ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (05/07/85)
>In summary, this person is saying, in effect, "If you don't like something >that *I* like, then you are narrow-minded. If I don't like something *you* >like, well, hey, obviously I'm right and you're wrong. > >Is there any absolute way to judge music, or is quality *always* a matter >of opinion? And if there are any absolute standards, what are they? > -- Rich Yampell Just to toss in my own opinion here, those who would JUDGE music have lost before they have even uttered a word. But I believe you are nearing an answer to your question about standards, right here: >> "If you don't like something that *I* like, then you are narrow-minded." Replace `I' with `anybody'. That's a good start. Patience helps. So does liking what you don't like. But judgement stinks. Too many people stupidly believe in the religion called Music Kriticism. This faith attributes meaning to the bombastic babblings of an elite who've somehow achieved the status of `Kritics' -- messiahs `gifted' with special magical Artistic Quality Perceptrons. People who are affected by the ravings of such dolts are mistaken, for they have no faith in themselves, and allow themselves to be manipulated by the evil forces of $$$, or established precedent, or some other unknown bias. The best critics, to my reckoning, waste little effort egomaniacally placing labels like `good' or `bad' on the music they review; instead their proper purpose oughta be to DESCRIBE the music under consideration. That way, whether they like the music or not, they are serving a valuable purpose -- uniting artist with audience. As a fair compromise, I might say that `Depeche Mode' makes me vomit because it sounds like disco-oriented hi-tech syntho-pop. This is useful criticism -- such phrasing, though it has provided me with a means of blowing off a bit of hot air, is actually descriptive. Those who don't like such music will avoid it; those who like it will be run out to the store in spite of my worthless judgement. Part of the fun of net.music is flaming about what we like and hate, and I'd never suggest that people not have fun. But your opinions are BS -- your most valuable contribution is your description, your reason why you like or dislike the music you review. >Isn't this about as difficult as saying why one likes a piece of music? My >reaction would be - I like a piece of music because it moves me >irresistably, I dislike a piece of music because it bores me. I don't think >that's the level of detail you were after, though...Analysis can be fun, and >occasionally it gives insights into the whys of a piece, but more often it >resembles an attempt at a closed form solution of a 12-body problem. > -- Jeff Winslow I don't think that `analysis' is desirable at all except when addressing a very esoteric audience indeed. It is possible to naively listen to the most complex classical music without knowing the first thing about the technical crap usually associated with classical analysis. All one needs is listening experience and PATIENCE. The same goes for describing music. How far can such description go? One can talk about influences (with whom does the composer associate? who inspired the music? what led to the composition of this piece?), emotions (tragic? violent? ecstatic?, serene?, fecal?), similarities (what other music does this sound like?), instrumentation (do they use power tools, violins, toilet plungers), etc., all without using most of the techniques I usually associate with `analysis'. Unfortunately, such articles take more time and effort than many here seem willing to invest. -michael
wfi@unc.UUCP (William F. Ingogly) (05/09/85)
> ... But judgement stinks... > Too many people stupidly believe in the religion called Music Kriticism. > This faith attributes meaning to the bombastic babblings of an elite > ... People who are affected by the ravings of such dolts are mistaken > ... their proper purpose oughta be to DESCRIBE the music under > consideration... > As a fair compromise, I might say that `Depeche Mode' makes me vomit > ... your opinions are BS ... > I don't think that `analysis' is desirable at all except when addressing > a very esoteric audience indeed... Stinks. Stupidly believe. Bombastic babblings. Elite. Ravings of dolts. Makes me vomit. Opinions are BS. Maybe I'm missing something important here; WHO's being judgemental? [chuckle] > It is possible to naively listen to the > most complex classical music without knowing the first thing about the > technical crap usually associated with classical analysis... > ... One can talk about influences ... > all without using most of the techniques I usually associate with > `analysis'. What if I enjoy the 'technical crap?' What if I get the greatest enjoyment out of my music when I address it on an intellectual level? Does that make me a 'raving dolt' in your eyes, or worse? Why the Sam Hill should YOU be advising me about the proper approach to music? And what exactly IS this 'technical crap' that seems to offend you so? If you're going to rant and rave about judgementalism, clean up your own house first. -- No :-) at all, Bill Ingogly
ry@brunix.UUCP (Rich Yampell) (05/09/85)
>>Is there any absolute way to judge music, or is quality *always* a matter >>of opinion? And if there are any absolute standards, what are they? >> -- Rich Yampell > > Just to toss in my own opinion here, those who would JUDGE music have > lost before they have even uttered a word. But I believe you are nearing > an answer to your question about standards, right here: > >>> "If you don't like something that *I* like, then you are narrow-minded." > > Replace `I' with `anybody'. That's a good start. Patience helps. > So does liking what you don't like. But judgement stinks. Bogus. From this, it follows that *all* sound of any kind is good music, since, for any sound S, I can surely find someone somewhere who thinks S is masterful. My gut feeling is that this is obviously false, though I cannot prove it (yet). You clearly think that this is true, which is fine, but you have simply stated it as if it were fact, rather than showing why it must be so. This begs the question. The point of the discussion (I had hoped), would be to try and find reasons for holding either side of this opinion. I am looking to either justify my gut feelings, or convince myself that they are wrong and should be ignored. > Too many people stupidly believe in the religion called Music Kriticism. > This faith attributes meaning to the bombastic babblings of an elite > who've somehow achieved the status of `Kritics' -- messiahs `gifted' > with special magical Artistic Quality Perceptrons. > > People who are affected by the ravings of such dolts are mistaken, for > they have no faith in themselves, and allow themselves to be manipulated > by the evil forces of $$$, or established precedent, or some other > unknown bias. Irrelevant. I hardily agree that anyone who would put the opinion of a critic (or *anyone* else, for that matter) above their own opinion (or even worse, never bother to have their own opinion but just parrot the critics) is a blithering idiot. [I am reminded at this time of Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead". Anyone who has not read this should do so!!] But that does not in any way show that the critics are in any way invalid in what they are saying. You have not shown why it cannot be the case that the critics are right on the mark. If it is wrong to blindly assume that the critics know what they are talking about, it is just as wrong to blindly assume that they don't. To me, it would seem that the most appropriate action would be to listen to what they say, and see if it makes sense to you. But again, all of this begs the issue. The real question is, *can* critics, or anyone else, be "right", or is it necessarily a matter of subjective opinion? Again, you have assumed an answer and proceeded from there. I am more interested in how you got your answer. > As a fair compromise, I might say that `Depeche Mode' makes me vomit > because it sounds like disco-oriented hi-tech syntho-pop. This is useful > criticism -- such phrasing, though it has provided me with a means of > blowing off a bit of hot air, is actually descriptive. Those who don't > like such music will avoid it; those who like it will be run out to the > store in spite of my worthless judgement. Same thing. Assumption. *WHY* is your judgement worthless? How do you know that it isn't absolutely valid? > Part of the fun of net.music is flaming about what we like and hate, and > I'd never suggest that people not have fun. But your opinions are BS -- > your most valuable contribution is your description, your reason why you > like or dislike the music you review. Here we reach one of my problems with the subjective side of the arguement. If we take as given, for a moment, that opinions are BS, then as far as *I* can see, your reasons for holding those opinions are just as much BS. > I don't think that `analysis' is desirable at all except when addressing > a very esoteric audience indeed. It is possible to naively listen to the > most complex classical music without knowing the first thing about the > technical crap usually associated with classical analysis. All one needs > is listening experience and PATIENCE. The same goes for describing music. Bogus. "technical crap"?? Give me a break. Demonstrate reasons for opinions, don't just state and assume them please. I say that "technical crap" is very important. I will demonstrate why, as a means of furthering discussion. It is only in the last couple of years that I have started listening to and enjoying (avidly!) classical music. Before that, it was something kind of "esoteric", long, dull, etc. I sort of respected it, but had no real interest. The music never really managed to exert any magic on me. Then, to fulfill a fine arts requirement, I took a course on Beethoven. Changed my life. Opened up a new world to me. The course consisted almost entirely of "technical crap". But knowing that "technical crap" allowed me to make sense of the music, to see where it was coming from and where it was trying to go, to follow the drama that comes with the unfolding of the structure. To continue with Beethoven as an example, you cannot fully appreciate him without knowning some of the "technical crap". Much of what Beethoven did involved bending, stretching, and outright breaking the established rules of the day. You cannot understand what he's doing, then, unless you know just what those rules were to begin with. Not that you can't derive a lot of enjoyment from the music by listening without any of this knowledge, but the "technical crap" provides a *much* deeper insight. I am not even saying that it is *necessary*, but just that it is certainly valuable and does not deserve the label "crap". Rich Yampell
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (05/10/85)
> Analysis can be fun, and > >occasionally it gives insights into the whys of a piece, but more often it > >resembles an attempt at a closed form solution of a 12-body problem. > > -- Jeff Winslow > > I don't think that `analysis' is desirable at all except when addressing > a very esoteric audience indeed. It is possible to naively listen to the Gee, I guess composers are pretty esoteric. But I agree absolutely with your next sentence. > most complex classical music without knowing the first thing about the > technical crap usually associated with classical analysis. All one needs > is listening experience and PATIENCE. The same goes for describing music. > -- michael ellis > OK, but... It is also possible to go through any number of courses given in musical analysis and never get the foggiest idea what the point of it is. In my opinion, this is the experience of about 90% of music majors. And about 99% of net.music contributors. This is, I think, mainly the fault of the instructors (who are probably just trying to perpetuate the tradition:-)), and is the reason why so many people disdain anything labeled "analysis". Considering what they were probably told, I'm not sure I blame them. The point of analysis is to try to determine how (ie, by what musical means) a piece makes a (good, satisfying, appropriate, beautiful, etc.) statement (if it does). Sort of like a closed form solution of a 12-body problem... It has about as much to do with writing down all the harmonies and sectioning by thematic statement (typical pastimes in analysis classes) as writing a novel has to do with knowing your ABC's, or reaching a scientific conclusion has to do with gathering data. If you're not interested in it, fine, but it's pointless to badmouth those who are, or to claim that such an interest is "undesirable". The people that do this are probably still stuck in the pretty, but in my opinion childish philosophy that emotion and intellect are somehow orthogonal. (insert half-serious sneer here.) Jeff Winslow
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (05/11/85)
> >Is there any absolute way to judge music, or is quality *always* a matter > >of opinion? And if there are any absolute standards, what are they? > > -- Rich Yampell > > those who would JUDGE music have > lost before they have even uttered a word. > Quite true. However, I feel that there is a place for criticism. The critic must simply not forget to also be a fan. Too many losers are just concerned with remaining cool and 'with it' and forget to enjoy. > How far can such description go? One can talk about influences (with > whom does the composer associate? who inspired the music? what led to > the composition of this piece?), emotions (tragic? violent? ecstatic?, > serene?, fecal?), similarities (what other music does this sound like?), > instrumentation (do they use power tools, violins, toilet plungers), > etc., all without using most of the techniques I usually associate with > `analysis'. I might add: how are the performers interacting with the piece and with each other? Is there a synergy from a collection of individuals into an inspired ensemble? > The best critics, to my reckoning, waste little effort egomaniacally > placing labels like `good' or `bad' on the music they review; instead > their proper purpose oughta be to DESCRIBE the music under > consideration. That way, whether they like the music or not, they are > serving a valuable purpose -- uniting artist with audience. Well said! I'll just add that except in scholarly musical discussions, a straight description of the music will shut out all readers/listeners who are unfamiliar with the technical language of music. In order to reach an inexpert public, the critic will unavoidably interject subjective commentary. That's fine, as long as the subjective 'like' or 'dislike' (can't get away from that completely) is based on honestly derived "standards." These standards will vary from individual to individual, but if a given critic (such as all of us here in net.music) sticks to them, the criticism gains in value. If you know where a guy stands, you can gain insight from his subjective opinions, even if you disagree with them. A side effect of critical consistency, which I have noticed as my musical horizons expand, is that the critic will start to dislike less and less artists, but instead accept their creations' validity. If you see where a musician is coming from, you may or may not agree with it, but more typically the understanding will trigger sympathy. Marcel Simon
lip@masscomp.UUCP (John Lipinski) (05/14/85)
In article <10579@brunix.UUCP> ry@nancy.UUCP (Rich Yampell) writes: > >>>Is there any absolute way to judge music, or is quality *always* a matter >>>of opinion? And if there are any absolute standards, what are they? >>> -- Rich Yampell >> ... >>>> "If you don't like something that *I* like, then you are narrow-minded." >> >> Replace `I' with `anybody'. That's a good start. Patience helps. >> So does liking what you don't like. But judgement stinks. > >Bogus. From this, it follows that *all* sound of any kind is good music, >since, for any sound S, I can surely find someone somewhere who thinks S is >masterful. My gut feeling is that this is obviously false, though I cannot >prove it (yet). You clearly think that this is true, which is fine, but you >have simply stated it as if it were fact, rather than showing why it must be >so. This begs the question. The point of the discussion (I had hoped), >would be to try and find reasons for holding either side of this opinion. I think that for a consensus to be reached on the quality of music, a consensus has to be reached on the sub-qualities of music. Some like rhythm, some like complexity, simplicity, improvisation... >I am looking to either justify my gut feelings, or convince myself that they >are wrong and should be ignored. I have the same feelings. An argument in support of absolute music standards can be framed like this: person X says that AC/DC is better than Beethoven. (Rich, I'm sure you heard of Beethoven, right?) Person Y claims the opposite. Now, I am pretty sure that Beethoven would quickly understand and comprehend AC/DC music. He could also duplicate it quite easily. However, I don't think AC/DC could understand or duplicate a Beethoven symphony. On the basis of B can do A, but A can't do B, one could say that B's music is of a higher quality - shall I say. >The real question is, *can* critics, >or anyone else, be "right", or is it necessarily a matter of subjective >opinion? I think that question is phrased too simply. I would not use the words "right" or "wrong" in this case. An opinion can not be wrong or right. However, it can be *less valid* than another's. However, like everything else, it is *impossible* to prove anything - in real life occurrences. A calculus equation can be proved on paper, but it can not when it is applied to a real life problem. >Then, to fulfill a fine arts requirement, I took a course on Beethoven. >Changed my life. > Rich Yampell Whoever said UMUS was useless? - John Lipinski {decvax,ihnp4,ittvax,allegra}!masscomp!lip}
DFUSER.KRAVITZ@MIT-XX.ARPA (Duddy) (05/15/85)
I think that your equating of quality with complexity (that's almost what you do by your Beethoven--AC/DC comparison) you lose in several ways. One is that imitation is not creation; Beethoven could not make AC/DC style music because he didn't know how. If Angus Young went to music school and learned how to write (by heavily plagiarizing) a symphony, would this music be high quality? Would you also say that the music of Rockestra is of a higher quality than a flute solo? Just something to consider when you base your standard on things like "understanding" and duplication. David Kravitz MIT LCS -------
lewislazarus.es@XEROX.ARPA (05/17/85)
Some critics have gone so far as to base music analysis on information theory.I believe Leonard Meyer (if I remember the name correctly) was one of the more prominent among these. According to this line of reasoning, there are a lot of contributing factors which constitute the information content of music. These include obvious things like pitch, rhythm, and dynamics, but other things like timbre, texture, line, structure, the overtone contents of chord voicings, and repetition also affect us psychologically. The quantity of information and the rate at which it changes are also factors. Supposedly, by considering the information content of a peice of music we can gain some insight into why it affects us in a particular way. Personally I think that, while we may all share some common reactions to the perception of sound, reactions to music are very personal and frequently change both for individuals and for groups. Repetition changes information. A simple drum beat, or the clacking of rocks which someone in the net spoke of recently, does not really sound the same all the way through if you listen to it closely for a long time. Some composers actually do write drone pieces which extend a single sound for long periods to exploit this psychological effect. Whether you like this, or any particular kind of music probably has a lot to do with your own cultural conditioning. Music is not an absolute. It is created within the bounds of a cultural context, and directed toward an audience whose perceptions are at least similar. Six hundred years ago the third was considered an ugly dissonance. Now it is one of the most common forms of harmony. Craftsmanship in music has a lot to do with the understanding and control a composer or performer has both of the musical vocabulary he has inherited from a cultural tradition and of the perceptions and emotions of the intended audience. This, I think, is why it is pointless to try to compare Beethoven to AC/DC. They come from different traditions and are intended to reach different audiences. Even so mere popularity and ease in the use of convention are no more a criteria for musical achievement than mere complexity. If a musician has something to say or to communicate, even if it's just a feeling, and is able to express it effectively with music, then that is a musical success. If music says something to you that you enjoy hearing, then that is good music for you to listen to. The more you find in it that is meaningful to you, probably the more you will like it. Beethoven's music has had a great deal to say to a large number of people for a long time, and this is why his music is still popular and he is considered a great composer, but even Beethoven wrote many works which caused the critics of his time to condemn him and label him insane as well as deaf. Some like Wellington's Victory truly were shallow, and can by now be safely considered really not to have been very good. Others like the late string quartets are still difficult for many moderns, but will reward those with a taste for them. I think the main criteria for quality in music has to be how effectively it communicates to those who are willing and able to hear what's in it regardless of the style and culture from which it originates. Lewis Lazarus Xerox El Segundo
hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA (RAMD) (05/20/85)
In message from lewislazarus < what a monicker! > he says:
>Music is not an absolute.
Agreed. In support of this Arthur Clarke of SF fame said in a
recent interview ( OMNI - I think ) that the Close Encounters
of the Third Kind premise of First Contact ( FC, for us SF-types)
would be through music. Clarke disputed this by pointing out
differences in music in our world alone ( compare, say - Oriental
Music with Bruce Springsteen ... there isn't musch platform from
which the twain to meet). Clarke instead said first communication
would probably take place thru numbers or mathematics. However
music in its coldest terms can be defined be numbers ... thank the
Lord for free expression.
Just got the latest Dire Straights disc. Didn't sound too good
on first listen but later that night ... It's great ... nine cuts
and none of this video-twisting by the pool garbage'. Second
side especially is very dramatic in that DS understated way. Also
Howard Jones new albumn ... Not too impressive, Howard reminds
me of those absentminded musicians I always would run into in
my travels. This time he forgot to include any new and worthwhile
music except perhaps for the first song. Anybody wanna buy a
slightly used Howard Jones albumn.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The future can offer infinite joy
And merriment
Experiment
And you'll see
- Cole Porter
- J Hofmann