It seems to be the same in very field, wherein experts study beyond the level of general knowledge and experience. With music though, i can't find a helpful analogy.
First, I was responding to his posts point-by-point as he was mine. Second, I guarantee I could find plenty of long posts by Woodduck in threads I wasn't even apart of.
I was not the first to broach objectivity/subjectivity in this thread (beyond just alluding to the other thread). However, every concept discussed in this thread is philosophical: "understanding" is epistemology, "appreciation" is aesthetics, "inexorable logic" is, well, logic (one of the oldest branches of philosophy).
I didn't say it CAN'T lead to more enjoyment, I said it doesn't HAVE TO. I could teach someone to recognize sonata form within a week (probably less); it's not difficult. Do you think their ability to recognize/understand this form would automatically lead to them enjoying classical music more than whatever popular music they preferred before it? Of course not. Understanding how music (any music) works will only lead to more enjoyment for those who care about such things to begin with. Explaining a joke rarely makes a joke funnier; knowing how magic works rarely makes illusions more (rather than less) magical. Music is no different for many.
Blame evolutionary psychology. Evolutionarily speaking our brains treat anything that's important to us as if it were objectively true because our brains evolved to survive and reproduce. Anything that's important to us is (to our brains) important for our survival or reproduction, so it's useful to treat it as if it's true an not question it. You tend to see this mind-projection fallacy in any arena in which people are very passionate. Most don't care enough about music to think their tastes are objectively good, right, better, etc.; you only see these attitudes on forums like this where people are really passionate about music. You'll find the same is true in politics, religion, morality, etc.
Actually, I think you'd fine that one side (mostly myself and SM) were quite certain that we were UNcertain about what was being discussed, and despite our continued querying of what was meant by certain terms, no (or very little, and all very late) clarification was forthcoming.
It's a logical consequence of thinking some music is objectively better than some other music. If you prefer this objectively better music you would then have objectively good taste by preferring the objectively good/better music.
Yes, except your parenthesis is wrong: why in the world would "the most scrupulous subjectivists" NOT have an internal hierarchy?
I don't even recall seeing that.
Perhaps, but we know evolution happens, and we know we're the product of evolution, and we know evolution tunes us for survival/reproduction. None of that is a "just-so" story as evolution itself is, outside of some theories in physics, the most rigorously tested theory in the history of science. Knowing that it's just a matter of figuring out why or how any aspect of a species, including their psychology, could've benefited their survival and reproduction. That may not be a fool-proof method for a number of reasons, such as the idea that vestigial features can exist that never served much purpose but didn't cause harm either and were thus never bred out of the species (like male nipples).
You don't recall seeing some people claiming some music is objectively better than other music?
No, most of what I have seen is the thought that there may be objective elements to musical "greatness". I don't recall ever seeing anyone say Bach is objectively greater than Beethoven or the Beatles for that matter.
Fine. What I meant was that each side argued a particular meaning of particular terms and felt they knew the clear meaning of what they were arguing. Because each side was arguing about a different meaning of the same terms (e.g. "inexorable logic" and subjective/objective), little progress was made. I care vastly less about whose "fault" it was.
Is Bach objectively better than Justin Bieber?
My honest answer is that it's apples and oranges. Is Shakespeare objectively better than Dr Seuss?
That's interesting since I believe some of us felt that many, many pages of the debate between subjective and objective greatness had one side arguing that greatness is subjective while the other side argued forcefully against that (i.e. greatness is objective). Personally I felt that no one believed that greatness is truly objective, but the faction that argued against the subjective side certainly pushed back quite hard for a long time.
If this is what you truly think then you're basically saying the same as us subjectivists. Your entire issue seems to be that "we" can't explain why many consider Bach or certain composers great. I've tried to explain that that's a question only science can truly, definitively answer. Anything else is just a guess, and while objective musical analysis is fine it's only ever going to get us part of the way there.
Normally I wouldn't care about "fault" either, but it's hard to overlook when things start becoming rather hostile. I just don't get why it was so hard for many here to clarify what they meant. I'm always ready to clarify what I mean to the best of my abilities, but then I get accused of writing too long posts when I do that; but we've also seen what happens when ambiguity runs rampant.
A glimmer of understanding. To my knowledge, every subjectivist has their own unique and authentic hierarchy ranking things from low to high. I certainly do. Don"t we all? Why would anyone think otherwise?
All the rancor aside, I would agree. I do not pretend to know and be able to pinpoint every single thing that makes Bach great to me and to millions of others, or Handel or Mozart or Beethoven or the Rolling Stones for that matter. I don't think even experts in music theory can do such. They may be able to identify and express some things with a little more precision. But the problem I have with the debate is that there seems to be this tendency among, shall we say, card-carrying subjectivists that if someone says "Bach is the greatest composer ever" -- or Beethoven or Wagner or whoever -- then we get the sermons about how there really is no good, better, best, worst. And that doesn't resolve or explain anything. Nor does the pointless Strange Magic type of trollish badgering for "proof". I don't need any proof, nor have I ever asked for proof in support of someone else's preferences.
There's that condescension again. There is no "glimmer of understanding". Nobody has really stated anything much different from that.
