Classical Music Forum banner
401 - 420 of 1661 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
2,526 Posts
Acceptable? Who or what is determining acceptability?
Being unnecessarily combative, hostile or otherwise violating etiquette can result in social sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "people will think you're a jerk", or "people might get upset at you for causing derails".

Speaking of derails I can not really see the relevance of this.
 

· Read Only
Joined
·
2,043 Posts
Being unnecessarily combative, hostile or otherwise violating etiquette can result in social sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "people will think you're a jerk", or "people might get upset at you for causing derails".

Speaking of derails I can not really see the relevance of this.
It's extremely relevant when we're talking about the "allowability" and "acceptability" of equally valid subjective responses. It's not a "derailing" just because it gives you the urge to pull out Emily Post.

"All evaluations are equal in that every valuation, like every voter or citizen, is equal."
--Strange Magic

If you can accept that, then there's really no breach of etiquette and nobody's being a jerk.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,526 Posts
I agree with hammered's implied point that some things aren't necessarily more popular because they are "the best", but I think people should be careful to go overboard with the idea and conclude that no popular work has "earned" its popularity or that no work of art can be better (in some respects) than others (not saying that this is what Hammered believes, but this is for our dear audience who might get the wrong idea)
"Deserve" or "earning" is a value statement and I kind of think statements like that just boil down to "this is popular but I think it's bad". I don't think it's possible to ask if a work "deserves" to be popular without bringing questions of aesthetic taste into it.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,526 Posts
It's extremely relevant when we're talking about the "allowability" and "acceptability" of equally valid subjective responses. It's not a "derailing" just because it gives you the urge to pull out Emily Post.
A discussion forum consists of social interaction. When talking with other people there are going to be behaviors that tend to give people a positive impression of you, or a negative one. There are also going to be behaviors that are conductive to good discussion, and ones that are conductive to toxic, hostile discussion.

Whether or not you care if people think you're a jerk is up to you, but I'd like to think everyone here has at least some investment in preventing unnecessary hostility.
 

· Read Only
Joined
·
2,043 Posts
A discussion forum consists of social interaction. When talking with other people there are going to be behaviors that tend to give people a positive impression of you, or a negative one. There are also going to be behaviors that are conductive to good discussion, and ones that are conductive to toxic, hostile discussion.

Whether or not you care if people think you're a jerk is up to you, but I'd like to think everyone here has at least some investment in preventing unnecessary hostility.
I'll just repeat what I typed above:

"All evaluations are equal in that every valuation, like every voter or citizen, is equal."
--Strange Magic

If you can accept that, then there's really no breach of etiquette and nobody's being a jerk.

It would seem that "hostility" arises when people think that music they consider to be somehow objectively good is under attack. In other words, it would appear that subjectivists aren't always very good at practicing what they preach.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,526 Posts
When I'm talking about hostility and toxicity I am not talking about people saying they dislike music. In fact I've said that it's entirely possible to express admiration for music in an excessively hostile way.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,066 Posts
"Deserve" or "earning" is a value statement and I kind of think statements like that just boil down to "this is popular but I think it's bad". I don't think it's possible to ask if a work "deserves" to be popular without bringing questions of aesthetic taste into it.
You're well-informed about music, fair minded and you seem to be an objective observer. Can you tell us what you've learned in here?

I've learned that CM listeners care very much about the aesthetic tastes (likes and dislikes) of others. It's somehow relevant in evaluations, but I'm not clear on why. Naturally we want to belong, we want to save time by hearing recommendations , we want to follow the trends perhaps.

I remember being surprised that I could predict weekly changes in the ranking of songs in the top 20 on the radio in the 60s and 70s. Of course I could have been fooling myself, but it was fun and seemed doable. So, in the aggregate, statistically, there's something to this popularity thing..
 

· Read Only
Joined
·
2,043 Posts
When I'm talking about hostility and toxicity I am not talking about people saying they dislike music. In fact I've said that it's entirely possible to express admiration for music in an excessively hostile way.
I don't sense hostility from anyone advocating any kind of music. Or from someone who says they can't stand Baroque music. I may not agree, but I don't consider it hostile. On the other hand I've seen threads in which attacking John Cage and his work was taken as a personal insult to Cage fans. It's puzzling.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
"Deserve" or "earning" is a value statement and I kind of think statements like that just boil down to "this is popular but I think it's bad". I don't think it's possible to ask if a work "deserves" to be popular without bringing questions of aesthetic taste into it.
Right, it does bring in questions of aesthetic taste, but I don't see the issue with that. These tastes are based on standards, & whether one aesthetic standard is better than another is a subjective matter, but it doesn't mean that all works will meet a particular aesthetic standard equally well. Some might be better at accomplishing a specific goal. That's why I tacked on that works of art can be better "in some respects", not better in every way.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,526 Posts
You're well-informed about music, fair minded and you seem to be an objective observer. Can you tell us what you've learned in here?

I've learned that CM listeners care very much about the aesthetic tastes (likes and dislikes) of others. It's somehow relevant in evaluations, but I'm not clear on why. Naturally we want to belong, we want to save time by hearing recommendations , we want to follow the trends perhaps.

I remember being surprised that I could predict weekly changes in the ranking of songs in the top 20 on the radio in the 60s and 70s. Of course I could have been fooling myself, but it was fun and seemed doable. So, in the aggregate, statistically, there's something to this popularity thing..
What always strikes me about your posts is how differently you seem to consume music than the way I do. I've never been one to dive into scores, get into theoretical analysis, or really try to figure out how a piece works, but it clearly gives you a lot of joy to do that.

I don't think that's unusual or a particularly stunning observation; in fact I think a lot of great art can be experienced from a variety of approaches like this.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
15,728 Posts
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,526 Posts
I don't sense hostility from anyone advocating any kind of music. Or from someone who says they can't stand Baroque music. I may not agree, but I don't consider it hostile. On the other hand I've seen threads in which attacking John Cage and his work was taken as a personal insult to Cage fans. It's puzzling.
If someone says "people who hate composer x are deaf/soulless/have bad taste/whatever", I'd consider that at least a bit hostile, depending on the tone of the post.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,526 Posts
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.

Cage was something of a specific case where the notoriety of a single specific work of his, and a swath of low-effort jokes about said work made it very difficult to have any kind of discussion about a composer who, if I remember right, composed a lot of music.

"Charlatan"/"emperors new clothes"/etc is borderline, and while I wouldn't say it's explicitly like, hostile in every possible usage, it amounts to saying that listeners are either being fooled, or are mis-representing their own tastes to try to look cool, and that's not likely to ever be taken well.
 

· Read Only
Joined
·
2,043 Posts
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.
I'm neutral on Cage's body of work but I do think he was sincere in his outlook and what he wanted to accomplish. If someone thinks he was a charlatan or that at the least he wasn't very talented musically, what's that to you if you love Cage? It's not an insult directed at you.
fbjim said:
If someone says "people who hate composer x are deaf/soulless/have bad taste/whatever", I'd consider that at least a bit hostile, depending on the tone of the post.
But you, having security in your own tastes and the knowledge that that's just another subjective opinion, just brush it off. Right? Btw I've not heard anyone called "soulless or deaf" here, and "bad taste" is yet another subjective judgement.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,526 Posts
But you, having security in your own tastes and the knowledge that that's just another subjective opinion, just brush it off. Right? Btw I've not heard anyone called "soulless or deaf" here, and "bad taste" is yet another subjective judgement.
I'm not concerned about my feelings being hurt here. I'm concerned about this being a net negative when it comes to discussing music.
 

· Read Only
Joined
·
2,043 Posts
...
"Charlatan"/"emperors new clothes"/etc is borderline, and while I wouldn't say it's explicitly like, hostile in every possible usage, it amounts to saying that listeners are either being fooled, or are mis-representing their own tastes to try to look cool, and that's not likely to ever be taken well.
How is that any different from being told that I love Bach because of the influence of the "received wisdom"?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
I don't sense hostility from anyone advocating any kind of music. Or from someone who says they can't stand Baroque music. I may not agree, but I don't consider it hostile. On the other hand I've seen threads in which attacking John Cage and his work was taken as a personal insult to Cage fans. It's puzzling.
I won't assume that you have no basis for thinking that there's a double standard, but to be fair to fans of John Cage & other avante-garde fans, they most likely hear people disparage their preferences way more often than fans of baroque. Perhaps not in the TalkClassical forums where people are more welcoming, but in most other spaces. I can see why they'd be less patient.

"Charlatan"/"emperors new clothes"/etc is borderline, and while I wouldn't say it's explicitly like, hostile in every possible usage, it amounts to saying that listeners are either being fooled, or are mis-representing their own tastes to try to look cool, and that's not likely to ever be taken well.
This is a tricky one to navigate. Modern music fans have a right to feel insulted when people imply they're being fooled or pretending, but the issue is the "emperor's new clothes" sentiment pops up so often that, while I'm not condoning it, modern music fans should by now expect those kinds of comments & not take them too personally. It comes with the territory.
 

· Read Only
Joined
·
2,043 Posts
I won't assume that you have no basis for thinking that there's a double standard, but to be fair to fans of John Cage & other avante-garde fans, they most likely hear people disparage their preferences way more often than fans of baroque. Perhaps not in the TalkClassical forums where people are more welcoming, but in most other spaces. I can see why they'd be less patient.
...
But that's just it. If you really and truly feel that it all comes down to completely subjective individual opinions, then it doesn't matter. All you can say is "well, I don't know for sure. Maybe I am being fooled, but I like this stuff anyway".
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,128 Posts
I agree with hammered's implied point that some things aren't necessarily more popular because they are "the best", but I think people should be careful to go overboard with the idea and conclude that no popular work has "earned" its popularity or that no work of art can be better (in some respects) than others (not saying that this is what Hammered believes, but this is for our dear audience who might get the wrong idea)
Unfortunately, his main message is not making the implied point above. It is aimed particularly at Mozart and the like with terms such as idolatry and quotes such as ‘creaminess’ and ‘sugary sweet’ from various people, one of which has declared the baroque and classical era ‘lame’. It strikes me that, ironically, to find profound discussions of CM, one will have to look elsewhere than in a thread on ‘Profundity’.
 
401 - 420 of 1661 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top