation, and suggest that the latter is far more important. There'll never be consensus on questions like the value of Wagner/Schoenberg/whoever, but we could have moderation, where opposing views aren't treated as, or used as, insults. (ETA: I mean self-moderation, of course, not that done by a moderator)
My particular peeve is when subjective opinion is mistaken for objective fact. I'm talking about the distinction between "I don't like Verdi's music" and "Verdi's music is rubbish". I know it was mentioned in another thread that the "IMO" is implied in the latter, but frankly I don't think it is, not always. I think some people genuinely do believe that their subjective opinions are objective facts, or that other people's subjective opinions are objective untruths. (You'll notice all the qualifiers I put into those last two sentences).
Or, to put it another way, there's a difference between "thought-provoking" and "provocative".

Also, the first rule of arguing on the Internet is: don't argue on the Internet.

 

Our fortress is stronger, it should be the capital after the consensus!

 

Vive la différence.

 

Nothing I hate more than people agreeing with me.

 

I quite agree !

 

I think consensus is irrelevant. Music isn't a democracy. And nobody else can listen to the music you like for you...

 

Consensus can be safe, reassuring. Whether it's stroking egos or purchasing recordings. There's nothing inherently wrong with consensus, if that's what one requires to sail smoother waters.

 

There's nothing inherently wrong with consensus.

There's a strong consensus which disagrees with this...

 

I don't think you can ever avoid consensus, just like you can never avoid dissent from that consensus. It really has nothing to do with whether we want it or not. Much as we like to think that we are all completely, absolutely unique, there are certain areas where you are going to get a majority, or a plurality, more or less in agreement. For whatever reason, that just happens. A market-based, or any other kind of economy is dependent on it. How can you make anything to sell to another if only a few will ever want it? You look for those things that a large enough population will like, and that is what you sell.

Musicians are going to be similar to the general population in that regard. You will have the outliers who don't agree with the consensus and do something completely divergent - that is fine for them, and people are welcome to like their music, but to be upset that more people don't share that point of view is inane. Conversely, those who are in the "consensus" also need not be surprised that there should be other opinions. You can try and lead each other to what you enjoy, but don't be surprised if they turn up their nose.

In some areas, I think it is important that we seek to urge people away from the fringes and back towards the consensus, but in the world of music, I think that is totally unnecessary. I don't care for much of modern classical, and am strongly drawn towards "consensus" music, but I could care less what anybody else thinks about my preferences. But if you ask my opinion, I will tell you what I like.

 

Debate is stimulating. I worked in a 16-18 college which put on 'outside your lessons' activity on Wednesday afternoons & the Debating Society was always the most popular. Parallels can be drawn with threads on TC. Timid members who dread sharp responses (like me) can still enjoy watching the speakers for & against the motion engaging in verbal fisticuffs; those speakers must obey the rules of courtesy but can 'have a go' at their opponent if they make witty, clever & not too nasty points; they are expected to back up their arguments with facts (point of information); attacks on an opponent's religion, race, personal life etc are outlawed; they mustn't go on too long; a chairman (moderator) can be appealed to; and at the end, a majority will usually come down for one point of view or the other.

But not always; and sometimes the minority seem to put on the best verbal firework display.

 

In other words: we do not have consensus about what consensus means.

 

Easy. From "con" (against) and "sensus" (sense, esp. common sense). Thus the usual meaning today of something that flies in the face of logic or inhibits a desired outcome.

 

I prefer my humour to be a little less surreal.

 

Consensus lists are a useful starting point for beginners, but after that it's best to go your own way. Most things of course will never be part of a consensus opinion as most people haven't even heard of them.

 

Consensus isn't really an internet thing, consensus is about real world decision making. You've got to get something done amongst people with differing views on the subject, they will argue but they know they will have to concede in various ways to achieve something. If it is one person's view that they impose on all the others then it is not consensus. If there is general agreement, even if it is not ideal for anyone, then it is a consensus.

There is no real motive for consensus on the internet as nothing is really being done, so endless arguments can go on, you can dig your heels in and deny all logic, sense, manners and purpose. Someone can continue to claim that Czerny is a better composer to Beethoven. The only consensus you are likely to achieve is that we should all ignore that guy. There's no reason for consensus on a board like TC, we can have a crazed Czerny addict promoting him, despite how out of step it is, and it will enrich the place even if it might be a little irritating. In fact consensus and unanimity of opinion would be the death of a site like this, and it will exclude heretics who might dare to think rather than agree.

Wikipedia is an especially bad example of consensus, despite it being one of their central planks of policy. Consensus there isn't informed by the best suited to decide on such matters, it is created by whoever has the most time and strongest motivation to argue it. Consensus is often made with judicious banning or limiting of anyone who might disagree too vehemently and it usually has to be aggressively enforced, a sure sign it isn't consensus. All that is quite apart from the point that truth and fact, the stuff of encyclopedia, aren't determined by consensus, opinions are.

 

...a crazed Czerny addict...

Is there any other kind?

 

... there is no consensus in sight.

Correct. There is only the historical and heroic dialectic, without which nothing would move forward. Consensus is for wimps!

 

^^I'll use the tricky ol' politicians reply here: "You've taken me out of context."

But in this case its true!...