The 5 magnificent delusions regarding musical elitism

[Opethian666]

maybe taste is subjective. but the music itself IS comparable? for some if not all or more than those reasons posted on the previous page.

The problem is, you can only compare and rate music from a certain perspective, in this case a human perspective, which immediately implies that "taste" is involved when rating music. Since taste is subjective, comparing and rating music is also subjective, because it happens from the perspective of humans, which are a varied group of organisms of which certain groups may attach different values to different states of different characteristics. You can take out certain groups that have largely equal "tastes" and among them it is possible to compare and rate music, because they all come from kind of the same perspective, but when on a forum like this, where people from all kinds of groups come together, you are bound to run into people that look at music from a whole different perspective than you, and that have different "taste" than you. You can't say one is superior or inferior, only that you're different. Of course you can say that you're superior, but that'll only make you look stupid, arrogant, or irritating on purpose.

 

[Braighs]

sentences including words like "excellent" are not true or false at all but are expressions of certain emotions just like the exclamations "Ouch" or "Wow".

no shit!

 

[soundave]

the status of judgments of taste (in general, not just concerning music) is a significant philosophical question that has been a subject of debate since the time of plato. today much attention is being paid to spelling out different possible positions and evaluating arguments for these positions. it has been almost everybody's experience teaching in college to see freshmen claim to hold some sort of position of relativism, subjectivism or social constructivism with respect to moral or aesthetic values (hence the label, "freshmen relativism"). what these labels really mean is difficult to articulate, as the ideas behind them seem rather half-baked. actually developing a coherent position from such claims is a difficult matter.

Thank you. I always look forward to your posts!

This is what I was merely hinting at with my jab at "musical relativism" earlier. When I began teaching high school, I was astounded by how many of my students truly believed that virtually everything was a matter of opinion. Such a philosophy naturally caused friction when it came time for evaluation! I believe, more so now even than when I was a teen, that children are being raised to believe, rather idealistically, that nothing is "better" than anything else. Just different. It begins, of course, with, "Child A is not better than child B", but eventually spirals into all areas where discrimination is necessary. Political correctness strikes again. It has made some people feel that it "isn't nice" to determine if one thing is better than another. A common complaint I heard from students was that they "tried really hard", as if that levelled the evaluative playing field. The idea seemed to be that if you try really hard, then the product is inherently good. My response was, "It's really hard to drive down the highway the wrong way, but I'm not going to give you an award for it." The final product, artistic or otherwise, is important, and it deserves to be scrutinized.

 

[Sadguru]

Which is why I more or less skipped a few pages of this thread.

His initial proposal had some good points, but the fundamental on which he based it is flawed in my opinion. No such thing as music superiority? Clearly this is false or every band would get the same number of fans, income, and publicity in an ideal situation. Obviously the world is not ideal, but it would be much more apparent as some have tried to argue: that some "music" is more thoughtfully constructed than other "music" and that this leads to its superiority.

There is no objectively "better" or "worse" music. "Good" vs "bad" is a dualistic view experienced subjectively (moreover collectively) and holds absolutely no factual value. Admitting that every bands don't get the same number of fans, income, etc. doesn't prove that there's such a thing as "superior music", it proves that we are different and thus, experience music differently. On the other hand, some artists are capable of conveying a stronger emotional response then others. Therefore, it is save to assert that subjectively speaking, there are better music than others. Does it make the music "better" in itself? Absolutely not. It makes it more sympathetic to our conditioning.

 

[Alex78]

"Water consists of two hydrogen molecules and an oxygen molecule."

yeah thats a given!!! like, totally!

 

[Heckelgruber]

I can't really think of any sound that couldn't be successfully encorporated into a a musical composition...

The brown sound! As discussed.

@ derbeder - Damn! you cut that off just as I though you were going to take that somewhere. Obviously Contextualism as you describe makes a nonsense of the idea that two people are even talking about the same thing when they talk about music and therefore does not seem to be a good way to analyse what they're saying. But why can't we have truth-value relativism of expressivism? Expressivism seems counter-intuitive too, but the idea of dismissing truth-value relativism out of hand just because it's usually adopted by the troll of the philosophy class seems way too quick.

all_sins_undone made a nice post early on where he pasted in some evaluative criteria for musical "goodness", but I'm not sure I buy that one either. I think if you've grown up with Western stuff mostly listening to diatonic music, you're likely to have certain expectations and a whole load of conditioning that helps you to think that the end of the Debussy piece is JUST right. Listening to some Chinese music I have no idea what to expect or any clue whatsoever about where my ear is being led and it's very hard to even absorb the information as musical information.

Considerations like that lead me to think that maybe music and musical taste is acquired taste, and "good music" can at best be seen as good music in relation to a tradition or movement of some kind. Maybe the best music is the stuff that takes some of this cultural inheritance and develops it in an innovative way or takes another step that makes sense in terms of the tradition they're working in. This might open the way to the claim that someone who has listened to more good music has a better grasp of what is an interesting musical development without conceding the point that there is objectively good music and bad music.

Difficult and interesting question though - not totally simple as many here have implied.

 

[derbeder]

yeah thats a given!!! like, totally!

the question wasn't what truth value (true or false) that sentence has. what i took as a common ground is that it has a truth value. it is also not relevant in that context whether we can know its truth value.

well, there is something obviously wrong with the sentence (i referred to hydrogen and oxygen molecules rather than atoms), but not what you are getting at, i assume.

 

[waz416c]

the only thing I knw about music is...Im a sucekr for melody...!!!.....as long as its got melody Im game...!!!......thats why I can dig some metal....some death/black metal....grunge.....female trance artist....or even DIDO adn Sarah Mclaughlan....also some old ocuntry.....!!!.....PEAC EOUT

 

[FRUGiHOYi]

Sadguru is absolutely right in his original post. Why do I ever come to this board full of idiots?

 

[Braighs]

^ lol

yeah thats a given!!! like, totally!

is that a booger or a water molecule in your avatar?

Chinese music is pentatonic afaict. very easy on the ear universally.

no, I have no more to contribute to this useless thread.

 

[CAIRATH]

Sadguru is absolutely right in his original post. Why do I ever come to this board full of idiots?

You feel at home here.

 

[derbeder]

@ derbeder - Damn! you cut that off just as I though you were going to take that somewhere. Obviously Contextualism as you describe makes a nonsense of the idea that two people are even talking about the same thing when they talk about music and therefore does not seem to be a good way to analyse what they're saying. But why can't we have truth-value relativism of expressivism? Expressivism seems counter-intuitive too, but the idea of dismissing truth-value relativism out of hand just because it's usually adopted by the troll of the philosophy class seems way too quick.
.

sorry i only wanted to outline certain possible ways of making sense of relativistic sounding claims in order to have some clarity in the debate. discussing the reasons for and against any of these positions is not something i tried to do here. i certainly did not dismiss truth-value relativism. of course it would be silly to think that it is incorrect because that is (how we can make sense of) what the freshmen try to say. but there are reasons to think it is incorrect nevertheless. there are large issues here and i am not sure if a metal board is the best place to enter into them.
contextualism indeed is not a good way of making sense of relativistic claims. but it has been taken to be so by some philosophers, so i wanted to include it. i indeed introduced and discussed it with an eye towards making it evident that it is not the best way to make sense of relativism.

 

[Kir-ir-Bannog]

I think this is an interesting thread. When i have this discussion with people and conditioning comes into the debate, I tend to throw this in:

When i was extremely young, my old man used to play Queen, Roxy Music, ELO and Pink Floyd. I had no point of reference and no other conditioning before this time. I can remember liking everything but ELO, everytime he put on one of their albums, i hated it (for no logical reason) and would ask for something else.
So i think the conditioning element to the debate is limited, at least in my experience.

 

[FRUGiHOYi]

You feel at home here.

ok that was good

 

[JoeVice]

always an interesting topic

yesterday, i was in a discussion with a friend about the relationship between the writer and the reader. he brought up an interesting point about how distinct of a line there is between the writer's mind and the readers mind. the writer writes his thoughts, in words that are printed on a page. there is a relationship between the words and his thoughts. when the reader reads these words, the words are not literally the writer's thoughts. the reader is a completely different person interpereting words on a page...not the writer's thoughts.

now, how does that relate to this subject? well, its obvious that the writer can be the composer, and the words can the be music...answer this...

is good taste defined by a) the listener-acclaimed superiority of the composer or is it b) defined by the interpretation of the listener?

can a fourteen year old feel stronger about a britney spears song that i can about mother fucking steve reich? i mean, reich is clearly the more talented composer...his music is far more inovative, challenging, complex and all of the other technicalities of what makes skilled music...but...time to lay on the cheese...is it more powerful, more emotive, how many tears does it bring to my eye?...wait, i guess we can objectively count tear-drops...or even hook people up to a...uhh...brain wave moniter, and cross-examine how many synapses fire during When's first acoustic interlude-into-"this stain..." if i show a stonger emotional response during that section, is my taste superior? or, did that fourteen year old's response to "oops, i did it again" tip the scale?

 

[FRUGiHOYi]

always an interesting topic

yesterday, i was in a discussion with a friend about the relationship between the writer and the reader. he brought up an interesting point about how distinct of a line there is between the writer's mind and the readers mind. the writer writes his thoughts, in words that are printed on a page. there is a relationship between the words and his thoughts. when the reader reads these words, the words are not literally the writer's thoughts. the reader is a completely different person interpereting words on a page...not the writer's thoughts.

now, how does that relate to this subject? well, its obvious that the writer can be the composer, and the words can the be music...answer this...

is good taste defined by a) the listener-acclaimed superiority of the composer or is it b) defined by the interpretation of the listener?

can a fourteen year old feel stronger about a britney spears song that i can about mother fucking steve reich? i mean, reich is clearly the more talented composer...his music is far more inovative, challenging, complex and all of the other technicalities of what makes skilled music...but...time to lay on the cheese...is it more powerful, more emotive, how many tears does it bring to my eye?...wait, i guess we can objectively count tear-drops...or even hook people up to a...uhh...brain wave moniter, and cross-examine how many synapses fire during When's first acoustic interlude-into-"this stain..." if i show a stonger emotional response during that section, is my taste superior? or, did that fourteen year old's response to "oops, i did it again" tip the scale?

It doesn't even matter whose emotional response is stronger because you are two different people. You might be more apt to shed tears in general than he is, for example.

 

[JoeVice]

It doesn't even matter whose emotional response is stronger because you are two different people. You might be more apt to shed tears in general than he is, for example.

yah, how do you define good or bad while taking that into account?

 

[soundave]

is good taste defined by a) the listener-acclaimed superiority of the composer or is it b) defined by the interpretation of the listener?

Interesting. I'm far more willing to buy into someone's claim of why a certain kind of music is superior if they are able to articulate why. Otherwise, it seems like so much posturing.

Interpretation is key, for me. Good art, I've always thought, often succeeds on many levels. Someone who is able to understand more than the surface level will be able to appreciate the better things more than someone who is merely looking to be merely entertained. (In fact, those seeking mere entertainment are often befuddled as to why anyone would prefer the deeper work of art. I would direct them to look at the writings of John Stuart Mill.)

This is true in music in the case of, say, Arnold Schoenberg. 'Pierot Lunaire', when I have played it for students, typically elicits laughter. But the more you understand about the piece, the more it actually becomes quite enjoyable (imo, though I'm sure some people never come around to it). It's true of literature, as well. If you understand the symbolism, the literary and biblical allusions, perhaps some history of the author, you can come away with a deeper appreciation for the work. An appreciation that a surface-level read will not provide. And, there are certainly those books that are simply entertainment. Nothing against them, I like a Dean Koontz or Patricia Cornwell. But they're not exactly Shakespeare or, oh, I don't know... Poe.

 

[NFU]

Interesting. I'm far more willing to buy into someone's claim of why a certain kind of music is superior if they are able to articulate why. Otherwise, it seems like so much posturing.

Interpretation is key, for me. Good art, I've always thought, often succeeds on many levels. Someone who is able to understand more than the surface level will be able to appreciate the better things more than someone who is merely looking to be merely entertained. (In fact, those seeking mere entertainment are often befuddled as to why anyone would prefer the deeper work of art. I would direct them to look at the writings of John Stuart Mill.)

This is true in music in the case of, say, Arnold Schoenberg. 'Pierot Lunaire', when I have played it for students, typically elicits laughter. But the more you understand about the piece, the more it actually becomes quite enjoyable (imo, though I'm sure some people never come around to it). It's true of literature, as well. If you understand the symbolism, the literary and biblical allusions, perhaps some history of the author, you can come away with a deeper appreciation for the work. An appreciation that a surface-level read will not provide. And, there are certainly those books that are simply entertainment. Nothing against them, I like a Dean Koontz or Patricia Cornwell. But they're not exactly Shakespeare or, oh, I don't know... Poe.

one would think that charles dickens is a cynical, depressed asshole a lot of the time, if one didnt know where he came from.

 

[soundave]

one would think that charles dickens is a cynical, depressed asshole a lot of the time, if one didnt know where he came from.

As an example, Dickens's depiction of children has a lot to do with his youth. Because his father was deeply in debt, young Charlie was pulled from school and had to work in a shoe polish factory. He was devastated, and kids who are prematurely adults appear throughout his works.

Anyhoo...