dsi@unccvax.UUCP (Dataspan Inc) (05/16/85)
<excerpt>
* * * * *
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 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.
* * * * * * *
< end of excerpt >
Recently, this discussion has gone downhill. Why? Because,
the points being made by (plural *)you violate just about every
technical rule of logic in the book. Before attempting to use
"understanding" or "duplication" or "quality" as pivotal points
in an argument, please enroll in remedial philosophy at your
local community college, huh?
Duplication? Whether or not John Cougar, AC/DC, Beethoven,
and Mozart can understand/duplicate each other is an argument
which is meaningless until you define "understand" and "duplicate."
No one can fully "understand" what Beethoven had...I keep trying to
get in a "Beethoven's contemporaries" frame of mind, what with
all the filth, disease, wars, poor acoustics, bad insturments...
"Duplication" discussions requires a priori assumptions about
musical understanding which NO ONE, myself included, is really
qualified to make at the MUSICAL level. At the lexical level,
however, "gee, AC/DC can't understand Beethoven" arguments
are all wet. This argument is essentially the "two observer"
or "nonverifiability" problem of behavioural psychology, spanning
a few hundred years.
Duplication is pretty weak as an argument. Understanding,
however, holds some promise. From the music theory point of
view, some CHR musician like Madonna or Michael Jackson, somewhere
is probably 1) trained in a major conservatory and 2) could
whip all of us on a music theory exam. You might not like their
music (on any level of "understanding", see below) but casting
AC/DC as a lower "quality" of music on the basis of understanding
is pure hogwash.
The subqualities (beat, etc) referred to above are technical,
not musical, points. Beat is a term to describe an aspect of the
sensation of certain sounds. It, as most every other criterion
for judging music advanced in this forum, is lexical understanding.
What happens, though, all too often, is that one tries to
do something like:
Beat is a criterion for discussing music
Fast beats are associated with dancing
I drink Harvey's Bristol Cream, and such dancing is lewd
Beethoven could make such a beat before 2 cpu-sec have gone by
Therefore, musically, stuff with fast beats, and dancing,
is of low quality, because the Master didn't do it,
and could have done so while brushing his teeth...
It is easy to debate the relative lexical "merits" of
song lyrics by selecting some criteria. The literary ground rules
of (and lexical, in general) criticism are fairly widely
"understood" by most people. Most criticism of music, film,
books, whatever, is unfortunately done by attempting to cast
lexical criticism "standards" onto things which are rightfully
musical, visual, or whatever. This is easy to understand, as
probably 80 % of our communication is intended for lexical
understanding.
Slightly more aesthetic and less well understood (by the
population at large) is the technical theory of music, which, again
can be argued by people who understand AT THE LEXICAL LEVEL what
they are hearing. Being able to take some arbitrary piece of
Mozart and say "Oh, that measure of music contains XYZ theory
of chord construction" is not a MUSICAL understanding but a LEXICAL
one. We agree, publically, that whenever we see XYZ written on
music paper or hear XYZ that it is, indeed, XYZ.
What the collected argument up to now has completely ignored
is that there is MUSICAL UNDERSTANDING IN AND OF ITSELF, a
behavioural reinforcer (or whatever) that CANNOT BE DEALT WITH
IN LEXICAL TERMS. You can try to verbalize this stuff, but I've
always found getting musical understanding across about as easy
as, say, describing to the doctor precisely what a kidney stone
feels like.
OK, y'all like to pick on kids beating on rocks. Suppose
Person X has some atrocity on the person happen to them while
within earshot of Kid K beating on a rock. When the same approximate
air pressure gradient function passes by Person X some time
later, they may (and most likely will) have a profound emotional
understanding of something different upon hearing the "right"
kind of rock-beating. We don't have to tell X "Look, X, someone
is beating on a rock" or, if we knew a priori the DFT of the
rock beating that "OK, X, this particular rock beating has the
same DFT within 0.1 % amplitude and 0.5 degrees phase, so you
can now have a profound emotional experience." What the person
had, loosely, is a MUSICAL experience and a MUSICAL understanding
of rock beating sounds.
Sensation, perception, and "understanding" of the acoustical
environment is not merely limited to lexicality. There are musical
aspects of speech that are not understandable on the lexical
level. I submit, that for people to discuss their understanding
of music on the musical level (rather than on the technical, or
lexical level) the communication most likely has to be done
musically.
Unfortunately, the educational process which most of us are
subjected to completely ignores the development of musical and
visual cognition (and, for that matter, olfactory and tactile
cognition). Eight years of formal music training at an early age
helps me experience what I think is musical understanding, but
as I look back, the focus of all that training was more a technical
understanding of the (lexical *)theory of musical construction
and performance. There is a vast amount of learning and understanding
to be done on the other perceptual systems; the possibilities
are mindbending and endless.
Feeling (on the musical level) "cognitively inadequate",
David Anthony
Senior Video Engineer
DataSpan, Inc
UUCP: decvax,akgua,philabs,duke!mcnc!unccvax!dsi