[Waehnen]

There has been some discussion which I think deserves a dedicated thread. I will quote some forum texts as a starting point.

Because this habit of yours sometimes feels like you are trying to either diminish what other people are saying, or on purpose interpreting the sayings of others in a negative way, or you are trying to control what others can say. I am sure that is not your intention so I am interested in where this attitude of yours grows from, so that I can understand it better. Thanks.

I would find it much more constructive if we encouraged each other to give arguments and define the basis of our thinking -- rather than repeating that everything is just opinions and nothing more. In this instance it could have been asked, on what basis is the concept formed that Tchaikovsky symphonies 1-3 would not be masterpieces and that symphonies 4-6 would be masterpieces. There must be some reasoning and musical value structures (represented by scholars and the classical music canon, perhaps) behind that kind of statements, right?

My point though was to bring up a thought that repeating "that is just your opinion, this is just an opinion, that is not a fact" all over again is not constructive and not good for the discussion or the atmosphere on the forum. Quite the opposite. It is completely unnecessary and even somewhat irritating.

After all we all know this is not a laboratory where we run systematic tests in order to gain undisputed data of repeatable phenomenon of the natural world.

Instead we should talk more analytically about the establishment, the literature, the abundance of different theories and aesthetics, the reality of the musical life and concerts, the canons and the community and it´s values and how they are represented in our minds and the way we hear and appreciate music and perceive the musical field with all it´s agents.

It is not just "an opinion" to consider the 9th Symphony by Beethoven the objectively greater work of art when compared to "A Pentatonic Improvisation on the Black Keys of the Piano on a Sunday afternoon by a 5 year old".

^^^^@Waehnen: Two points. I have enjoyed TC a lot for two reasons--A) exposure to different opinions and different ways of expressing them, and B) the opportunity to actually argue/discuss important topics, as I enjoy often arguing with people about certain fundamental issues in esthetics. One of my pet enthusiasms is the conviction--shared with others--that all evaluation in music and the arts is opinion and just opinion, pure and simple, Individual opinions or clusters of opinions. One can therefore hold that Beethoven's 9th (it's always Beethoven and his 9th) is better than your Improvisation counterexample, or the opposite (bizarre as that may seem), and it is still an opinion either way--a large cluster of opinions versus a small, a very small cluster of one (or two).

Each of us individually has opinions on just about everything--what art objects I think great are likely to not be entirely the set of things you think are great. It is fine and good to discuss what we hold is good or bad in the arts, but not accurate to ascribe the art objects themselves with inherent goodness or badness--which of the elements on the periodic table are good, and why? Which bad? We can only assess such in terms of human experience though we can know a vast amount of verifiable information about each element.

Same with art objects--they just are and we bring to them our own personal (or shared) net of expectations and reactions, and thus ascribe value to them. It really is all about opinion, though we can assert with confidence many facts about art objects--their color, weight, size, shape, duration (if applicable), when created and by whom, odor (if applicable), temperature, etc. But not if they are great (not in the sense of size but of intrinsic value). This position in no way threatens our ability to find enormous pleasure in the arts, and individual or group-shared opinions/values. But it frees us from holding the awkward notion that--objectively--things in the arts are inherently endowed with value properties that are independent of the perceiver. In that sense, it is indeed all a matter of opinion.

I would suggest that it would not be a game of just 2 opposites (subjective opinions vs hard scientific facts) but there would be some shades of gray as well in between. I believe it would result in better conversations if all forum texts were accepted and appreciated without comments like "that is just a mere opinion" and posters could themselves link their comment to for example some of the categories below, ranging from pure subjective opinions to hard facts.

From the top of my hat on a Saturday Night but you get the idea:

1. Pure opinions: subjective artistic experience and preferences
2. Values of the immediate surrounding musical community + music education
3. Sociology and study of reception
4. Music history + canons
5. Objective analysis of compositional techniques
6. Musical theories, aesthetics and semiotic dimensions
7. Psychology of music
8. Neurology of music
9. Pure facts: Historic facts, physical and concrete facts regarding the instruments, acoustics etc.

Any suggestions, enhancements or defining comments for the list? Let’s evolve it together.

 

[Waehnen]

^^^^:
I will only address the issue of opinion versus quantifiable facts, and again point out that the greatness of any art object or its creator is couched entirely upon opinion–other than quantifiable, repeatable observation and measurement. Whether or not an art object (AO) best approaches the criteria set for its evaluation–is “great” or “better” or “not great” evaluates the AO against said criteria that have been established by A) the global population, B) a select population, or C) a population of “Experts”. If or when the Experts (“X”) offer quantifiable measures such as duration, degree of complexity (not necessarily easy to assess–must be an agreed-upon datum), creator, number of units moved, popularity, etc. then all is well and we can say that, among the X cluster, Beethoven’s 9th is Great because it is the majority view of X that these criteria are met or exceeded. We can then disregard the opinions polled among either the global population or any other select populations that differ–”We all say so, so it must be true!”

But AO are experienced individually, and, unless we choose to submit to the judgements of X, each individual will have their own gradation or ranking of AO as to “quality”. I have made a god of my own tastes and am certain of their validity and authenticity, of my self-worth as an assessor of AO, Esthetics can thus be perfectly legitimate if it concerns itself with the degree to whether the criteria of a defined population are met, or to how well the AO comports with the shared neurology/psychology/life experience of that defined population. The tautology is that lovers of Beethoven or of CM itself form a cluster of those who love Beethoven or CM, and all agree within the group that, since they all say so, it must be true.

As I have stated ad infinitum, greatness does not therefore reside as a Platonic ideal within an AO, but rather is imbued with its “greatness” by the application of the opinions, individual or shared, of its perceivers. As someone who eats his own cooking, I can and must affirm that if someone feels that The Turtles’ Happy Together is a greater work than Beethoven’s 9th, they are both entitled to their opinion (though I might disagree), and that, for them, it is a valid and authentic position though a large CM cluster will not share that opinion. If any of this is not well understood, I will be happy to expand upon the topic. It really is all opinion.

My logic is that the more appropriate, exact and definite the communication, the better. That would mean that for each phenomenon in the world, we should aim at trying to find the most suitable way of communication on the matter at hand, even if the appropriate way of communication requires more and is more taxing than a simplification. I cannot deny that this "everything is just opinions" attitude is a rather bold and unnecessary simplification of the reality and communication.

For starters I will give you just one very simple example. So let´s picture two pieces of music:


Song A

• traditional tonal melody using a widely used scale
• no great interval jumps
• no frequent sudden changes in the dynamics
• stable rhythmic structures

Song B

• an atonal melody using a lot of chromatism
• frequent great jumps preferring dissonant intervals
• frequent sudden changes in the dynamics
• unstable and unpredictable rhythmic structures

My premise is that the positive reception of the Song A in the large musical community would be significantly wider even to the extent it can be considered a statistical fact and the results can be considered to be further suggesting links to other factual phenomenon. Underneath I will sketch just a few points using my simple matrix from last night.


1. Pure opinions: subjective artistic experience and preferences

• An individual might prefer Song A or Song B due to their unique cognitive, psychological, neurological and artistic status at the given time of the performance.
• Like Immanuel Kant once wrote, nobody can force someone else to artistically like or dislike a piece of art
• Subjective artistic opinions and preferences should be appreciated for there is objectively no "right or wrong"
• Opinions can still be researched and communicated statistically

2. Values of the immediate surrounding musical community + music education

• The features of Song A are much more represented in most people´s immediate musical surroundings and music education.
• The immediate musical surroundings will support the cognitive structures that recognize and appreciate the features of Song A over the features of Song B.
• Both points above can be considered facts that can be verified by statistical research used by other human sciences

3. Sociology and study of reception

• Music that has more common features with Song A than Song B is more established and thoroughly represented in the sociological layers or reception (even just the quantity of tonal concert performances over atonal concert performances indicates this)
• The point above can be considered a fact that can be verified by research methods used by other human sciences

4. Music history + canons

• Music that has more common features with Song A than Song B is more established and thoroughly represented in the canons of musical history
• The point above can be considered a fact that can be verified by research methods used by other human sciences

5. Objective analysis of compositional techniques

• Both Song A and Song B can be objectively analyzed although there is more analytical methods applicaple to Song A than Song B.
• The point above can be considered a fact that can be verified by research methods used by other human sciences

6. Musical theories, aesthetics and semiotic dimensions

• Both Song A and Song B can be objectively analyzed although there is more theoretical, aesthetical and semiotic approaches relevant to the Song A than Song B.
• The point above can be considered a fact that can be verified by research methods used by other human sciences

7. Psychology of music

• There is no doubt that the features of common musical language in the Song A make it more appealing to the majority of the human race.
• The long history of music more strongly resembling the features of Song A is represented in the collective receptive and experiencing musical mind of the human race
• The points above can be considered facts that can be verified by research methods used by psychology

8. Neurology of music

• There is no doubt that Song A and Song B will have reactions in the neurological structures of both the performers and the listeners that will differ from each other in a statistically significant way.
• The melodic features of Song A are much easier and more natural for the vocal cords, human neurology, cognitive performance and muscle memory to produce
• The points above can be considered facts that can be verified by research methods used by medicine and neurological sciences

9. Pure facts: Historic, physical and concrete facts regarding the instruments, acoustics etc.

• The melodic features of Song A are much easier and more natural for even most instruments to which big interval jumps are also more difficult than smaller intervals: woodwinds, valved brass instruments, keyboard instruments, string instruments, pitched percussion etc.
• The point above can be considered a fact that can be verified by research methods used by natural sciences

I could go on forever but that is not the point here... The more analytical and multi-faceted approach hinted at above is much more useful, truthful, polite, constructive and effective than, in the tradition of great simplification, just answering to everything: "That is just your opinion".

 

[Waehnen]

I am truly sorry, but I have found through these many iterations of points of view, that my position remains both unchanged but also unassailable. So much verbiage--and fine verbiage--to somehow sidestep the key factor of clustered opinion in the "Objectivist" viewpoint. But no matter how the argument is framed, it does come down, ultimately, to opinion. Art can be easily be seen to be a human product that has certain qualities that attract or repel certain or even many perceivers-- whether they say they like or dislike it or whether it has successfully reached some goal that a cluster of enthusiasts or experts has set for it. It can only have value imposed upon it by that net of human perception (general or specific--either will do) that it satisfies or fails to. But art is like, as I have said, the elements of the periodic table, neither good nor bad in and of themselves but only as they impinge upon human experience, as a poison or as a key industrial product.

I am delighted that people like or dislike or evaluate art however they choose--whether they think it itself is imbued with Platonic Excellence or, like me, something that I like for any number of reasons. The end result is the same--opinion. The key thing is that it is nice and good to enjoy art along with like-minded others, without having to use a crutch of validating and supporting alleged "facts" about the intrinsic excellence of certain artworks. I cannot make my position more clear, and choose not to attempt to bury my opposition in an enormous mass of additional verbiage, as seems to be the necessary counterargument to the Subjectivist view--somehow Dumbo will find the feather and learn how to fly

I am not surprised since you have obviously constructed this position of yours for years.

You have deliberately and consciously chosen the great laser-focused simplification of a complicated matter. How that affects the conversation you participate in, I do not know.

Despite my opposite view on the matter, I hold on to my right for subjective opinions and preferences, too. I do not have to elaborate on or defend my every opinion nor do I expect that from others.

Still I choose to be polite, tolerate many kinds of utterances and not over-simplify complicated matters just because it’s easier.

 

[Waehnen]

Just a quick comment. When it comes to TC, maybe we should be practical before anything else. That is why I suggest the following:

• If someone makes a claim and it bothers you, ask if it is a subjective opinion or if the person thinks there is some "generally agreed" objectivity behind the claim
• If the claim is admittedly subjective, leave it there
• If the claim is said to carry "generally agreed objectivity", ask for arguments to back it up
• Discuss the arguments and points that are being presented with an open mind
• Never say "that is just your opinion" or in other rude way try to shut the other person up or implement your own value system

 

[Waehnen]

@Strange Magic

Is it your claim that there is no objective measure by which we can judge one of the below pictures to be greater than the other? I can claim that the stick man is a better work of art than the Mona Lisa and you'd take this claim seriously?

View attachment 167052 View attachment 167056

So it would seem now that the following is not accepted by everyone on TC as the generally accepted best way of having a conversation.

Person 1: "I think La Gioconda is generally agreed to be a greater piece of art than the Stick Man".

Person 2: "That is just your opinion. We have talked about this a lot on TC."

If I ever encounter a conversation like that again, I will refer to this thread. Thanks everyone!

 

[Waehnen]

I'm only vaguely aware of the folks you talk about and their obsession - if such it is - with knowing what's better and what's best. Rating and ranking seems to be normal and widespread human behavior, so I don't resent or worry about those who like to do it, but I have little interest in threads where it goes on. Lately we've been comparing singers over in the opera forum, having singers "compete" in the same music, and everyone seems to understand that excellence comes in many forms that aren't directly comparable and that our preferences are just that, no matter how we justify them. Competition thus becomes not an end in itself but a way of gaining exposure and insight, and those of us who participate are grateful for the experience. A number of us have attested to a growth in our understanding of singing and what makes it good or bad. Yes, we do believe there is such a thing as good singing! But we also see that not all good singing is good in the same ways.

In the present rather challenging debates about aesthetic value, I see little to none of the essentially juvenile mentality that needs to rank everything, and I don't find, or recognize, anyone here with an "extreme objective viewpoint," if you mean a viewpoint that denies any meaningful subjective contribution to our evaluations of art. I myself come back to this subject from time to time, mostly because as a lifelong practicing creative artist and musical performer I have personal experience of making artistic judgments that have direct consequences for me, and because I enjoy thinking and talking about the process and fancy I can do so in a perceptive way on the basis of experience that not everyone shares.

It's interesting to me to observe that in the process of trying to describe artistic judgement, how it works and what it means, I have to make many judgments of an aesthetic nature, which has the pleasantly affirming effect of demonstrating to me the very points I'm making. That there really are better and worse artistic products is something no real artist has ever doubted. It's unfortunate that the implications of that - or what are imagined to be its implications - make some people uncomfortable.

Excellent post. It sums up also my position.

Although I do believe there is art that represents certain rather generally accepted artistic and aesthetic values, principles and systems better than some other art, I really have no need to rank stuff.

I really do not have the need, will nor the skill to rank everything. After some line ranking also really becomes objectively impossible. But we have to be able to talk about the quality and skill in music and music making also as something else than just mere opinions.

Of course as a composer I get inspired by certain works and hold them closer — and will try to analyze just what is it about them that strikes me. And what it is about some other works that annoy me. But that is not compulsive ranking.

 

[Waehnen]

There is no question that there exist gradations of the value of art and of the means of establishing those gradations. All my position does is to bring this function down to the precise level where it is truly operative, the individual. Thus, the removal of the evaluating, judging function from A) the global population, B) special and distinct populations, and C) clusters of Experts and Enthusiasts, and instead imbuing each individual--unique, sui generis--with the power and the responsibility for evaluating art. This is unlike science--sometimes derided here even on TC--which depends upon the final coherence of views amid a mass of data points to arrive asymptotically to a closer understand of the real world. In art we are (all) free, and our opinions and judgments are of unique value to ourselves whether shared with others or not. Most/all individual choices and values will be shared with others, will form clusters of agreement, yet the totality of any one person's full body of what works for them as art will be unmatched by anyone else; we are uniquely who we are. I bring autonomy, validity, self-worth, confidence in one's choices into the hands of all, individually. We are all free to judge art in a way totally at variance with our ability to judge science, where one's opinions are finally subject to the realities of the natural world.

i hope this will clarify my position. I will cheerfully allow that I do find this never-ending discussion to be quite enjoyable from my perspective. I feel like the Three Musketeers and D'Artagnon rolled into one. I mean no harm to others, and my views detract nothing from the enthusiasm of others, despite fears to the contrary. Art is human construct that does not arrive at truly universal truths, despite the assertions of such advocates for its universal, inherent objectivity. I have made my position clear over my tenure here at TC, and wonder at the ongoing surprise, if any, that one could hold such views as myself.

I am happy to acknowledge your position as ONE valid and well articulated point in the field of music, and an especially useful one for enthusiastic listeners.

It hardly needs to be stated anymore that many of us have OTHER points as well which are also as valid and as necessary. You get this, right?

 

[Waehnen]

DELETED, THERE IS ANOTHER POST LATER IN THE THREAD.

 

[Waehnen]

I also wonder, btw, why can't we single out Mahler's symphonies (I'm not necessarily saying they fit the description above) in this thread, with statements like:

"the level of dismissiveness required to refuse to acknowledge the magnitude of artistic achievement in the language of Western music represented by Mahler's symphonies is mind-boggling."

They somehow don't deserve to be put on this pedestal according to the 'objectivitists' here, according to their Universal Laws of Objective Value?

Are you expecting some of us to consider ourselves "objectivists" who would possess "Universal Laws of Objective Value"? And of whom it would be honest to admit that the aim of all this has been to prove that objectively Mahler is the absolute pinnacle of Western music? And that everyone objecting to this are subjectivists who can be considered really bad listeners and who just do not have a valid right to dislike Mahler?

If there are this kind of fears and attitudes in the TC community, then I am worried.

 

[Waehnen]

-there is no art in the natural world, only objects existing, waiting to be valued by the human mind. Art springs out of our own minds and exists only there, and not in the products that are created.

Do you think a mountain does exist in the natural world but a fugue by a Bach does not exist in the natural world? If you think an art object exists only in the perceiver´s mind then logically a mountain also exists only in the perceiver´s mind.

Nevertheless we live in a world where we need to take into consideration that mountains exist and sometimes we need to move around them if we do not wish to climb them. Similar thing with art objects: you cannot play a Bach fugue on the piano without a physical piano or without practicing your playing. Should you also want someone to be interested in your Bach playing, it would also help to get some teaching or getting to know the tradition of Bach playing, and how the musical community (where the Bach fugue is performed) is organized.

You will get nowhere either climbing the mountain or playing the Bach if you just repeat: "This is just an opinion in the perceivers mind, this is just an opinion in the perceivers mind..."

I sense some really illogical ontology here to be frank. It seems to be suitable only to mentally defend a listener who feels their listening preferences is threatened by some assumed objectivist elitists.

 

[Waehnen]

See my reply to Woodduck. Being defensive is not part of my nature as the mods will tell you. Nor is feeling threatened by tastes other than my own. And I repeat my mantra about art=opinion because I believe it to be a correct view: Here I Stand. You seem to be looking always for some middle ground halfway between Y and Z--Some say (let's postulate) that the earth is a cube; others that it is a sphere. Is your answer then that the earth is a cube with quite rounded corners and edges? I think not.

You totally skipped my comparison of a piece of art to a mountain. In your value system you give a piece of art some fundamentally other ontological status than you give a mountain.

Then again it is a fact both a mountain and a piece of art exist also in the natural world fundamentally in a similar way. Neither one of them is merely a subjective opinion in the mind of a perceiver. Living in this physical world you need to acknowledge the attributes a mountain and a piece of art possess in the perceivable dimensions and as information.

I have to admit your ontology is illogical and bad and it doesn’t carry credibility in any other way than being a ”handy abstractive tool for independent listeners”.

Only if you lived as some neural network on a distant space ship seperated physically from this world, could you to some practical extent talk about these abstract objects like mountains and pieces of art as though they were seperate from the natural world relevant to you. But still the fundamental ontology of neither object would be different.

Here on this planet it is just a very silly choice to ignore the ontology of a mountain and to claim it is just an opinion in the mind of a perceiver. I do not buy this position of yours.

Also I cannot hold ”changing the mind of Strange Magic” indicative of me and others opposing you being succesful in this discussion. It is obvious you will not ever admit to being inaccurate and not having found the only valid way of seing this. You have built your laser-focused position too long for that.

 

[Waehnen]

Your reply above indicates beyond doubt that you utterly and continuously fail to grasp my meaning. Of course a mountain and an art object can and do exist physically. But a mountain exists whatever is thought about it. An art object exists purely as an object without further definition other than what, like the mountain, can be measured, weighed, its color and height determined, etc. The mountain can become art if someone looks at it and declares it so. An art object is the same, though created by a human mind, it is an art object only if viewed as such by a perceiver. Otherwise it is dead, lump, a blob, a thing having no inherent property as "Art" If a mountain--not a painting of a mountain--is declared art, then who is its creator? Bishop Berkeley has one answer. If everything is or can be Art, then the arbitrariness, the subjectiveness of Art is fully on display.

I am content that we will never agree on these matters. I have bid goodbye to DaveM and Woodduck on this topic as we have spent many hundreds of posts on it when we could be listening to music of our choice, and you can mine those posts for ore for your thesis. I have engaged you as one relatively new to this discussion, but it is time to draw the curtain on the show and for everyone to go home, tired and maybe flushed with a sense of victory. I know I will.

A work of art also exists ”whatever is thought about it”, just like the mountain. It is you who CHOOSES to give an art object an ontological status — which in your value system allows you to treat the object with new laws of physics invented by yourself. After that you try to hold us accountable for your choices and speak language invented by you in an alternative universe you have also invented.

There are no art objects ontologically different from a mountain. The ontological art object status is your own invention.

 

[Waehnen]

@Strange Magic

Well, I got it. I'm not sure why it's so hard to see it - the difference between an 'art' object and 'art'. Not only did I get it, I find it an entirely helpful clarification.

It is not a clarification but an arbitrary ontological extra status invented to free the listener from any exhausting bindings to the reality. It allows false omnipotency. It is the easy way.

 

[Waehnen]

That's your interpretation and you're welcome to it. You only have to have attempted to follow the several threads that have discussed what is 'Beauty', or 'Music', or 'Art' to know that such matters are never resolved into a final consensus definition: it's up to us to settle on what serves us best. If this 'clarification' doesn't suit you, that's fine.

It really is an arbitrary and false ontological choice created to allow omnipotency for the listener. It is also an excuse to ignore the reality behind art. It is not a valid choice for anyone, only a handy abstract tool for listeners who want to bath in their own imagined independency.

 

[Waehnen]

It took me ten seconds to find an exploration of 'art as a human concept' that questionns the investment in objects by an academic - so you don't have to take the word of a stranger on the internet. It doesn't "explain" what Strange Magic has been going on about, it just illustrates that there is a debate out there about what Art is, and it's not settled.

Art as Human Practice: An Aesthetics

How much does art really matter to human life? To paraphrase Auden on poetry, perhaps art doesn't make anything happen (at least in politics, in human m...

ndpr.nd.edu

Multiple practical approaches and the absolute freedom of a listener I accept but not fundamental ontological claims motivated solely by convenience of an individual. Ontology is hard science.

 

[Waehnen]

I don't agree that SM is defining art solely to suit himself. The ontology of Art is hard, but at the end of the day, we can all decide for ourselves what the word means and what art objects should be included or excluded. If all this deciding works for philosophers over the years, there's no reason why we can't do it too.

History of the Ontology of Art (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

I would have accepted and even suggested myself that ”the SM approach” would have been a one convenient and practical way of seeing things, one articulation on the matter. One ”mode of being” like expressed in the article.

Nevertheless SM insisted that their approach is the only right way of seing this, just like the earth is round. That’s where the claims became fundamental with profound consequences in ontology.

I will never accept that in the deepest sense of reality and ontology an art object would be entitled to different kinds of laws of physics than a mountain.

An art object status given to an object is a choice made by human cognition. This is obvious and not debatable.

Trying to seperate an art object from it’s natural environment and laws of physics and to give it a totally new status at the mercy of the omnipotent listener is the lazy and selfcentered and naive way of perceiving the field of art.

Thank you all.

 

[Waehnen]

I am composing a symphony, you know. It doesn’t happen by itself. Creating it demands huge amount of time, effort, perspiration, cognitive functions, technical expertise and artistic and aesthetic knowledge and contemplation. I pour my whole personality and history and being into this piece of work.

This symphony of mine is deeply and thoroughly rooted and anchored in this world, the very same reality where I have taken a funicular up a huge mountain. This symphony could not happen without the history of music, without the musical field, this very time and place and existing as a human being.

Nobody has to like it. But this symphony is not merely an abstract object or an opinion. I wish people were able to see something of what is built into it and somehow be interested in it. I wish it communicated something of this existence. I wish people heard something else in it other than their own opinion and ****.

Sorry.

 

[Waehnen]

This forum is not a seminar of musicology so I will have to stop myself from laying out a path for the most objective truth possible on the matter.

I will just say on what criteria I am stating that Sibelius is the greatest symphonist of all time. As an homage to the great 7 symphonies, I will only stick to 7 points for now. (I will continue if needed.)

1. Master of tonality: Strong harmonic tendencies, strong and expressive chord sequences, use of clusters, chromatism, modality and other scales. In my opinion only Bach, Wagner and Chopin are as capable in the field of tonality as Sibelius. Not even Beethoven or Brahms come as far, great though they are. Mahler, Bruckner and Shostakovich are far behind.

2. Master of melodies: Sibelius Symphonies are full of melodies which are both intellectually stimulating, expressive, emotional and beautiful in their own right. Only Schubert, Tchaikovsky, Chopin and Wagner rival Sibelius is this. There is something meaningfully singable in every movement. Without being a master melodist, Sibelius would not been as great a symphonist.

3. Master of the grand scale and architecture: Sibelius’ symphonies are known to be complex and rich entities which are also able to create the sense of unity and balance. There is great unity in the great complex diversity. This resulted in new symphonic forms and structures. No one is quite at Sibelius’ level in this prospect.

4. Master of thematic and motific metamorphoses. Sibelius adabted this principle from Beethoven and Brahms and is an equal of them in coherence yet surpasses both in the abundance of the directions and details gained despite the strict symphonic logic.

5. Stimulus of both intellect and emotion is always present in all Sibelius. This is one of the key features in Immanuel Kant’s aesthetics: A strong artistic experience is formed when a strong emotional feeling comes together with intellectual conception of the form. This balance is strong in Sibelius in an unique way.


6. Nobody can deny the expressive powers of the Sibelius symphonies. In that way Sibelius applies the Tolstoi principle: art must always express something. Sibelius’ music communicates strongly. Every symphony expresses different things. There is nature, there is sense of home, there is patriotism, feeling of getting old, there is nostalgia, there is nocturnal atmospheres, there is the expression of suffering, there is landscape, humanism, cosmic aspects, sorrow and joy... Only Beethoven and Mahler come close to Sibelius in the variety of expressive symphonic powers. Sibelius’ music carries so much MEANING through the musical language he was able to create based on the previous generations and his own genius imagination.


7. Sibelius Symphonies are extremely diverse. You could easily take almost whatever Mahler movement and put it into another one of his symphonies and maybe change the key and with some other minor modifications make it work. Same with Brahms and Bruckner: it is always the same voice, strong though they are. The 1st Symphony of Sibelius couldn’t be farther away from the 7th. Only Beethoven rivals Sibelius in this prospect but if we include programmatic Symphonic Poems by Sibelius, Sibelius surpasses even Beethoven.

The text quoted above is just about the most objectivist I might occasionally feel getting. Then again my objectivism above is basically just being honest and making SOME arguments for the sake of conversation even though it is obvious there will never be an objective, final and definite answer to who really was the greatest symphonist of all time.

But I think there is some value in attempts like the one above (even though I don’t myself agree with myself on all points at the time). I would like to encourage such attempts — rather than saying that just stick to your opinion, articulate it in one sentence and tell everyone else to do the same.

The value in aspiring some objectivity should be admitted. For example, it has been the more objectivist or analytical TC posts that really have helped me forward into understanding Mahler. People who have been patient enough to explain.

Then again I value pure and simple opinions, too. I even enjoy the numerous polls to an extent.

 

[Waehnen]

Most of the writers here do acknowledge both the subjective freedom of the listener to like or dislike whatever they desire, and that to various degrees music has qualities that can be researched and discussed through the common methods of science and philosophy and common talk aiming at objective values.

In a forumist environment, everyone should be allowed to address these issues the way they want whilst at the same time showing respect towards fellow forumists.

Do we all agree on this? Is there still a problem?