[SanAntone]

Of course it does. As you would have it, pure subjectivity at the heart of all evaluations implies that all evaluations are equal. If they are not, then something objective is in play.

Nope. What it means is that someone reacts to a piece of music positively or negatively. In essence they create their own "canon" of works/composers. Obviously they do not think all works are equal.

 

[SanAntone]

Of course, but why would any other listener care?

I am interested in people's passions/enthusiasms, about music, reading, cooking, fishing - it doesn't matter what the subject is, I am interested in hearing about someone's interests. It has been the basis for all my friendships and romantic involvements.

I am very interested when someone talks about the music they love, but am bored when someone tells me about a review they read, or a list of great composers, or that a specific work is considered great.

 

[SanAntone]

So then why is there so much upset if someone says "avant garde music/hip hop/pop is garbage"? That's as valid a vote as any.

To the extent I am bothered by someone dissing a kind of music I like it is similar to someone saying my wife is ugly (that hasn't happened, but it would be hurtful if it had).

We have a personal stake in the music we find interesting, valuable, good. I consider it a form of rudeness for someone to go out of their way to call music worthless that they know someone likes. It is unnecessary and only designed to be unkind.

But it would not be hurtful to say, "I don't like avant-garde/ hip-hop music."

 

[SanAntone]

True, but some just may subjectively call it honesty.

One can't subjectively say that hip-hop is garbage unless they qualify it by adding, "to me." Attempting to claim that an entire genre of music is garbage, objectively, is not only untrue, but insulting to anyone who finds value in that music.

Why do we (collectively) engage in this objective/subjective debate so often on TC?

 

[SanAntone]

There is a world of difference in stating a dislike for a kind of music, and "looking down" on it and those who enjoy it.

 

[SanAntone]

I thought that went without saying.

Not in a discussion of objective/subjective judgments.

I find it more engaging when someone describes their preferences in like/dislike language as opposed to garbage/great language. The former is a conversation starter, the latter a conversation ender, and a hint to me that should avoid that person in the future.

 

[SanAntone]

They're both valid subjective reactions.

Are you intentional being obtuse, or do you sincerely not understand how language can be rude?

 

[SanAntone]

Sorry but I'm detecting traces of some kind of objectivity in statements like that. It's somehow objectively true that nothing is really "garbage". I'm just following the logic of "every vote is equally valid".

There is a difference in expressing an opinion and rendering a judgment. I am only really interested in discussions of opinions and find judgment based statements to be presumptuous and disrespectful. It is probably at the root of why people think of Classical music fans as snobs.

I am also not interested in philosophical debates about whether art/music can be objectively assessed.

For me, the interest is in getting to know someone through their description of the kind of music which they find interesting and engaging. Not in hearing about the music they think is better than another kind of music, or the kind of music they think is garbage.

 

[SanAntone]

What's the difference?

I thought I had explained that in the rest of my post you snipped.

 

[SanAntone]

Well you really didn't define either. Just "opinion good" "judgement bad".

Opinion = expressing like/dislike, always interpreted as a subjective, personal, view
Judgment = expressing value or worth, usually implying some objective basis

Opinion is neutral, respectful of others' opinions; judgment presumes the superiority of a personal view stemming from an elevated opinion of oneself.

 

[SanAntone]

If someone says they hate Baroque music, that's a valid response. If someone says they hate avant garde, that's a personal attack.

Both of those views are neutral opinions, and perfectly acceptable and polite. It doesn't matter if the music that is hated is Baroque or avant-garde, what is being expressed is a personal opinion.

However, saying avant-garde music is garbage is not a neutral opinion, but a value judgment, and disrespectful if said to someone who has just expressed their admiration for a piece of avant-garde music.

 

[SanAntone]

Saying such and such is "garbage" is the same as saying you hate it

Oh, no, I find that the two statements are completely different. As I said saying one "hates" a piece of music is an opinion about taste in music. However, saying that the music is "garbage", is an attempt to characterize the music with an implication that the speaker has the expertise to make such a value judgment.

The first opinion is a perfectly acceptable expression of personal preference.

The second claim cannot be supported since no one can have such expertise to characterize and entire genre of music as garbage, and it would be hard to justify even concerning a single work. For every expert that says a work is garbage there will be two to say it is a masterpiece.

 

[SanAntone]

Acceptable? Who or what is determining acceptability?

IMO it is not rude or disrespectful to state a negative opinion about music or composer that I may admire, e.g. "I cannot tolerate the music of John Cage.". To each his own. But to instead say, e.g., that John Cage is a charlatan is what I would consider rude and disrespectful to all those members who have expressed admiration for his work.

This is my own view and one in which you may not agree. For all I know you have never been invested in a composer or his music enough to take offense if someone told you his music was garbage. Or maybe you think that my skin is not thick enough.

I don't know.

All I feel sure of is that the kind of disrespectful language I am describing is unnecessary in order to express a negative opinion, it is gratuitously judgmental and goes beyond stating a preference of taste.

 

[SanAntone]

A few thoughts after reading through the lat few pages of posts:

1. Artists definitely have intent in their work. While they may not be consciously aware or involved in every nuance later audiences find in a work, I think they are certainly capable of using the materials in a work to communicate ideas and themes.

2. When the work is completed and enters the public realm, find an audience, it has a life of its own, divorced from the artist's intentions, except only what is obvious superficially. Without an accompanying essay explaining the work, the artist's intention can only be guessed at, or discovered through analysis - although it remains speculative. This is a dicey game, allowing opportunistic critics to find their own philosophy within just about any work. (Remember the essay by G.F. Haas regarding the Erlking?)

3. Does it ultimately matter if we know the artist's intention? Are we able to get something out of a work by perceiving our own meaning in it? The answer for me is most definitely.

 

[SanAntone]

In one of the previous threads that focused on the objective/subjective conundrum I put forward the idea of informed subjectivity. What I mean by IS is precisely what has been posted in the last few posts, i.e. musicians, composers, scholars and even professional critics, who possess a level of knowledge, training, and experience that informs their subjective response with a large dose of analytical expertise.

In one of my much earlier posts I theorized that the consensus about a work's greatness that has evolved over two-three centuries was made up of this kind of peer group, who handed down an informed assessment of the works and composers of their time who were better than others.

We have inherited this consensus judgment usually called the test of time.

However, no matter how informed a response may be, it is still a subjective response. Just one that includes a healthy amount of expertise, and knowledge, which allows that listener more of an ability to perceive a well-written composition as opposed to one that they simply enjoy.

 

[SanAntone]

I largely agree but wonder what CM we like that we do not consider well-written. My problem is that certain pieces are too long and thus I do not like them as much and can complain that is was not well-written.

I usually don't think about the quality of a work as I listen to it; I am simply reacting intuitively to the music. I am a trained musician and have analyzed plenty of works and at one time could explain why a Beethoven sonata, or a Maher symphony, or a Berg opera is well-written. I haven't done that kind of thing in a long time and have no interest in it anymore.

I turn off that part of my brain while I am listening.

 

[SanAntone]

The very mention of some level of the ability to perceive a week-written composition infers objective information being used to make the distinction.

Yes, there are certain objective stylistic traits in a work of the 18th century - but these traits were shared by all of the composers of time of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. The audience of that time was much more familiar with this style, and actually heard it differently than we can today since for them it was second nature. It wasn't until about 100 years (~ 1840) after the fact that the term "sonata-allegro form" was codified into music theory.

When Haydn was writing what today we call a sonata form movement he did not think in those terms, nor did his audience. Haydn, and all of the composers of his day wrote movements which later came to be called sonata-allegro form and generally the Classical period style was recognized. But Haydn was simply writing in the style of his period - but perceived to have been doing it better than his peers. At least that is what is evidenced by contemporaneous accounts.

Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven were considered great during their lifetimes, for bringing the prevailing style of their time to its highest level, and that judgment has continued to this day.

But this determination is somewhat soft in that there are still many variables and judgment calls which are subjective in nature. How much better was Beethoven than Hummel? This kind of question cannot be answered, or if so, differently depending upon which scholar you ask.

But the bottomline is that their music continues to be relevant and meaningful to us, and it is not simply because we have been repeatedly taught that their music is great.

 

[SanAntone]

I understand what you’re saying, but the judgment of well-written music of the period also involved not just music written in the style of the period, but also original orchestration and innovation that resulted in a particular quality of music never heard before.

This is also true of all periods. But there are intangible variables which contribute to a composer's fame: personal charisma; luck of writing in a style which happens to be trending; being in the right place and before the right people at an opportune time; capturing the imagination of the period in one work. Also, not an intangible, but how prolific a composer is also factors into their fame.

These intangible variables are often what determine who is remembered and who is marginalized since often the skill of composers is comparable, or at least not so different as to explain why Beethoven is so much more revered than Hummel.

 

[SanAntone]

Now that Hummel is mentioned, some things we should consider-

I agree that Hummel was a great composer. But he was surpassed by Beethoven in the judgment of history - most likely because of subjective criteria.

 

[SanAntone]

The idea of "valuing expert opinion" isn't really offensive to me because it smacks of snobbery - it strikes me as wrong because- in practice, it ends up being an after-the-fact way to justify your own personal tastes under the guise of objectivism. It's a sin of disingenuity, not necessarily snobbery.

I dunno; I enjoy reading books by scholars about a period or composer. Their expertise is enlightening. I am after the information, not validation of my own taste. Music history is a fact; certain composers have had more of an impact than other composers.

Trying to say why is difficult. It is not simply that they wrote better music than their peers.