@Torkelburger, I appreciate your replies but I'm not sure if or how long I will be able to maintain this discussion. Replying to posts in the "Profundity Revisited" thread is already taking up most of the time I have to spend online. I will, at the very least, make one assail at this initial volley of replies.
So, you cannot think of any objective way at all, none whatsoever, of telling the difference between writing notes down completely randomly with no thought process behind them and by writing them down through intelligent means with purpose, design, and craftmanship? The two ways are indecipherable? You really can’t tell the difference? Strange, that.
I'm not sure what this has to do with the post your responded to; but, sure, there is certainly, at least most of the time, a discernible difference between writing music randomly and doing so with purpose and design. I can't fathom what this had to do with a quote about IQ tests, though...
Originally posted by Eva Yojimbo:--"They are perfectly credible judges as to how a fugue makes someone who doesn't know what a fugue is makes them feel."
That is not what we are talking about. At least me. The problem through these entire discussions is as follows: there is a huge difference between 1) CRAFT and 2) STYLE/AESTHETICS. You are confusing the two and using them interchangeably.
You are talking about style and aesthetics, which doesn’t always even pertain to art, really. Take aesthetics. A sunset or a flower is not designed or created by anyone, but is still “moving”, “pleasing to the eye”, “aesthetically satisfying”, etc.
And look at musical performance (as opposed to composition). There is CRAFT and there is STYLE (and aesthetics). I am a professional tubist, for example. There is one, and only one, correct and proper way to physically play the tuba. This is CRAFT. That is not up for debate. However, when myself, or Gene Pokorny, or Warren Deck, are to perform the tuba solo from Mahler’s First, we can STYLE the music aesthetically different to suit our own (or the conductor’s) purpose. And that IS up for debate, and is open to make people feel however you want, like or dislike. But we all go by the same principles of CRAFT. Same with singers, etc. What have you. This goes for composition too.
I don't think I'm confusing the two at all, and I'm certainly not sure how you got from that bit of my post you quoted that I'm mixing them up. I generally agree with the distinction you make between craft and style, though when you describe the way of playing a Tuba I'd be more inclined to label that technique than craft, but that's a minor point. I'm also not sure how this relates to composition since the end-goal of composition is, by whatever craft or technique, to make music that people judge as aesthetically valuable, and history has shown there are millions of different forms of craft and techniques capable of generating even more aesthetic styles that people respond to as being aesthetically valuable; and the value of any craft or technique producing any aesthetic is only valid within the group of the people that value that aesthetic. To make a concrete example, the technique and craft of singing is very different in opera than it is in most other genres whose aesthetic goals are different from those of opera.
If they know absolutely nothing about the CRAFT of composition, then their opinion of it means absolutely nothing. Nada. They can’t even give an opinion about it, so it doesn’t matter anyway. If the style or aesthetics doesn’t move them, fine. Experts who judge music, judge it by the objective standards involving craftmanship. I, myself may not like a certain composer or composition by a certain composer because I do not like its style or aesthetics, but that does not mean I do not recognize its merits in craftmanship that I can objectively see are there and are recognized by others, many of whom are more informed on such matters than myself.
Their opinion might not mean anything as it relates to the craft, but it means plenty as it relates to how the aesthetics of that craft affect someone who is ignorant of that craft. Before you say this is meaningless too, please consider that most all music and all art are not created by professionals for other professionals, but by professionals for a laymen audience. The notion that laymen's opinions don't count is contradicted by the fact of whom the vast majority of artists have always created art for, including most of the great composers. I also reject the idea that musicians objectively judge music by "standards of craftsmanship," as if they aren't biased and possess personal aesthetic tastes like everyone else. Musicians may incorporate concerns of craft into their judgment in a way that laymen audience's don't, but to act as if that's all they care about in terms of aesthetic evaluations is simply false. Also, even the choice of choosing to judge music (or any art) on "the standards of craft" is a subjective choice, as is the choice of WHICH standards of craft to choose, as if there was only one.
Originally posted by Eva Yojimbo:--"The simple response is thus: if the argument is that music is one of the arts that is capable of bypassing our intellectual barriers and reaching straight into and affecting our emotions and aesthetic responses then any music that's capable of doing that should be able to do that for anyone regardless of their knowledge or ignorance of any of the music's technical qualities."
The thing is though, which you should recognize, is that many people find music which is intellectual, logical, and intelligently written makes them happy and will get an emotional response from those features.
I agree.
Originally posted by Eva Yojimbo:--"Music is different than literature. All of literature's emotional, dramatic, and aesthetic impact requires as a prerequisite the intellectual understanding of the language it's written in. Music isn't like this. People can delight in sound and patterns of sound and all its aesthetic, dramatic, tonal, etc. potential without understanding one iota of theory."
Not so fast. Understanding a language and understanding theory are two different things, not interchangeable as you are doing here. Just because someone understands the words of Joyce, does not mean they understand the theory of how Ulysses was written and the merits of its craftmanship. And I highly doubt the native people of Indonesia would get the same emotional, dramatic, and aesthetic impact out of Mozart as they do from gamelan music and vice versa (European vs. gamelan). There is a certain degree of exposure/understanding (given that musical vocabularies often reflect the sounds and patterns of the language of the culture in which it is from) necessary to levels of appreciation.
IIRC, someone else made the comparison of someone judging literature when not understanding the language it was written in, which prompted that response. I agree understanding a language and understanding the craft of literature is also different things, but that wasn't what the post I was responding to was about. I basically agree with what you're saying here.
