Thanks. This might be a hint of what the misunderstanding is.
That 'logic' (for crafting a sonnet) comes from human traditions and the rules that have developed from those human 'rules'.
It's a huge difference. Music's reliable logic comes from physics and adaptations (the evolving brain) in our natural history.
I'd disagree. A preference toward objectively measurable aspects of music is just another form of aesthetic preference, bias, opinion, whatever one might want to call it.You need to read up on the definition of bias. An opinion can reflect bias, but opinions are not necessarily biased. In fact, the more objective the opinion, the less it reflects bias.
This is literally just the subjectivist argument, restated. I would certainly be surprised if a "subjectivist" would attempt to discount someone's personal preference. It would be different if one claimed to have proof that cherry pie was quantitatively better than apple.But if I say cherry is better, you have absolutely no argument except your objectivist "there's no such thing as 'better' ". And then we can go on another 60-page epistemological odyssey.
There may certainly be objectively measurable ways of evaluating music, such as popularity, or even craftsmanship. The point where personal preference comes into it is how much any given listener is inclined to value these things.As they say, people are entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. A definition of objective is: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
So what you have stated above is an oxymoron.
"Bias" I think is unfortunately a mild pejorative in everyday use- when one complains that someone is biased for or against art, it usually implies some extra-aesthetic reasoning, such as being biased toward American composers, biased against composers for political reasons, etc, etc. In reality, "bias" is a perfectly accurate word to describe aesthetic preference, though it's also a good example of why defining terms can be important.One problem in this thread is people using words when they have no idea what they mean. Biases are cognitive short-cuts that can be found in everything from reasoning to value judgments. Human cognition requires them because our brains aren't supercomputers. All a bias means is that given any input X the brain is "biased" to do Y and end up in Z state, and do so quickly and efficiently. In terms of aesthetic judgment, a bias simply means that the brain is primed to react to X art in Y way ending up in Z state. Biases are basically what we mean by "tastes." There's no such thing as a non-biased value judgment of any sort.
Pointing out what someone's biases are does not have to imply that the person pointing it out is unbiased or "knows the truth." On subjective matters, like aesthetic judgments, we all have biases. Nobody knows "the reality" or "the truth" because there is no such thing.
Someone earlier in this thread was very much expressing the "learned" form of musical enjoyment, where you pour over the score, try to understand (that word!) it in a theoretical sense, know it front to back etc. If I had any short thesis, it'd be that doing this is just another form of enjoyment as is any other.Not arrogance, just facts. It's also a fact that many here are far more educated about music than I am. The problem is that some here think that being educated about objective features of music translates to more objective aesthetic judgments; they don't because the two inhabit different, unrelated spheres. But to understand that you have to understand some philosophy, not music.
Anyone could say the same about trying to understand the mechanisms and contexts examining why and how human beings interact with, and enjoy art, and viewing any given work of music through that lens. There's a reason philosophers wrote about art all the time, and it's not because of a lack of things to write about.But it does, at least in a way. When you understand the structure of a fugue or sonata form, you do enjoy the music in a more objective way. You know what it's "about".
I've sometimes noticed that musicians, composers and artists can have - for lack of a better word - unusual tastes in art, and I think the idea that musicians "see things differently" than an average listener would is a big part of that. Living your life in music, music theory, music criticism, music writings, etc - is going to give you strong views on music that someone approaching it from a standard listener's perspective might not have.Imagine the mistakes that a non-musician would make in composing or playing, or even discussing the world of experience a musician has.