Classical Music Forum banner
1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
honestly, "appreciate' is usually one of those damning-with-faint-praise words I use when I get the appeal of a piece, or get its importance in the context of musical history, but don't particularly care for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
To be compelled to dive into a piece, and to see its inner workings note by note, and analyze how it functions is just another form of love.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
At some point I feel like an analogy is saying that there isn't anything inherent about film which requires us to assume that the scenes are in temporal order, or that cross-cutting implies two things happening simultaneously, or that if you zoom in on a character and do a dissolve fade it means it's a flashback. Sure, but where does that really get us?

Classical is a form of art with conventions that the audience for the music has at least some familiarity with, even if they may not know it, in the same way that you don't need to know film editing to get what crosscutting or a montage implies narratively. I think we can accept that as an axiom, as ill-defined as it might be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
Film and literature do not demonstrate "inexorable logic" but the audience and readers of such things accept generic conventions that allow those things to exist within that framework.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
If I'm trying to communicate something, it's that while questioning and even playing with these conventions can be an interesting topic of discussion, I also think it's a reasonable assumption that the audience for a work is going to have familiarity with those conventions, even if it's via culturally-learned immersion, intuition, actual technical learning, or whatever. More to your point, I think, breaking these conventions is something which only has significance because those conventions exist in the first place - you can not cheat if there are no rules.

I don't think I've ever read an analysis of any given film, for instance, which assumes that we start from absolute zero base principles and explains that film is generally accepted to be a narrative medium, in chronological order, and about two hours or so long. It may be an interesting topic (one which I'm certain has been covered in endless papers and writings) to see how the framework of orchestral music allows for a sort of narrative concept like "inexorable logic" to exist in an abstract form, but I don't think it's necessary to start from square zero to do so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
I think "Inexorable" is fine as an aesthetic descriptor - I've seen it frequently used as such. I could say a work "heads inexorably to a tragic conclusion", for instance - this is primarily an aesthetic statement, though.

Anyway if one wants to be objective, one really should be prepared to concretely define things. Someone even mentioned "intelligence" earlier as an objective measure which was funny since there's no agreed academic definition on it!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
Like "dirty pictures", I think most take the old Potter Stewart definition of "I know it when I see it" when it comes to defining what "intelligence" is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
To put it another way, I've said of some great finals that the work "couldn't have ended any other way." that of course is not a literal statement, nor does it even imply that there isn't, in the void, a potential finale that I might have found even more effective had it only been written. When something affects me greatly, though, it can be impossible to think it could be improved upon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
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.

If that's true, what does it say when the "rules" and expectations of music change over time?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
There actually does seem to be something of an asymmetry here, but I think it's just a consequence of the implications of objective viewpoints on music. If one does want to use certain metrics to define and quantify art, it's an entirely reasonable question to ask that those metrics be specifically defined.

One couldn't say someone was "objectively more intelligent" than someone else, but, when asked to prove this, fail to give whatever of the myriad definitions of "intelligence" they were basing this on. If this seems unfair - well, maybe there's a good reason people have trouble finding specific objective metrics to judge art by.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
If that's the position, I think there's no real disagreement with the "subjective" or whatever, position- I think it's been pretty consistently stated that "objective" evaluations of music are, deep down, not any different than any other aesthetic evaluation.

Also the specific argument was that "Logic" was something that could be concretely demonstrated with music theory, and that some works were in possession of it, and some were not, which is somewhat different than the argument being stated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
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.
"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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
Many people make fun of the terminology used in academic fields, but this thread, and others is a good example of why those exist - it's good to have terms to express agreed-upon concepts in shorthand because nobody wants to reinvent the wheel from first principles every time a discussion starts, and, as it turns out, it's very frustrating to discuss things when terminology is ambiguous, as so many everyday words are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
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.
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.

I remember some article about reading Joyce, and about how there were readers who loved to pour over his text, and look up every mythological and historical reference he made-and others who liked to enjoy his text on a purely aesthetic level, reading it aloud and enjoying the rhythm. The author mentioned that these groups were often at each other's throats, funny enough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
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".
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.

What we mean when we say we "understand" art versus "appreciate" art is, at its core, a philosophical question. It's silly to object to that being brought up in this thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
As with the Joyce people always being at each others throats, I think it's easy to get dogmatic about these things and about how others enjoy art.

Someone might characterize "pure aesthetic pleasure" guys as being all about dumbed-down surface-level me-first analysis, while others might pejoratively characterize the formalists as dissecting the frog, or bring up the old joke about a capitalist, or a businessman - the guy who knows the price of everything, but the value of nothing.

I think it's good to have a lot of lenses through which to view things, but in the end, nobody is wrong to derive enjoyment from art in the way that they prefer. Excessive dogmatism just reminds me of this old joke article -

Rectangle Font Parallel Screenshot Circle
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
Imagine the mistakes that a non-musician would make in composing or playing, or even discussing the world of experience a musician has.
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.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top